>> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all >> they were early. i'm on time. well, it's great to be here and portrayal hills somewhat dog patch at the bottom of the hill, one of the iconic night life venues in san francisco celebrating 30 years in business. this is absolutely extraordinary for night life venue. when i think about all the places i went to growing up. the one-up, the glass cat and all these other venues, they're not even open anymore. so growing up in san francisco,

live music, entertainment, events happening in the day and events happening in places like bottom of the hill were just apart of our culture. it's where so many people got their start. and when you think about it, can you imagine back in the day, if you had an opportunity to come to bottom of the hill and actually see santana perform. those kinds of iconic artists performed or got their start in places like this. and when i think about the fact that that pandemic, we have had to all sacrifice and we've had to sacrifice because we've not been able to not only be around 1 another, but we weren't able to enjoy live music. from performing artists, those who dj, those who entertain, play musical instruments, those who sing, it was very hard. can you imagine it being hard on us not being able to see it, but being hard on the artists who weren't getting paid.

hard on the venues who weren't making money and had to lay off staff. it was a tough almost two years we've experienced this pandemic and although we're in a much better place, we still know that many of these venues continue to have challenges. so in san francisco, what we've been able to do which i'm very proud of is our entertainment fund which i work with supervisor haney to establish, we actually invested over $3 million to help night life businesses and i want to thank a lot of folks here from the entertainment industry to make sure we carve out resources specifically for night life entertainment businesses in san francisco. our jams permits, providing opportunities for restaurants in places that normally don't have live entertainment to have live entertainment for their customers especially with all the new park lites and open space and the outdoor dining.

san franciscans know how to adapt. it was challenging, but we adapted, we opened up a lot of great open spaces and provided opportunities for artists. in addition to that waiving over $15 million in fees for light bottom of the hill and other places. and we know there are a lot of state and federal programs and our office of economic workforce development. they have been working hard to make sure everyone who qualifies for any of those resources helping them through the application process to make sure no money is left on the table. because what we don't want is to see more businesses close in san francisco. before this pandemic, it was already challenging and since this pandemic we know it has been extremely brutal. and that's why having resources and programs and things like what we're announcing today are so important. and everyone is probably wondering, why is the city attorney at a press conference?

well, the city attorney just became our city attorney and normally, you probably won't see it at a press conference. but former city attorney david chiu and many of those things were finally starting to feel in some cases the fruits of his labor. a $2.5 million investment from the state thanks to our city attorney former assembly member david chiu that will invest in entertainment venues and parks and plazas and open spaces all over san francisco to support not just paying our artists, our local artists to perform, but also the production costs and all of the things that go into setting up these venues to

entertain you cost a lot of money. and we want to make sure we're supporting this industry and keeping night life and entertainment alive in san francisco. that we're all when you think about it, the city starts to re-open and all of a sudden, you hear music, there's something about that that makes you smile. all of a sudden, you see someone dancing in the streets. but, it's something about seeing people out in the public performing and entertaining the public. the shakespeares in the parks and all the things that we know make san francisco such a great place not just for the people who live here but also who visit here. i remember one of my first concerts as a kid, it was at the fill more and ice cube was performing. i'll be honest, i snuck in. i didn't have money to buy a

ticket and i was probably under age at the time because i was still in junior high. but the fact is, it was like nothing i've ever seen before. but having someone live on stage going to a concert and having a good time and listening to music and feeling good and everyone feeling good and everyone singing the words, there's just nothing like that feeling. it brings people together. it is apart of the fabric of what makes san francisco such a wonderful city it's about our health and well being because entertainment, music, fun, night life is the heart beat of why san francisco is so special. i'm grateful to be here today and at this time, i'd like to introduce city attorney david chiu who is really the champion of this program and the reason why we're here today. >> thank you so much, madam

mayor. thank you for your leadership. do we have any fans of live music here. thank you, madam mayor and reminding me while i am the city attorney, i'm here really as a former assembly member who has been a bit obsessed by live music. i've been asked by a couple folks this morning how i got involved in all this. it started for me when i was in junior high school. and i wrote my first paper on the festival known as wood stock. i am a musician in a past life and the violin is actually what got me through high school and college. it's what allowed me to make some pocket money in orchestras and weddings. and some of you may know that i carry that on here in san francisco. if you google apparently david chiu and electric violin, i

might have been known but let's fast forward. when i first moved to san francisco, i fell in love with the live music scene in our city. and it's not just about the music and the arts and the culture. but it's about what this scene means for our city when it comes to our economic vitality. when it comes to attracting tourists and the rest of the world that wants to come here and have a good time and enjoy the scene that we have. and the men and women behind me have been responsible for that scene represent literally thousands of folks would are part of what makes san francisco great. and we're here in part because the last couple of years, the pandemic and the recession have been catastrophic to this world, to this community. and so a few years ago when a number of folks, when kc from

the san francisco venue coalition, when some of our small business commissioners, i know when ben blyman and sharky laguana and others came. and representing the independent venue association. they came to us and said what more can the state do to assist this. that was when mayor came and said can you help us and figure out how to get some state support for this struggling industry that needs to continue and that is where this idea for sf live was born. what we're talking about is being able to support outdoor performances in and around these incredible live music venues to really remind folks of the magic of music and to ensure that we are keeping folks employed and bringing people back to these incredible establishments like the one that we're in front of right now which rolling stone said is one of the very best live music

venues in the united states. i'm just so delighted to have an opportunity to work with everyone here. i'm looking forward to coming to all these performances. i'll tell you this, my five-year-old son took his first tap dancing class on saturday. when he moves. as the mayor said, he won't be caught dancing on the streets. he likely will be found dancing in front of these venues when we get these performances going and because of that, i'm just so grateful to all the work by everyone here to make this happen. with that, i want to invite up someone who's going to make sure that it all happens. the woman who is now the new head of oewd building on the good work of our former ahead joaquin torres. take it away. >> well, it seems we all have a personal story about music and the arts, so i'll share mine. i'm the daughter of two

professional musicians. from day one until the day they passed four years ago. in classical music. and, for me, that's really informed so much of what i have done in my life and my professional life because i remember how much they struggled and as i carried that forward in my life and my previous incarnation which is about makers and artisans and helping them grow and sustain themselves here in the city to now in my role here at oewd a lot of what drives me is wanting to make sure that musicians and artists and performers and really the cultural trusts of our city have a way to make it for themselves, for their families and to earn a decent respectable life-sustaining living. so, from that, and you look at what is the infrastructure you need to make that happen? so there are the musicians

themselves are artists. there are these cherished venues. when i came here to san francisco 30 plus years ago, i actually was amazed at the new wave and the punk scene and that was what i was personally into and so some of the clubs i started at were more about electronica and this whole mash-up of what has flourished into live music and house and hip hop. we have it all here. but it needs tending like a flower so when i look at something like this investment, thank you as some former assembly member chiu and my team ben laurel for helping really bring this to

culmination these wonderful precious jewels will grow here in the city. at the highest level of economic recovery. this is also i believe the way that we get our city back. we get to reimagine and reinfuse san francisco with what makes us special, what makes us only here in san francisco and i fully believe that our arts and music and cultural assets need to lead the economic recovery front and center. they are the reason people move here. they are the reason people are starting to return back to their offices in downtown and they are certainly the reason why our visitors international and domestic are going to continue to come back here to san francisco. so with that, enough of us government folks. let's hear from somebody who actually knows how to do this, please.

[ applause ] >> wow. we feel really supported. oh, my gosh, i need notes. i'm not good at this. for our venue, bottom of the hill, we were closed for 17 silent months. it seems pretty excruciating and that was the first time that we ever considered the possibility that we might not open again. we prided ourselves on being scrappy and resourceful and survivors, but i think everyone here and across the country and the world realized for the first time that live music venues are fragile and need to be supported. that created change though which is good. we were pushed to forge friendships and alliances and the san francisco venue coalition which were and still are working hard for positive

change and adaptation. and adaptation is definitely needed because there's a lot of continuing hardships in this field. we have a lot of band camp cancellations. people are not showing up because they're so afraid. supply chain issues, rising costs. somehow it's a rebirth and it's been completely joyful and we've had seven sell-outs in the past two weeks. so that's fantastic. and other days, it kind of seems like we're never going to be out of the grip of covid and its continuing challenges. so this initiative is incredibly exciting for me and many venues. it allows a venue like ours that's very intimate to go to larger arenas and reach the people that don't feel safe

going inside to a live show and without all the red tape and the prohibitive price tags that putting on a live music outside once entailed and it allows us to bring our individual venue styles to different spaces across the city to show visitors and locals what we're all about. i think most importantly, in marks a historic time where our leaders are taking music seriously and making a choice to invest in it. there's no reason why cities like norlz, nashville, and austin get to be a music city. music drives tourism and music runs through our veins in san francisco. it's the best city in the world. we need to show it off and now

we can. but i want to thank a few people. everyone here, i want to thank -- he didn't want to be thanked, but ben van houghton. this guy actually listens to people in venues and since well before covid and makes change happen. he didn't want to be thanked, but i had to. and city attorney david chiu and mayor london breed, you all are amazing. thank you for stepping up to the plate for us. and we really look forward to partnering with you on this, for innovative initiative. it's the right move. it's very san francisco and we hope not only to survive but to thrive in the near future. that's it. now i have the distinct

pleasure of introducing casey who has worked hard for the music industry and he's fabulous and he works for the san francisco alliance as well as many other hats. take it away. [ applause ] >> thank you city attorney chiu and mayor breed for your support and engagement throughout the pandemic. i'm the assistant general manager at bill graham civic auditorium as well as the co-founder of the san francisco coalition. and during the pandemic provided an opportunity for over 40 independent venues in san francisco to share ideas, commiserate together and most importantly to engage our elected officials. we are thrilled to see this effort and look forward to developing these plans along with the office of economic work force and development. live music in san francisco is

synonymous. thank you >> thank you casey and thank you to everyone that's joining here today and i just want to take an opportunity to recognize our entertainment commissioners. ben blyman and starkey are all here. can you guys do a little wave. these are true night life and entertainment advocates in san francisco and just to be clear. i'm not just doing this because

i like to party. i also think that it is needed at a time like this. nothing has made me more happy than to be out and about watching live performances, plays, and sees events. some of you also know that i used to run a nonprofit organization and just to see kids from not even looking you in the eye. like who is that kid, like who is that person. the arts and entertainment in san francisco, it does so much and i remember when i served as a member of the board of supervisors and there were a number of new housing developments going up and there was some threats of places like even bottom of the hill being closed because of complaints from neighbors who had just moved here in some of the new

developments. and so i remember some of the legislation to say you basically have to sign and know that a night life exists within a certain range because i just think that it's sad and unfortunate and unfair for a place like this that's been around for 30 years to be able to be sued or to be closed or to be, you know, taken away from our city in that way and so i think i want people to know in general, you know, san francisco's a major city. it's a great city. there's a lot of noise everywhere and what we are going to continue to do is make sure that we protect our venues like bottom of the hill. they've been around for 30 years. it's a great venue. there's just something about being in an intimate space and listening to live music and also walking into a place where people know who you are. where you feel like you're connected to the bartenders and the staff. it just makes you feel good and

so part of what i wanted to do today to recognize bottom of the hill for their resiliency, for staying here, for working with us, for providing the input in the changes to policies and resources that we needed to provide as a city, i wanted to take this opportunity and recognize you and bottom of the hill on your 30th anniversary and come on up. and just present you with a certificate of honor because we know that bottom of the hill is now eligible to be a legacy business. so we need to be well on our way to protecting this institution in san francisco because we want to see the next santanas and other incredible musicians continue to come out of here. this is a real jewel. you're a real jewel for doing all the hard work to make it happen and continuing this great work. i know you started working in the kitchen at this location and now you're in charge of it

and running the show. it's pretty remarkable and it is truly what makes san francisco a wonderful place. congratulations on 30 years. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> and, i noticed your lovely vintage attire as well. you can tell she's very artsy. i love that about san francisco. with that, without further adieu before i open it up to questions, valley brown is joining us as well as our assessor recorder and i've mentioned the other commissioners and others. so, you know, this is really a team effort. it's something that we all care about and something we're going to continue to push and as you know, grants for the arts presents a lot of funding for the festivals and the parades and the other activities that we do. and so we're going to beef it up because we want our streets to be fun and live with entertainment. so thank you all so much for

joining us. and then i'll just hope it up for a few quick questions. >> in addition to the $2.5 million in state money, are there any rule changes coming with this initiative to make it easier to do these live performances? and if i could ask a second question. talk about that old mcdonald site. i'm wondering if you can give an explanation about your administration would not move forward. what was the first one? >> those are two questions. >> anything to make it change. >> so i think what we tried to do specifically the jams permit during the closure was to make it easier for not just night life venues to have entertainment, but also for some of our restaurants and other places that traditionally don't have that. we are definitely looking at ways to make it easier to get permits and to have these

things occur in san francisco. i think we did that during the pandemic and i'm hoping that it will continue and, clearly, ben is doing his job. so, ben, you get to stay at oewd because, you know, that's an indication that he is doing his job. the office of economic and work force development. we are of the business of getting to yes to support our businesses in san francisco, to make sure they have the resources and support they need to cut the bureaucracy. so whatever we can do policy wise or resource wise, we're going to do it. before i move on to your next question, i need to answer any other questions related to this. >> i'm just confused as to how this is going to work. how is it going to work? >> yeah. the way it's going to work.' there's a lot of people also who may not own brick and mortars, but promoters who are going to use a lot of our plazas, like downtown holiday plaza, u.n. plaza, various

plazas and parks and open space, civic center. all over san francisco and various neighborhoods i forget what this new location is called over here. we also need to look at geographic equity. we can't just have it in the center of the city or the downtown area, we want to have it in neighborhood activities, festivals and other events and so the plan is to work with the entertainment community. many have already expressed interest, but concern because of the cost related to it. there's definitely a market to do this and the goal is to make sure it's spread throughout the city and ultimately, we want to make sure that local artists are prioritized and paid for this program as well.

>> [inaudible] >> i don't know. i just showed up here. does anybody know why we came here? why not here? >> yeah. why not here? i'm like, i don't know why did we hold it here? >> okay. you can quote me on that. >> [inaudible] >> and, i'm sorry, are we finished with the questions related to this night life venue related stuff? okay. >> reporter: okay. so members are calling on the city to donate to the if fillmore area nonprofit for reparations. what do you think of that? >> we haven't made a decision about that. it's a lot more complicated because the property is under

redevelopment disposition laws so it's not as if it's as simple l as donating without making sure there's some financial -- i don't know how to explain it exactly, but there's things that we are obligated to do as a city which will require money and so until we have a clear understanding of what that would entail and what it would mean, we don't know if that's going to be possible. so we're going to do everything we can to work with the community which we have from the very beginning, but at this point, the state law will super cede what we're able to do here locally. >> i've not made a decision on that yet. >> going back to the same -- >> i'm sorry. i'm going to go back to him. >> i think your administration's going to be asked again the rationale for not going forward. >> i think i made my answer clear when i talked at the board of supervisors meeting.

the supervisors put money in the budget to pay for a drop-in center. it went out to bid and the only organization that bid on it basically asked for a lot more money in order to do it and we were not willing to provide any additional resources to do it nor were we willing to use the amount of money just to cover their staff expenses. so how is that going to work? part of it was money. the other challenge is, you know, just the challenges of what has existed in the hate ashbury community and needing to make sure that we have an organization or group or program that's going to help to eliminate some of the problems that have existed with this population for a very long time. clearly, what's happening there now is not working and i'm not 100% certain that adding this additional resource is going to make a difference. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know yet. because again we have an

obligation under state redevelopment disposition law and that's what's made it way more complicated. we would have done something already, but there's certain obligations that we have to meet under state law. and so i'm not sure if the ability to provide it to the community is even an option without financial support being attached to it in some capacity. so i don't know. we are working on it and it's more complicated than that and as a member myself of the black community, not everyone is in agreement. at the end of the day, you know, the work that we do with the city is going to be responsible and ultimately hopefully be of benefit to the community and we're going to try to work on that and we'll see what happens. >> would you like to see this happen? i would like to see the venue open. i would like to see the venue become a huge success. i don't want to see the venue continue to be a financial drain on the city. and so that's one of the things that we need to work towards, but ultimately, a lot of the

guiden principles for how we make decisions with that venue have everything to do with state law. thank you. >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and

quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic

restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

>> san francisco is coming back for real. the weather is all right. hi everybody. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i'm glad to be here with all of you today at city hall. i know we come and we gather for so many different things, but today is an opportunity for us to recognize some unsung heroes in our city.

and let me tell you it has been a very challenging 18 months when the decision to shelter in place was made and we had to communicate to the public. we had a very challenging time. so many people said what are we going to do. there are people who need to be fed. there are people who don't have a roof over their heads. their folks who need support. we don't even know what this virus is. how are we going to get ppe? it was a very tough time and not only did san francisco do an incredible job, the people standing up here with me today. they rolled up their sleeves.

they didn't shy away and they put themselves at risk in order to help other people. and so today, we are honoring them you saw us as the faces of the challenges of the pandemic and people throughout the city, but a lot of folks don't realize when we first were dealing with this pandemic, we embedded an equity team in our response. and part of that was to make sure we got resources to places that traditionally would be left out had we not made those investments who were apart of the fabric of the community. they were already on the ground doing the work and when we needed additional help to

provide additional resources. they didn't hesitate. they didn't hesitate and it was tough because there was so much uncertainty. it was tough because in some cases, you know, outbreaks happened, uncertainty, concern about friends and families, but they still showed up every single day with the people that were apart of their teams that were dedicated to doing the work to take care of people and the reason why we're here today is because we need the entire city to know what they did. we need the entire city to recognize they took care of our kids in chinatown. they took at the forefront of

reason and i could not have done it without them and so i want to thank them for raising their hands to do testing and setting up makeshift testing sites. to i want to to get people in the community who had concerns about the vaccine. to go out and educate and support and answer questions all of these things that's why san francisco is so amazing and so special. because these people represent.

they represent what is so amazing and so good about our city. yes. we have our challenges like any other we have compassionate people who believe in service, who believe in the very best of other people and believe in making sure that everyone deserves an opportunity to get resources, to get support. to have a roof over their heads and whether this pandemic hit or not. they would still be out there doing that work. so today we honor them and they would call them up individually. i want to bring back dr. grant colfax. i was not very happy with the news that he was reporting to me because i know what it meant for me to go out there and have to tell members of the public

who were going to be upset with me and the decisions we had to make. but we did it and what we saw in san francisco, one of the lowest death rates in the country although we're one of the most dense cities in the country. what we saw or what we continue to see one of the highest vaccination rates. so say what you want about san francisco. we're trying to be safe. we're trying to be healthy and we're trying to live and we're trying to thrive in this city and public health is at the forefront of this city and the person who helps make those decisions is dr. grant colfax. [ applause ] >> well, thank you, mayor breed

and a heart felt thank you to our 9 leaders here today and then the testing questions that came and then the vaccine questions and i want to thank you for everything that you've done. because of your work and equity based approach, we have kept hospitalizations and deaths low. we have re-opened the city. schools are back in session and we resume so many of these activities that make us feel whole again and it really is because of you. the results show for instance with vaccines, our vaccination rates. our vaccinations among people of color are highest in the

nation and lead our vaccination rates in the city. and it's no accident. it's because of your work that vaccines and testing are readily available. we have 100 vaccine sites. and san franciscans are within a 10 minute walk of a site and that's why we managed to get 80% of our eligible population. and i was just talking to several of you before the event, needles are going to kids' arms. they're getting the shot and we're doing over a 1,000 a day great progress. now, that is one thing, but i think one of the key things in our responses is they're only one thing. they are so important. they're key to getting out of this pandemic, but there's so many other key issues that are of importance for us to

address. the wide ranging emotional and social well being of ourselves, our family and our community. you all saw this early on. we had conversations. you led the department in our response from providing diapers, food, masks, digital support. families struggling with remote learning. this is about the whole city, the many city departments and the community coming together to help with education and helping people understand and abide by our health orders. helping seniors get to medical appointments and reaching our most vulnerable who are unhouseded. we have so much to be proud of and the challenges ahead. i am confident we will meet them together. thank you for your dedication and partnership with the city. let's keep it going and let's get our boosters.

all right. so we are now going to recognize our vaccine heroes and i will read the name of the recipient and the mayor will present. correct? okay. bay point advocates. bayview. we're doing a photograph with each one and then a group. correct? >> i didn't even know i was supposed to speak. i'm honored to receive this

award. representing the folks in bayview hunter's point. through the pandemic, it has been such a life lesson learning and just an experience because i experience and got covid myself. so that was just, you know, an eye opener for me just one of those things. i'm in the community. when it came down to me, i'm like, now, what do i do. that life experience and hesitancy, i know what folks and residents are experiencingment you lose someone in the community. thank you to everyone getting the vaccine. if you're not doing them if you're not thinking about getting the vaccine, find different approaches, wholistic approaches and thank you all

for this awesome experience and award. [ applause ] >> so our next honoree is father moses agud of the parishes. father organized the safe spaces and set up vaccine clinics and helped conduct online masses during shelter-in-place to help people stay connected. thank you. >> actually, i haven't prepared anything. when i used to prepare things i'd talk for two or three hours. so i just want to say thank you to the mayor and the people they are working with. i think it's important for us

for the city of san francisco as much as possible receive these and collaborate and be responsible. and i think if we can work together the benefit for the people. [ applause ] >> our next honoree is annie chung from self-help for the elderly. during a time where our seniors were struggling to get access. annie and her team stepped up to help and to get them vaccinated. annie, thank you so much for your work. [ applause ] >> thank you, mayor. and thank you dr. colfax. i accept this on behalf of our

community. l all american medical group to do all the vaccination for our home bound seniors and the seniors that couldn't come out and get vaccinated. so thank you, mayor, for all the resources that you give us as well as all the help that department of public health gave us. thank you very much. >> next up is earnest jones for the southwest community corporation. >> happy birthday! >> it's your birthday too? well, happy birthday. earnest led in areas where we needed to set up testing and vaccine clinics for people who could not make it all the way down to mosconi and other sites. thank you for being an unsung hero. [ applause ]

>> just to be really brief and quick, i want to give a shout-out and thank you to the covid command center and the leadership of our city. aaron geoffrey at the time did an amazing job at the time. beyond that, it was a supportive effort. this is for all of lakeview. the community came together and worked together to make sure everyone was safe and that was because of the love that everybody has for their community. thank you for your leadership and thank you for the work. [ applause ] >> next up is berta hernandez with dph, department of public health. berta was with a local nonprofit that helped our latino families get access to what they needed. berta, thank you for being there and everywhere and thank

you for being an unsung hero. [ applause ] >> thank you everybody. i am very proud of my community. the community i belong to was more hard hit in the beginning of the pandemic. we lost people, many were sick. many lose their jobs and even had the resources to be quarantined. so it's at the same time, i'm so proud of the community because everybody was able to come together and to look for each other and not let anyone behind, so we were able to survive. i'm so thankful to my newco

workers at d.p.s. and i'm so proud of them. thank you. [ applause ] >> all right. our next honoree is felicia thibedeau. she has helped get more than a 1,000 people vaccinated by referring them to vaccine clinics. thank you for being an unsung hero. [ applause ] >> thank you to mayor breed, dr. colfax, the dph staff and to the wellness hub. the we rock. that would be i.c.y., win, mary harris omicpp our kids first

and african american early childhood educators. together, we partner with our resources. they work hard, they bust, they rock. thank you everyone. [ applause ] . >> next up is isabella ventura with ryan martin health services. isabella's been on the front lines as a primary care provider and helps support our lgbtqi communities and especially our transgender residents to help get access to covid resources. thank you for your work. [ applause ] >> on behalf of my team, i'd like to thank dr. colfax and mayor breed for your amazing work. thank you for your dedication

and your dedication to provide health -- quality health services to our marginalized and underserved population here in san francisco. and thank you dph for this recognition. thank you. [ applause ] >> our next honoree is monica worked on street outreach medical teams to help people experiencing homelessness. monica, thank you for your work. >> so i'm so grateful to the city of san francisco and especially to you, mayor breed because you guys believed in science, you put that first and put everybody's well being in priority and i'm so grateful for that because we were able to go to the streets and help

the misunderstood populations and we were able to take this head-on. so thank you so much and thank you for this award. [ applause ] >> and our final honoree today is gwendelyn westbrook. i think as so many people know here to address food induring the pandemic. emblem attic of our wholistic approach. congratulations and thank you. >> everybody knows how much i love them especially people at united council.

i want to thank everybody who helped me, even the ones i had to chase down to make you get your shots. it's all good. the mayor, she knows how much i love her. we've got a girls group and we're all so proud of you. this has been a very difficult task, but without the team that we built that united council which includes maestro curtis and the c-notes. helping us get the word out. making sure people in the community knew we were out there to give food. he did all that. him and his wife and dhirn supported united council and i have so much love for all of them. my staff, you guys are the most remarkable people in san francisco. you never took a day off. you worked your tails off, we stepped up and we worked as a

team. we know the team work makes the dream work and that's what we did in bayview hunter's point. that not having any cases of covid at united council with as many people we serve is because of you. it's because you guys were diligent to the cause. we knew what we had to do and i'll be darned if we didn't get it done. i am so proud of all of you. this award is for us, for all of us, not just me because like i have always told you, i couldn't do it alone. so i'm up here accept. thank you, mayor.

>> well, gwenyth and maestro and the c-notes. i'm sure you caught them on america's got talent. the world i had to tell shamman, not the bayview. we even served the whole city, but they were born and raised in the fillmore. they're doing great things we have all these incredible people. just saying thank you. we are here to appreciate them and recognize them. we're grateful for their service and i'll tell you, whether there was a pandemic or not, whether there was an award or not, these are the people

still on the ground doing the hard work every day and so we appreciate them so much and grateful that they came out and we're here to celebrate and uplift you and thank you all so much. it's a true blessing to the people of san francisco. [ applause ]

>> clerk: at 312 utah is it true. item 4. case number 20191324 through 1326 powell street. for indefinitely continuance. item five, case number 314 to

333 fremont street has been withdrawn item 15 for case continued to january 2022. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed for continuance by pressing star three. okay. seeing no requests to speak from members -- i take it back. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. you have two minutes.

go ahead, caller. >> i'm sorry. i didn't catch the part about the continuous, but i just wanted to make a comment at the 3555 clement street. >> clerk: hang on for just one moment. it's proposed to be continued. if you'd like to comment on the matter of continuance, you're more than welcomed to. the but as far as the project related comments, you need to reserve those until we hold the hearing in january. >> caller: okay. >> clerk: thank you. the. again, when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. hello, caller. >> caller: hello. i'm calling about the proposal for the 900 street --

>> clerk: i'm going to interrupt you, ma'am. because we haven't reached that item. that is later on today's agenda and so you'll need to wait to submit your comment. of right now, we're only taking comments onto items that are being proposed to be continued and only on the matter of the continuance itself. okay. last call for items proposed to be continued. seeing no requests to speak for members of the public, commissioners, public comment on items to be continued is closed and they are now before you. commissioner chan. >> commissioner: i move to continue the item. >> clerk: [roll call]

. >> clerk: that places us on item seven. commission questions and comments. if you would indulge me for one moment. we have another departure from our city family and mr. scott sanchez, if you could make yourself visible. thank you. and this time i will make myself the presenter before i share my screen. mr. sanchez has decided

. >> clerk: he has diligently performed his post hearing the responsibility by consuming another line and gym multiple casts both large and small. where he has mentored planners both young and old where he has guided multiple projects from beginning to end. whereas he occasionally considers enrolling into the academy of art and driving one of their fancy cars. whereas scott has joined the department, left, re-joined, and

. >> commissioner: we appreciate all of your attributes. i hope this is only good-bye and see you soon. thank you.

>> secretary: director hillis. >> just a quick thanks to scott. i can't imagine -- i mean, i've only known the planning department with scott in it. i got to know him first as a member of the board of appeals with commissioner fung and he was always thoughtful when the issue was complex or fairly straight forward and taught us a lot and has continued to teach me a lot both as a planning commissioner and as a director. it's hard to imagine the planning department without him. but i sincerely appreciate his work here and thank him for his service. >> secretary: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. and if my connection is bad, i'm having computer issues like crazy. i don't know why. i just wanted to say, mr. sanchez, thank you for all of your efforts and work supporting us and it's been great working with you. our code to kind of a religious

text and it's very complex. it has a lot of layers that contradict each other that resolve over time. you kind of have to know the history and the conversation itself. you certainly understand the complexity and help us navigate and understand what it's trying to safe, what it's trying to achieve to help our city be a thriving place to live. we will certainly miss you and we'll see if you don't turn up again here some time. thanks for all your great work. >> secretary: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: stay in touch. >> secretary: thank you scott.

take care. are there any other commission matters. okay seeing no other requests to speak for members of the commission, we shall move on to department matters. item eight, director's announcements. and item nine, excuse me. >> good afternoon, commissioners. no announcements today. >> very good. item nine, review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a report for both last week and this week since we were all off last week. so last week, supervisor chan's ordinance was finally sent out of committee with a positive recommendation. as the full board supervisor

peskin's pro vision for the removal of laundromats aand there was an appeals for. and this year, the city considered an ordinance sponsored by the mayor that would be the requirement for existing m.c.d.s. they've been operating as cannabis retail for 40 years now and there have been no complaints filed to the office of cannabis for any of them. commissioners, you heard this item on july 15th. with no public comment and only a few questions from community members on how. committee then voted to recommend the item to the full board. that would allow for a projecting sign and a sign on the awning in our commercial

corridors. commissioners, you heard this item on october 14th. so there are about a half dozen commentors most seen supportive of the change. introducing the items, supervisor stefani emphasized why a grandparent provision would not be appropriate for dealing with this issue. if you recall that was discussed during the planning commission hearing. supervisor melgar then made a motion to send this to the full board with a above recommendation which the committee then passed unanimously. after receiving a resolution, on august 4th of this year and recommended approval. found that 447 battery street constructed in 1907 was culturally and historically significant for the san francisco coffee industry, a

significant commercial sector in san francisco and the first decade of the 20th century. also with the reconstruction of downtown after the 1906 earthquake and fire. the hpc also found that the architecture was not significant and recommended that the three-story height and scriptures be removed from the character-defining features in the designation. staff was anticipating this item would be continued. but as supervisor peskin moved to table the item which essentially stops the legislation from moving forward. there was no reason given for tabling it. at full board this week, supervisor chan's ordinance that repeals article 12 past 1st street and that concludes that. i'd just like to say good-bye to scott as well. we look forward to your return and your next going away party. and great working with you. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, mr. star. as stated, there is no report from the board of appeals,

however, the historic preservation commission will did meet yesterday and they initiated landmark designation for the takahashi training company. they also heard an informational presentation from staff related to the city wide survey and then they adopted an earthquake shack document related to the city wide historic context statement. in addition, commissioners, there seems to be some consensus from the historic preservation commission to encourage the city to take on a new endeavor by placing qr codes are some other method by which tourists and residents could basically stopping and putting their phone up via app or some other method i would imagine. and getting a brief history on

the location of what makes that site specific for landmarks and other historically significant locations. if there are no questions. we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept on items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the items reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the meeting up to two minutes. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

>> clerk: we'll take the next caller. >> hi, good afternoon. this is georgia shootis. i hope that you'll have a chance to please look at the e-mail i sent to the commission on november 11th with the five photos. it was comments that i sent to the land use and transportation committee for the hearing on housing more workers which they had a few weeks ago. and the issue of speculation. the noe valley project highlighted in the e-mail shows how speculation affects prices and that logically spirals out across the city. this project caught my eye because it sold in october for $6.1 million. in 2012 which was the beginning of the so-called money bomb going off.

the original perfectly livable house sold for $1.26 million which was over the asking price and then it was flipped upon completion in 2015 for $4.85 million. so this project shows how the price jumps never really go away and keep on jumping. but a really turbo charged in this speculative culture. this noe valley project should be reviewed as a demolition, not an alteration. and there are no publish accounts. so, without adjusting the accounts, there's no proper oversight which is ironic since there are often complaints about too much oversight by the city. thanks a lot. take care. talk to you later. >> hello, my name is andres.

i live and 'work in the city and i'm here to urge the support of supervisor mandelman's legislation to legalize four units on every residential lot across the city -- >> clerk: we are not at that item just yet. we are at general public comment at this time. that item will be called up shortly. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: yes, sir. go ahead. >> caller: i don't know how this thing works. this is the first time i had a complaint -- not a complaint, but a protest against the cannabis store at 900 irving street. >> clerk: i'm going to have to interrupt you because we are at general public comment at this time. that item will be coming up later towards the end of today's agenda. you'll have to press star three to get back into the queue in

order to submit your testimony for that matter. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hi. wow. scott sanchez, i'm going to miss you. your you're such a great guy. and the kids drive you crazy. so, anyway. just, again, all the best to you and thank you for all your service to the city and to the community. thank you. >> caller: good evening, planning commission. i'm calling today to support the legalization of four plexes and -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, sir. i'm going to interrupt you. you're going to have to hold your testimony until we reach that item. it is coming up next so you

won't have to wait too long. members of the public, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is sue hester. i asked the planning commission to schedule a discussion about remote hearings. you have a schedule to approve another 30 days on december 2nd and another one in early january. please schedule a discussion. it's too late to do the schedule for december 2nd. but on one of the dates in december have this as an item for discussion. please, virtual hearings take a long time and they're really obliterating public input. thank you.

>> secretary: sorry. i was on mute. final last call for general public comment? transition transition [please stand by]

>> we know since 2005 80 percent of new housing has been produced insan francisco in a handful of neighborhoods . three percent of new housing over the last 15 years, three percent hasbeen added in our age for residential pallets , none in this district. these are its districts cover the majority of developer land with about 60 percent of all residential zone land in san francisco are h1 or rh to . commissioners, we've also seen in recent years facing the unrelenting series of significant changes and proposed changes in state law

governing residential zoning. a key evidence for supervisor mandolin in pursuing this issue was to respond to this continued drumbeatfor sacramento . the city is doing more to allow for new housing and a major statewideshortage of housing . two years ago actually the supervisor and i were talking toneighbors in glen park . it was so long ago i'm talking about an in person community meeting at the glen park rec center. and we were there talking about the need for san francisco to respond to this pressure from the state by showing how we would produce are rather opposed to meet those critical needs in a way that works for our communities and our undeniable unique the opportunity . at the same time , or at that time rather we were talking about 50 and today were talking about to 90 so it's come full circle in a way at and then two years later we findourselves beingasked the same question . how does san francisco more room for more san franciscans .

more young queer people looking to make a home and thefamily of their own and are 49 square miles and how do we do that in our own way . that is the question that this legislation before you today i think is an important although admittedly incremental parts have answered. the idea that in both pieces of legislation issimple : in our age private predominantly single-family zoning districts, can we find a way to allow small multi family buildings that fit within our existing height both in the open space requirements that we have today ? both ordinance before you would allow up to four units in our age zoning districts through a density waiver. for any projects not seeking density on this program. one ordinance would allow for this one corner lots only and the other wouldallow in all age zones . the legislation wouldnot provide any waivers for existing height or open space

requirements . it would not provide any exceptions from environmental review . up to two state-mandated 80 use would be possible to add to these projects so long as those units can fit under our existing height andcontrol . again the purpose of the legislation is to allow more people and families to live in the same space we already planned for and allow for today. now i mentioned sb nine, this is a state bill signed by the governor at the end of september and will become law in san francisco as in every other city in california january for about six weeks from today and happy new year by the way. sb nine takes a very different approach to answering the single-family zoning question and the legislation that's before you today. as you've heard the planning departments a very thorough analysis of the bill two weeks ago at the commission sb nine would allow for homeowners and single-family districts to convert an existing house next to a duplex for some divide a lot into a new life of 1200

square feet and two units on each lot, four units total with a bare minimum required for each building and would also allow actually require that thisthe approved ministerial a means no environmental review , no design review, no conditional use is no process really whatsoever for taking into account a community context or environmental impact. the supervisor believes this represents a serious threat to the long-standing pattern of open space in our residential blocks.as i mentioned supervisor mandolin's legislation proposes well prior to the passage or even introduction of sb nine and we appreciate planning departments staff analysis and recommendations today or how we can use this legislation as an opportunity to respond with our own approach that will allow for the same amount of density but in a way that preserves our rear yards and open space as well as environmental design view. commissioners supervisor mandolin feels comfortable

moving forward with a modified or plex ordinance either on corner lots or on our lots that incorporates many of the concepts of specific recommendations in the staff report you'll see today so not all of them. this is a great supervisor supports the expansion ofour h2 zoning while allowing for a density waiver of up to four units or even up to six units on corner lots . again so long as those units along with any adu can fit within the current height and both standards with no waivers on height for both. this also agrees with 30 percent minimum rear yard requirements for projects to provide at least four units which would keep rearguard requirements in areas currently zoned are h1 unchanged. commissioners, as the staff report indicates legitimate concerns have also been raised about thepossibility of displacement and potential impactson communities of color , homeowners of color in particular which we all share .

the supervisor agrees this legislation should be about putting access to homeownership opportunities for historically marginalized communities. supporting multi generational and intergenerational wealth creation and working-class communities of color in particular as much as it's about allowing housing opportunities in our neighborhood in a way that respects our neighboring contexts . and i really appreciate many of the staff recommendations in this area and in particular the supervisor here is supportive of including criteria or conditions for the use of this density waiver designed to protect tenants in displacement and to preference homeowners seeking to expand their property to provide more housing while building wealth for their families over the insurance investors trying to liquidate the property. we support recommendations for homeowner assistance programs such as technical assistance

and lending programs tosupport homeownership in incident is directly under resourced communities . the recommendations regarding forms to the process are something that we need to look into more but do seem like important reforms to help make it easier for current homeowners only to add condominium units to their property where there are no rent restrictions .these reforms taken together with concepts of encouraging by units were occupied by current homeowners to take advantage of density waivers will remain the property themselves and generate wealth for their families teams like the right task to address this set of concerns and we look forward to working with the office of racial equity and other stakeholders in further developing those and similar proposals to the board of supervisors. finally let meaddress affordability and rent protections in more detail . as you know supervisors or rather commissioners other supervisors have proposed their

own ideas about how to make sure the new units we produce in our each districts will add middle income households and renters and these ideas range from requiring all units produced by the density waiver be subject to rent control in a way that is similar to the existing local adu program in san francisco. ranging to requiring deeply restricted bmr units and properties for density waivers . supervisor mandelman agrees this is an important area to address in the legislation and fully intends to buy has strong concerns about the idea of including bmi's in buildings of smoke such a small scale both in terms of financial feasibility as well as because the administration of the bmr program which has been limited to 10 units in size for me many years could be difficult.

if you have so many buildings with so many owners it could be difficult and burdensome for small property owners and make enforcement and affordability restrictions. challenging for the city. rather, supervisor mandelman feels that adding some competition of rent control and this could even potentially include rent control protections on condominium units that are created through the waiver that those unitsare subsequently rented out as some combination of those type of requirements for the waiver units as well as requirements for replacement rental units for any existing rent control or low income rental units for a density waiver is being used . that would be similar to provisions in the housing crisis act and the supervisor believes this combination of tools would be the best way to address these issues and i'm happy to discuss these ideas further with you all today. i would note supervisor mar's ordinance includes all call for homeowner assistance programs

to support the creation of intergenerational wealth similar to staff recommendations i mentioned in which i please have the opportunity to advance here today and have found in consultation with the office. in closing i want to thank aubrey malone and erin starr and everyone's planning department who worked to develop the case report for their creativity and for their proactive approach to addressing a wide range of complex issues and of course the ever-changing landscape of state law. commissioners i think the staff recommendations that will be presented to you today give all the pieces that we need to move this forward and find the right way to advance this proposal in a way that balances so many competing factors at play and achieves substance at the board of supervisors. on behalf of supervisor mandelman i want to thank you for your time and attention and consideration and respectfully ask you pass both of these ordinances out of commission today with thebenefit of your insights and recommendations so

we can take this important item forward to the board as soon as possible in the new year. with that i'll turn it back over to audrey andof course i'll be here for any questions . >>again audrey malone , and i want to share a presentation to make this a little bit easier to digest . all right, can everyone see that? going to presume the answer is yes. so today are going to be conducting onto ordinances for supervisor mandelman. the first was introduced in may and that ordinance ... let me get thisslide advanced . that ordinance proposed a density exception for up to

four units on corner lots in thecities are each district . to be granted density exception the project may also seek. the supervisor mandelman developed this across our district. this ordinance is looking into order only corner lots and environmental review could be accomplished accomplished through an addendum to our existing housing element . the second proposes to expand the density exception to all loss in our district. prior to sb 10 this ordinance would not have been able to move forward without a full environmental impact requirements. it would have needed to wait t be heard until the housing element was completed which is estimated to occur in 2023 . all of this changed with the passing of senate bill nine and 10, senate bill 10 exempts density increases of 10 or more units from steeple review,that

would be legislative changes . and it makes it possible for the commission to give his more substantial proposal now. sb nine will allow multiple units in the parcel. this law will become active january 1, 2022. sb nine has been our goal as supervisor mandelman witnesses and staff analysisand a set of recommendations that we believe combine all aspects of each into one cohesive program . all right. so why are we developing these recommendations? we focus first on our housing goals. the first is to advance racial and social equity, second is a greatopportunity for homeowners

to increase equity . third is to protect existing residents from displacement and forth is to increase more choices and the city's lower density neighborhoods lastis to support the preservation and improvement of our historic buildings . we also wanted to respond on equity nine. we have a significant proposal right now and we recognize because of sb nine which again not to sound like a broken record but mister bentley talk about it as well and it raises density in our single-family neighborhoods. this increased density is no longer insecure. sb nine elements family districts by allowing two units per loft and allows effectively for units across what was originally one single-family unit. sb nine accomplishes many of the long-standinghousing goals by realizing modest density in our district . applies modifications however

would also be detrimental to san francisco's historic housing staff and open spaces. as jenkins also stated sb nine allows the diminished demolition of category eight historic buildings if they are not otherwise on a historic list. it allows certain projects to more effectively eliminate rvs and exams eligible text from people that do and removesthe ability to file a specialty review on projects that utilize state law .given all these factors staff took the opportunity to present supervisor mandelman's ordinance to combine the most beneficial aspects of sb nine while allowing the city to continue to havea say , eliminating exclusionary, helping advance racial equity goals and increasing housing. the recommended modifications are intended to enhance

ordinance and incorporate sb nines housing rule . we have the importance of seeing these recommendations in the packet. these recommendations are meant to serve as a comprehensive program which will not only increased density but help protect residents from displacement andopen opportunities for property development to those who are excluded from the process . also some of these recommendations are phrased as encouraging or exploring certain ideas and that's because this program is beyond planning code changes. some of these modifications can only be accomplished through changes to other city code or major funding allocations from the board to the florida program. it may require methods and feasibility studies to be adopted or further outreach to our low income communities of color residents before mechanisms are decided on.

they have however been included because we believe they are important to the program's success and we hope they will be a starting point for other departments to refine in advance. we hope when all these recommendations are taking together and fully developed this passage can become part of the solution to structural housing rather thanreinforcing them. to get to the actual recommendation , ... we're going to start talking about them anyway. recommendation one is our single-familyzoning laws . we will allow our presentation tocatch up here . there we go. so all of the audience you see on the map is currently those that would be subject to sb nine on january 1. there also

the same parcels we are proposing be rezoned to allow two lots or two parcels , to buildings. there we go. two units per lot which was one unit per lot. the second recommendation is to increase that density exception to comply with supervisor mandelman's ordinances on our corner lot. the only difference is staff is proposing a density exception for six units on corner rh lots and four units being allowed on the interior rh lotssuch as the more expensive ordinance . the project seeking this exception just as they are in the ordinances would not be able to also combine an exception with a density moment. our third recommendation is i'd

say the meat of our proposal and i'm happy to go into this more during the question but this is essentially our version of a local sb nine program . it lays out to possible paths for projects that meet the city housing goals. the largest difference between these two counts is one is being sponsored by an owner who not only occupies the home but plans to remain the occupants for at least three years post construction. eligible for the owner occupant pathor non-owner-occupied path . it must not propose demolition to the rent control unit or a unit with the last 15 years. the zoning may not be a category a research in addition to not being eligible for its registry. there must be a proposal to

increase the density for the owner-occupied path or fill at least four units in the non-owner-occupied path and or single-family homes opposing density increases the second unit on the property was to be personal to the first to ensure the program is not used to create a sham second unit.if these projects meet one of those two paths either the owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied amongst all these other things you would be able to seek a streamlined process which is very briefly summarized on this slide and again i'm happy to go into more detail with thisrecommendation . recommendations 4 and 5 ensure density programs are accessible to residents of color and those of low and moderate income. it will require more outreach

study and major funding commitments from the board. if the department chose to include them in arough modification now it will encourage the board of supervisors to elect a program like staff unit system and construction funding . recommendation six is technical amendments simply to make sure that these ordinances are being moved forward comply with senate bill 10 so that we can type article 10 to review them before we have an element complete. and seven and eight are recommendations that will either need more process for sponsorship from another agency so on recommendation seven we do recommend staff develop design standards which are made through our resolution. this does not need a separate piece of legislation. recommendation eight has to do with making it easier for our homeowner path to make a condo out of new units if they're retaining their existingunits . this would require amendments to the subdivision code but we

want to make sure the context was made clear to the board in case they were interested in sponsoringlegislation or making amendments to the subdivision code . so in terms of public comment staff sees as of three minutes ago 38submissions of public comment . one of which was submitted in time to be included in the packet and that is the specific key. one is the additional commission support for the ordinances and drafted by the supervisors. the other 46 submissions of public comment encourage the submission commission to support the ordinance of staff modification. enclosing commissioners i wanted to again at the threat ofsounding like a broken record remind you that and the public

the importance of taking action on these items . sb nine takes effect january 1. as such now is the time to pass local legislation that would retain the housing elements of the bills while ensuring the city receives control over the shaping of its urban forms . i have many of our planning department experts here available to help answer questions that you may have as well as a list and thank you for your time. thank you audrey. at this time we should open up public comment. each member of the public because we're talking abouttwo separate pieces of legislation will be afforded three minutes each . when you hear your life has been a muted that is your indication to continue speaking. >>. >> caller: i urge you to reject these legislations presented by supervisor mandelman.

unfortunately what's before you is we're tired of planners passing that strategy on the guys of affordability or equity. nothing before you addresses any of the issues and infact will make equity and affordability worse . i ran a program for 15 years at the neighborhood center allowing half a dozen other nonprofit housing organizations in san francisco to assist low income homeowners who have no homes many of these projects led to planning 80 use up to code . on nonprofit staff spending enormous amounts of time. leveraging the resources and project management, of accessing financing and providing technical assistance tohomeowners . the technical assistance that we talked about in the legislation from staff recommendations are not even closeto being enough .

it's not even a program, it's just words. and based on the real-life experience of how these projects work there is no low income homeowner is going to be able to manage a construction budget that is $1 million, over $1 million to add units to their home. they don't have the time, they don't have the expertise and adjust the amount of money is completely overwhelming so what's going to happen? basically it's going to become a recipe for gentrification and saturation was the only people who are going to be available are going to be able to access the kinds of resources that are being described to you today are going to be corporations, developers and those who want to speculate . so i urge you to send these back and look at implementation

that actually leads to greater affordability and equity diversity. >> caller: my name is adam buck calling from s.f. umb. i'm a physician who basically takescare of people suffering from the housing shortage that we're in every day and i'm in the hospital . i hadthe unfortunate situation of taking care of an entire family . a grandmother, her son, his wife and their child actually all were on a breathing machine at the same time and why was that? they were all crammed into one apartment and the nephew in his 20s was also with them was working in the tesla factory that elon must didn't shut down so he got sick there and ended up killing his grandmother

because of the housing shortage and a person in his late 20s living with his parents and grandmother all in one place because he couldn't afford to go anywhere else. tuberculosis is something we don't really think about that much in america anymore and maybe you think it's because of medicines but no, that's not the case. the reason tuberculosis isn't common in america anymore is because it's pretty much right from people sharing veterans with each other in the old days when we allowed housing to most people got their own bedrooms. tuberculosis stopped being as bad. so housing is medicine and i really think that to my core. in regards to this proposal which i support the historic reasons for the single-family zoning of keeping out undesirables is despicable and it's great that california the state got rid of it. i think it's great that san francisco wants tofollow on the heels of that and make it even better . i think six units on the corner

plus adu's are great. i'm concerned at all the presentations about how important it was to get ahead of the state and how bad it was that the rear yards might be built on and how these things can be approved ministerial way and wouldn't thatbe a terrible thing ? i don't think that would be a terrible thing. i actually think you should continue that and try to make this asministerial as possible . if you went to st. francis would and went into all the old deeds that had all the racial confidence in it which i think are still there and got rid of the thing saying no black people allowed butdid nothing else with st. francis would , you're not helping any black people in the modern day and i think if you pass these things, i think we should but if you keep so many of these hearings and continuances if you listen to the beginning of this meeting all these things and

continued months in advance, the result is that you've gotten rid of the exclusionary zoning know how the agenda is being built i don't think anyone should feelcomfortable having themselves on the back . so i really just want everyone on the commission to think about what is the goal here? the goal should be to allow as much housing that can be built as possible as quickly as possible and get rid of as many hearings as possible that you are allowed to so that housing can be built. >> caller: the afternoon commissioners, san francisco lighting coalition.i just want to bring up to your attention despite all the talks about sb nine there is nowhere in this legislation for a mandate for a zoning lots from one unit before you. sb nine does not prohibit cities to enact this legislation with value capture and that brings us to my

question for supervisor mandelman and the planning staff who recommended more changes to his legislation. where is the public share of this exponential gain for the last zoning gentry that is being facilitated by your legislation? where's the value capture for the much needed services and the city where basic services from transit to housingare broken ? as a homeowner what do i get or just sitting on a piggyback that will grow two or three fullby the passage of your legislation ? pretty much everybody knows it's been well documented at any of zoning will result in higher prices around. it's just natural. you can build one unit versus four units. if that land could render four

units obviously it would have beenbuilt up . so my question to supervisor mandelman and staff is where did we get the value capture? that's why we are more supportive of supervisor mar's version of zoning legislation which actually does have affordability clauses for people who cannot necessarily afford to live in the city like doctor doolittle you just heard from . we need to think about wholesome solutions for housing. up zoning without any value capture is not, does not the racial and social equity that you guys pay lip service to and that's why i am looking to a progressive commissioners on this commission such as commissioner in. and commissioner moore to question where the value capture comes from? this massive up zoning effort

and where the public is going tobenefit from this . homeowners who would like to take advantage of up zoning will not be able to build 4 units. those are the type of things that developers with piggy banks, money from loans, multimillion dollar loans can do so again i urge the commissioners to ask questions about value capture and how we can actually have more racial and social equity in the city that is going toget up zoned particularly in neighborhoods like bayview , at this point, visitation value and our sunset. thank you.>> this is zachary weisenburger with young communitydevelopers . i urge you to propose the zoning and planning department recommendations as they do not

properly address or account for the negative impacts to what happened on working-class communities. in their current form the rh at the board of supervisors including the one before you today not result in the creation of wealth for communities harmed by exclusionary zoning which should be a priority. it will give healthy homeowners the opportunity to build wealth which will increase existing equity in our city. up zoning and densify neighborhoods will not and exclusionary zoning unless there's a value capture mechanism such as units as part of the solution and otherwise it will produce more housing affordableto working-class families . the proposals areaffordable by design which we know result in the development of unaffordable units . the city must include an equitable mapping lens to provide higher value capture for their projections and low income communities such as

bayview, visitation valley and excelsior. it's imperative the board of supervisors come together and reachconsensus on one proposal . these discussions must ensure the needs of low income bipoc communities are centered. the final proposal must be looked at through a nuanced lens that considers racial and cultural impacts as well as economic factors and how one-size-fits-allcity proposals will affect each neighborhood differently . >>. >> caller: i'm a resident betweenthe border of district 7 and district 11 . support for the amendment says this proposal does diversify between lower income and bipoc

residents and hopefully will bring back those displaced residents from the past such as people from fillmore and bayview mission, things like that and hopefully bring them back into sf specifically and locations like neighborhoods of presidium or st.francis . and even the left side of san francisco as well which maybe has notventured in their own time . and then i noticed that there are speakers on the call now that are trying to advocate unlike the other side but much like the way they speak and where they're located at their neighborhoods that they are trying to make sure they don't want honestly to diversify. i feel like i want to increase diversity for individuals that i'm trying to advocate for and experiencing them from a low

income background as a californian or hispanic individual. we've already seen past ideas of housing productions and conservative housing practices. berkeley ischanging up things right now which is awesome . we go to berkeley for recognizing that and trying to be more equitable intheir approach to housing . we use these tactics for other types of individuals at the excuse of neighborhood character and environmental impact or even trying to return gentrification to housing production again. and then with this proposal we could actually achieve all that and also put those individuals that you know, they do actually

call for diversityand things like that . we canactually do that with this proposal . that's pretty much it. >> caller: this is anastasia you novelist, a member of san franciscotenants union . it struck me as odd that supervisor mandelman is putting to and zoning reforms today when on november 1 he tweeted this planning department data. san francisco has far exceeded our determined goals for new market rate housing for 2015 through 2022 with over 18,000 units built and almost 56,000 in the pipeline. also he said we have only built

6000 new below-market rate units with 1300 in the pipeline when we're heading 148 percent of our market rate target and only 35 percentof our below-market rate target , both of which will substantially increase in thenext cycle. something is seriously wrong . neither sb nine or mandelman's zoning reforms as currently proposed are any benefit to our most honorable communities. none of the proposed are age zoning will create wealth building opportunities or communities historically harmed by exclusionaryzoning . which should be the city's priority with these proposals. the up zoning's will simply be a wealth transfer by getting wealthy homeowners and developers the opportunity to build wealth through the construction of market rate units which will further increase existing inequities in

our city. there must be a value capture mechanism as several previous speakers said coupled with the up zoning such as requiring affordability for very low and extremely low income affordable housing to predict our low income bipoc communities and present prevent further displacement and maintain the currentaffordability balance . without a housing inventory currently in place commissioners, tenant occupancy can be verified and displacements will inevitably occur. commissioners, for these and other reasons i urge you to reject supervisor mandelman's detailed and sweeping zone reform and planning recommendationstoday. i feel the board of supervisors

will be better positioned to develop a plan for equitable housing protection . thank you. >> caller: can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> caller: i previously lived and worked in san francisco but because my rent was increasingly high i was unable to live there so imoved out a month ago . i'm here today to urge you to support supervisor mandelman's legislation to legalize four units on every lot. i've heard a lot of comments and i want to say every house unit that is not built in san francisco is built in another city that lacks attendance protections that san francisco has and that puts those priorities in those cities more risk of displacing. i feel like there is a san

francisco only focus on this legislation or the concerned about that does not accommodate the gentrification features of other communities inother cities around san francisco . housing now is already unaffordable and i don't understand the argument of how this is going to make it more unaffordable whenit will lead to an increased power supply . there are duplexes and some that exist throughout the city yet we have to zoning code that prevents more of those units each of which individually be more affordable than every house in san francisco right now. i wish we had a better value capture mechanism which would be higher taxes. higher tax revenue and the development of each of these individual properties but considering that is essentially

deferred for other mechanisms in value capture which genuinely has led to the development of any housing project that goes to a slow crawl while people continue to bedisplaced due toincreased housing costs . we support this plan . >> caller: this islorraine petty, affordable housing advocate . these proposals should have just a strong continuance so that everyone can consider improvements. the planning report mixes too many conflicting elements that either need to be pulled together in a comprehensive umbrella legislation or separated into an sb nine standalone into a mobile program. these four plexus consider down

the road . i recognizesb nine's urgency . this will generate confusion and set precedent that may later prove to be an advisable and difficult to revise. there aremany helpful concepts . but overall instead of equity and managing density more easily the differing parts plaster the opposite and raise so many unanswered questions. indeedwhere is the affordability ? how many adu's can be added to an affordable six plex. with the constructor problem open density? why allow power converters at all? and then where is the enforcement?

the affordable units as shown in the workers surveyed and. [inaudible] and the report doesn't make the program equitable. it's not equitable just tooffer loans . instead grants to low income owner occupiers are needed to promote construction. grants could be acquired in perpetuity. proposed tenant restrictions mustbe applied to both pathways for equity everywhere . the for-profit non-owner occupiers should be excluded from building in vulnerable or sensitive areas. and these sensitive areas must be defined as community members not outside academics.

allowing for infrastructure plans that must be addressed. these proposals are not ready for prime time. thank you. >> this is vivian dwyer of pallet architects and i'm chair of the aia public policy and advocacy committee and we and the aia work with these proposals. we also believe that it should include all the proposals from the planning department or the recommendations of the plannin department . and in commentary to another person'scomment today , what is the value that's captured?

this will help take the people that are living onthe street off the street . it will bring the cost of units down if there are more units on the market and request need for these units. it will bringservices to your community . it will create more community and density which creates stronger neighborhoods and these are great benefits that could be added to your community by allowing this legislation to be approved. thank you so much. goodbye. >> caller: my name is jordan wayne and i've been a resident of s.f. for three years and my support for this program is personal to me. i lived my entire life in multi- unit housing. my family moved from duplex to

duplex 24 plex and for my family paying rent was a stretch and we were forced to move many times because of rent increases but it was doable and to this day my parents don't live in a small plex. housing units allowed by the ordinance made my family find housing we could afford. i walked to school and it meant he could visit my elderly grandparents and my parents had just a short drive to work . that means less stress, less time commuting and more time for family but today it is not legal to build the kind of housing i grew up with in most of san francisco and far more people want to live here than in my hometown. the ordinance would change that and make a wider range of income and live near their job and their family. the critical thing here is we

need it to actually get built. building in san francisco is expensive and the process makes it more expensive. we need housing built as densely aspossible . every bit process we add to this, every hearing, every newly is going to add to the cost of building these units and every additional cost means more people who can't live there. i urge you to support the ordinance before you allow units on corner lot and make every one of the units allowed by this piece of legislation where the four units or six or more approved ministerial he so that they are asaffordable as possible for many families like my own . >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm an architect in san francisco and i'm cochair of the aiapublic policy action

committee . i believe in a the force of gravity and i believe in the law of supply and demand and that's why i'm urging you to support rafael mandelman's legislation as well as the changes or the recommendations that the planning department hasissued . of zoning is the key to adding supply. high-quality housing contributes to the neighborhoo . it allows people to walk to work potentially. to walk to their shopping. to walkand see other neighbors out on the street . it will ultimately contribute to stabilization on the cost of housing. i can't say 2 and a half million will cost 500,000 in 10 years but it does stabilize the market because there's not so much demand for every property

that is on the market. higher density is a classic urban design and i'm also a homeowner in noe valley and the shopping as a great example of four-story buildings that are built out that have multiple units in them and i don't think anybody today would look and say that's awful. that's too big. then finally i just want to urge you to recognize that there's an increase in supply for the city and the taller buildings on the corner and the older buildings are licensed and they contribute to the city's character. it's not a new concept in san francisco. it's an old concept so let's go back to providing stronger neighborhoods through higher

density . thank you very much. >> good afternoon planning commission. i'mcalling here in support of zoning .i was encouraged to see supervisor mandelman's submission for number 10 but i want to emphasize that they are a local response to our overarching rh and a obligations. if we continue to be able to plan as a citythat we only have one clear choice . if the planning commission wishes to make these decisions we have one clear choice and that is to support these local propositions that will allow us to address the needed housing gap that we already have an as the previous speaker emphasized we respect science and the laws of supply and demand and allowing newhousing to be built

. but we don't allow housing to build is insanity and a local one worthy of mockery and conservatism in our society we should absolutely build as much housing as possible so i encourage the commission to support this and i am looking forward to a growing city that wants to be built here. thank you very much to the commission. >> i'm a volunteer with s fnd and i'd like to thank supervisor mandelman for proposing this progressive legislation. when i think of this legislation i think about the family area and in particular like my grandmother . she's older now so she's often dealing with one illness or another. but thankfully she hasmy uncle

who lives right next door to her . and sure enough in algeria because they share a four plex it's really easy for them to pop up and check on her. share the responsibility of taking care of her and with her agent so much better becauseof their daily care . and my cousins, likewise are much better off being able to see theirgrandmother . she helps take care of their kids and in sf, these type of living arrangements are next to impossible. and that's not just because of the on affordability of housin . it's because the four plex's were talking about ourillegal . so i hope you support this legislation. that helps keep families together. when we talk about value capture when families play together that is real value. my grandmother being able to see her uncles and her sons at

her age and not be alone as so many american seniors are. that's real value so i hope you support this legislation. >> my name is dave alexander. i live in district 1 and i work in district 6 and i'm here to urge you to support supervisor mandelman's legislation to legalize four units on every residential lot and along with theplanning department recommendation allow six units on corner lots . i have two young children and there are no real housing options at this point . i've seen so many families leave our public school over the past few years and it's because there's no housing and it's blocked using equity as a wedge issue. so i'm really look to other

colors on this call using equity uses these are the same folks that have been blocking housing on the west side so we need to do our part in the sunset and i think this is a great first step citywide so we need more housing to bring down the cost. for families and our friends. thank you so much and have a great day. >> thank you supervisor madeleine and all the staff. my name is warhammer and i live in district 8. for the past 10years on pulling in support of this legislation and i urge you to pass it . our city needs more housing. not less. not more hurdles in the way of housing. people are leaving our city every day because they can't afford a home and we need to do everything we can to make it

more affordable to live here and that includes especially building more housing so i urge you to pass this legislation and fact supervisor mandelman, his staff and all theother staff who have worked on this and everyone was called in today . thank you so much. >> my name is david brockman and i live in district 5 and i'm calling to support the supervisor mandelman proposal. i'm a member of the community in the city and i think it's no accident that one of our out lgbt you elected officials that is putting forward this great proposal. i think about moving to the city when i was in my early 20s it was very hard to afford a place but the place i was able to afford was in a duplex and afford a single family home so

thinking back to my story growing up in conservative texas being able to move here i think my story would be possible if you don't legalize more units like this. it's also the case that the unit i move into i later learned a person who moved out stayed in sf and moved to a new housing unit and that goes to show a pattern we see an academic research. i'm also a professor at uc berkeley and i've looked closely at a lot of the research on the construction of new housing but what you see is when you create new housing units what happens is also called filtering so when you create new units people who would otherwise displace existing residents or who are in affordable units into that new house. i benefited from that process be able to move into a room that had it not been for the new housing that my previous occupant had moved into i would

have never been able to moveto san francisco so i encourage you to pass this legislation . it makes stories like mine possible and i'd encourage you to view some of these requirements from onerous paperwork anddifferent reforms , really as a true force. the more requirements you placed on our bureaucracy, the less will be built. if you create a complex it creates new housing. >> hypothetically the housing would be perfect but when you create new units 50 or 75 percent oregon so i ask you as you create your amendments think about are you doing what sounds good. so many of us have benefited from previous legislation that is done good in committee housing and i hope future generations can make this as

well that meansactually building these units . >> caller: this is sean donovan and i still live in the portola district with my mother. and i graduated from lowell highschool in 2000 andme and my girlfriend do not want to be living with my mother . but that's the only place we can live .because the houses in this formerly working-class neighborhood although for $2 million apiece. i watched my friends that i grew up with leave the city one by onebecause of the costof single-family homes . my friends are speech therapists, teachers and public interest lawyers . they don't receivedoc options which would allow them to pay for a home and don't qualify foraffordable housing subsidies so we're stuck . i urge you to support this legislation . not all of us can afford a

house but we might be able to afford an apartment. you can decide to help fix the system. thank you.>> caller: this is jonathan randolph and i support both of supervisor mandelman's ordinances to allow for units per adu on all lot and i'm glad to see us finally making small steps to alleviate the housing shortage. this would address the limit which has long been updated and that the density limits have been enforced against all the undocumented 80 use my family would have been displaced from san francisco many years ago. i spent most of my life in illegal 80 use in san francisco andi'm thankful to landlords for flouting these limits and

allowing my family to live in the city . i'm glad we can pass the arguments against you housing such as too many people. now i disagree with the planning department recommendation to require unit diversity. unit divers is as important as unit equity and i don't think there's anybody anything any study on the trade-offs. i previously lived in an 80 use that would not have satisfied the requirements because i lived downstairs and somebody else lived in the third floor. i believe allowing some units to be argue larger than others will get a greater diversity of people who live in the city. isn't it another way to get the inclusion advertised by theterm inclusionary housing and it's strong reason to discourage them . as for the suggestions by the planning department , additional impact fees and value capture i think you should treat value capture as attacks on one good thing to pay for anothergood thing rather than as an impact fee because the impact study is not

sensible . we need more housing of all types andwould increase the tax we should try to minimize the deadweight loss . if there's no value their captors and don't increase the taxes. this is also consistent with av 1229 from 2013 says it's okay to have inclusionary housing as long as you make a study that shows that it's not too high it does incentivize the construction ofhousing. of course the best tax would be one that applies to incumbent landowners regardless of whether they are building more housing . i do support the planning department other recommendations of down payment assistance on construction loans . one othersuggestion is to reduce the rear setback in our h2 districts to match 32 percent setback . because ironically underthis ordinance you could build a bigger house in an rh one district that and our h2 districts . soplease approvethese two

ordinances . i don't think they will be sufficient to meet our needs but it's a good step in the right direction . thank you . >> i live and work in the city and i'm here again to urge the commission to support the supervisors legislature to legalize for units on residential lot as well as the planning department recommendation to allow the six units on order. as someone who is a renter in the city and someone who spends almost half of their paycheck on rent i am keenly aware of our housing crisis. so are numerous young adults like me who are living and working in the city and want to have more options. i think this proposal would make our city more accessible, more affordable and more equitable for everyone in san francisco who currently lives there but also who wishes to live here and cannot because of

our high housingcosts. this proposal will help democratize housing developments through the whole city not only on the east side of the city . so i really want to support this. and lastly i just as someone who is latino and hispanic i find it quite ironic that there's so many homeowners primarily white and wealthy who are so concerned about gentrification and are so concerned with supporting and uplifting bipoc communities but at the same time are stoutly against any construction of housing in the city that makes no sense to me. so again, as someone who want tocontinue living here i support both of these proposals and i hope the commission supports them as well . >> caller: my name is gloria and i'm executive director of community action and obviously

i'm going to speak in favor of this legislation. i think it's good we're thinking about local solutions in addition and partially because the state is led by san francisco legislators who are demanding that san francisco and every community across the state get more serious about our need for more housing. and while i appreciate the urge to do things in a particular san francisco way, we need to think about what the cost historically have been doing things in a particular san francisco way. especially when it comes to for. >>and small projects . we know that the very particular san francisco way is arguing about everything and relitigating every single project . and small projects when we don't have ministerial approvals are the ones that will not be able to actually get through our permitting process.we know that lower income people are going to be

the most likely to get up in the space of neighborhood opposition because they're not going to be able to make as much time to go around and negotiate with every single neighbor and i hope the planning department takes an active look at what is the cost of making things even they might think it's just making things a little bit more, let's negotiate here. every time we take something out of the ministerial process and put it back up for debate a high burden on people who may not have as much access to capital, people whomay not have as much time . you're making sure that only those with political social and economic capital are able to navigate through that process. so really bringing that equity mindset into the permitting process is the next step for san francisco. i also want to say that we should all be proud ofourselves that we are having such a

mature conversation about this . i think it's a conversation in san francisco about the need for housing as taken leaps and bounds and we're going to have this conversation again throughout the housing element process which is going to ask san francisco to rezone across the entire city to allow a lot more housing and for. >>, it's nice but it's not going to be sufficient for us to meet our housing production goals throughout the city so we're going to have to have a much bigger conversation for those who are worried about for. >> i want to push you to get excitedabout what we're going to be debating as far as the housing element process overall . >> caller: peter papadopoulos with mission economic development agency.

i want to first thank supervisor mandelman's office for inviting us into this conversation with them. we know there are a number of related rh supervisor proposals and play at this time along with sb 98 and now a new set of the apartment recommendations and we very much like to see these allpulled together into one proposal that leads with an equity lens starting with deeper affordability . zoning itself will not benefit the mission district and committees across the city. it can create affordability in itself as we know they're just market-rate units and we need to recognize the neighborhoods across the city yet different needs and we're going to need to meet those needs through an equitable lens. to answer someprevious callers regarding affordability , having read many of those housing studies we know that is a whole additional market late housing might slowly benefit an entire region in the long run. aggregate but they're not

long-term statistics and their lives are affected individually and on an individual level so we need to meet those needs to make sure that we are keeping the fabric of our neighborhood intact. and in 2018 the federal reserve study in fact indicates the popular neighborhoods like the mission can't in fact build their way out to affordability so in order to ensure that any of zoning we implement has a stabilizing effect on our neighborhoods and creates wealth building opportunities forthose communities themselves , we like to very much the included significant value capture mechanism such as deep affordability requirements, and low ami levels. we like to see a loan program extended to these homeowners, something similar to that which we know is in play . we like to see low and very low income units qualify for permit expediting. we also like to see the option that these homeowners can partner with nonprofits across

the city if thatwere to help them regain control of their own project .we also like to see very much an equitable mapping lens such as utilizing the formulas and that the community provide higher value to capture incommunities through deeper affordability . we'd like to make sure that it's owner-occupied for at least threeyears from the time of certificate of completion . we'd like to avoid sb tends larger scale of zoning which would invoke even more low income areas of the city and staff environmental review that sets a clear high bar for equity so we hope departments will pull together and create one equity led proposaland would love to be part of the further conversation .

>> caller: i'm an immigrant as you can hear from my voice. i've been hearing a lot about affordability in the spaces. where are one of the most successful communities in the us as a millennial much of the people in my generation are not dot-coms or ipo billionaires or millionaires so it's really important to remember that we're basically suckedinto a rent cycle .having to be roommates with three or four people and standard housing so i recommend the commission approved supervisor mandelman

plan. iq. >> caller: thank you for these three minutes. i want to highlight 2 points i made in my three-page letter to the commission and one is the physical constraints to increase density to the size of the typical san francisco lot. it may be easy on the corner lots because of exposure but it's hard on the interior lots. and also the other thing i want to highlight is the need for an occupancy study for all the market we re-housing that's been built in the last 10 years in theeastern neighborhood. further i know that apartments and sbnine are coming regardless of what the city does . but sb 10 is less pressing . even ruben rose and our

analysis see if the city's election so here are three other points. your october 21 summary from the staff analyzing sb nine said on page 10 that the department was working on a financial analysis of the financial viability of sbnine development scenarios . and it would be done in late october. so this is november now. isn't this necessaryinformation before proceeding with these code amendments ? also the citywide cultural resource survey which had information the other day with hpc is other way and will not be completed until 2026. isn't this necessary information particularly since it's looking through the lens of racial and socialequity ? finally the residential home guidelines as currently written are not subjective. they have been formally in place since 2003 and were

developed two years prior to that. they are extensiveeveryone should dig out their copy . last night i reread my copy with groundcover and these guidelines are in the planning code under section 311 if you read the introduction to the residential design guidelines, it seems clear they are objective standards to be applied to projects in the rh districts. that's it, thankyou very much . be thanksgiving by the way. >> my name is kathleen and i live in north beach and i'm a renter i'm very excited about this proposed legislation. san francisco has tried not building housing for the last fivedecades and we all know the outcome . the highest rents in the country, communities torn apart by displacement and evictions and spiraling inequality. this legislation is a very small step in the right direction ." caused aseachange

in san francisco . it won't repair all the harm caused by its gas housing policy but it will undo some of the mistakes of the past and i applaud supervisor mandelman for proposing and i have two concerns about this proposal. one is sb 10 allows rezoning for10 units on the lot . given san francisco's crossing housing shortage i can't understand why we wouldn't maximize the housing we can get from this rezoning ripped rezoning for 10 units would allow us to force developers to build below-market rates units through san francisco's inclusionary zoningordinance . my other concern is that rezoning rh one lots to rh do seem like a policy decision designed to subvert sb nine and prevent housing from getting built in some of thewealthiest lowest density neighborhoods . this is an anti-housing

anti-equity provision that would further our housing crisis. we need objectivestandards and ministerial approval not project by project. please help get politics out of the development process by striking this provision . i want to reiterate overall i'm very excited about the legislation. i recently got engaged and we are now looking for a new place to start our lives together and i don't know if you have looked at the housing market lately but it's terrible parenting. thanks for your time. >> i'm making and i live in district 4 and i'm calling in support of the proposed legislation for 4 unit lots . most importantly these proposals will expand housing access including access to affordable housing depending on how you define that red building on existing lot is more environmentally friendly

and provides new jobs single-family zoning is a long racist history and continues t perpetuate racial inequality. the sunset is dominated by single-family homes . sanfrancisco welcomes new neighbors . we have think it's 4 unit lot across the street and its great to see people who couldn't otherwise live inthe neighborhood get to be our neighbors . so yes, allowing new development of more lots helps everyone and i urge you to support these recommendations . >> caller: my name is jonathan and i'm the lead with northern neighbors and a resident of district 2. i support supervisormandelman's proposal to allow houses on corner lots in the city . i live on the block and i'm

fortunate to live on a block that has a widerange of housing options from single-family homes to large apartment buildings and to actually a lot of midsize buildings .the fourplexproposal creates a vibrant amazing neighborhoods a . i would love that more people in this city could have access to places where there's availability and housing at all income levels andthus strongly support this proposal . thank you. >> my name as well and i'm a sanfranciscan living in district 3 and also a volunteer . i'm here to speak in support of the proposals to a zone lots to allow for unitseverywhere and six units on our corners . i moved to san francisco in pursuit of

>> for the rest of the area. increase housing supply also increasing rent and keep the city accessible to a wide range of people as possible. i also want to echo. city control and avoiding ministerial approval reducing

administrative burden is critical for an effect on how we've felt and provisions like or additional unit size requirements. counter productive to the broader goal of the legislation and discussion i also want to respond briefly to the frustration of some of the other callers. i'll wait for a single proposal that will solve. meaningful increase housing housing supply. and make the city more accessible. thank you. >> caller: this is adam. i live in d6. i'm calling in favor of the proposals. i think it's -- i don't think it's perfect and i don't think it's going to solve all of our problems, but i do think it's

absolutely necessary first step to get all of this done. we heard prior callers talk about value capture and how they're worried about numbers and who's going to benefit. ch let's talk about some of those numbers are. . right now, it is those homeowners. if we do nothing, if we keep the status quo, it's the homeowners who are going to they that free value. in the last year alone, california average home equity gain was $116,000. according to the california legislative analyst office, that actually, the tip home in california gained 21.2% in value from 2020 to july 2021. that gives you an idea of how much homeowners in san francisco are benefitting from stopping the process, from keeping the existing values as

they are that's going to people who are already rich. opening this up is going to open up san francisco to people who can't otherwise afford to live here. it's absolutely necessary we have that in order to maintain the creativity, the flexibility, the viability of, you know, of our city. over the years, the last 15 years i've lived here in san francisco, i've seen people leave we can't afford if someone else decided to make perfect enemy of the good. another statistic. over the last 20 years. the median household income went up 65%. in the same time, the average house value went up 142%. that means single family

homeowners are capturing value that they're not paying for that renters and low income folks aren't. so let's move this forward. let's make it happen. let it be the first step and, please, let's make a ministerial approval. we can't have exceptions. when i see an appeal. i have to ask, what are you doing in your back yard? just make things happen quick. thank you. >> i am calling in opposition to this legislation because i feel like the sb 9 as it stands will already afford to become

four units. a duplex and we can add an adu essentially four units. so the thing that i've been hearing a lot of people say is that adding in support of this legislation in opposition of all the extra process, if you just let the sb 9 be approved and implemented, it will allow the density to go up by itself without the legislation and without all of the extra paper work. thank you. >> hi. my name is julie deck. i'm an architect and live in district 10. i'm in support of this legislation. i am the chair of the san francisco a.i.s.f. small firms

committee and i'm in strong agreement in that letter. i think one thing i'd like to point out is that i think that this could really be a way for homeowners to be able to create generational wealth for people who are not already wealthy. people tend to talk about these residential developments like its developers are doing all of this, let's make this a route for homeowners who aren't wealthy, are but do have property. maybe it's been passed off generation to generation. let them maximize it so they can keep it for their families and have it be flexible for two, three generations of people, but also let them i agree with the previous caller on the residential design guidelines not being, being not subjective. they are very subjective.

ful we see some projects able to kind of push them depending on what planners you're working with. there's definitely a lot of variation that happens with the residential design guidelines. i don't believe that we'll really see the effect that we want to see if the current residential design guidelines apply particularly to the corner lot. just in summary, i'm very supportive of the four units everywhere and six units on the corner lot and let's make it happen so we can get more housing going soon. thanks. >> hi. this is steve marza calling. i see the real north of ocean

avenue is district 7. it's mostly single family homes. south of ocean avenue is district 11. a bit more mixed of duplexes, four plexes, 10-unit apartment buildings. it's very stark saying the difference between the people who live in north of ocean avenue which is generally very homogenous and south it's a much more inclusive community. and the primary difference is the density and that's because a single family home is the ultimate luxury housing and i noticed that it's such a crazy dividing line, ocean avenue and it just doesn't feel fair and why do we need to exclude communities from large swaths

of our city because of neighborhood character, views, these are low priorities in our society. we need to think about building a city that welcomes everyone. so i would love to see this. ment i'm calling in support. i would love to see ways to figure out how to stream line if we can. to improve legislation. but i think that supervisor mandelman's four plex legislation will help undo discriminatory zoning. it will create housing. that can be beautiful and is already seen in so much of the city and just really we want to expand more on that and create more opportunity and we'll actually help with legislation. where i really do feel strongly about this, i'd love to have across the bay.

you got two cities right next to each other and also oakland where berkeley and oakland have seen a huge swath of their black residents lead where they increased density and built a lot more houses for the african american population. thank you for your time. we support this legislation. >> caller: hi everyone. i'm calling on my personal capacity. i live in a 12-unit rent controlled. building in district three which i and many of my neighbors would not be able to live in san francisco. i agree and wanted to call in and agree with supervisor

mandelman's staff on projects below ten units and that it could also make those projects inseasonable. i also say we should have three preferences for cheaper housing. the next best option is rent controlled housing perhaps even by trading away one inclusionary unit. similar to our adu program. the lease option in my opinion is one or a handful of units in the inclusionary zoning. while we do have plenty of beef and my strenuous market rate housing. not rich ones thank you.

>> caller: good afternoon commissioners. the racial and social equity analysis clearly lay out a plan. it's mostly superficial and unattainable at this point. the zonings under discussion including the ones reported today will not create wealth by exclusionary zoning. communities will not be able to take advantage of these zonings and build additional units on their properties due to a lack of access and financing and technical assistance. zonings will be wealthy homeowners and really developers the opportunity to build wealth through construction market rate units until further increasing equities in our city. the biggest benefit will be to the real estate industry. i personally witnessed real estate agents going door to door speaking to owners.

i've seen the numerous postcards for anyone wanting to sell the speculators. not to buy but to monitor future evictions that are likely forthcoming. multiple properties in the mission have been and are coming up for sale being delivered evacuee cannot. there's always a back story to those vacancies and not usually a healthy one. aside from the 15-year lsgs the legislation is just that. fairly easy loopholes to get it will be very easy while waiting out the planning and financing process. this current legislation doesn't do enough to guard all the table eviction which i've personally witnessed in the last several years in my neighborhood. we should explore pause or temporary adjustment to permanent legislation of applying through sb 9 and other proposals equitably.

without a housing inventory or rental industry in place, tenants will be displaced without anyone knowing could take the on these zoning projects while these discussions continue. the city must also include an equitable mapping when communities to be overlaid in these zonings to provide a higher capture through the form of very low and extremely low income and affordable housing and protect our low income properties. thank you. >> hello planning commissioners. thank you for taking my comment. i live in district 10. i think that increase in the option or greater number of units per lot will benefit the people of san francisco. they will increase per square mile making transit more viable

across our transit first city with added benefit of reducing it person's carbon and improving mobility for our youth, seniors, and others who cannot drive. it will increase the moneys going to san francisco so we can further fund social programs, maintain our roads and sidewalks and improve public spaces like our parks. homeowners can increase the number of units on their property while renters benefit from all our prices. contractors, subcontractors and developers especially on the smaller end can build up san francisco homes. smaller home builders benefit more from constructing small and medium sized homes. pressure on low income units has likely been due to the great influx of people that san francisco had jobs for but did not build homes for. a needs assessment for the up coming sf housing data shows

between 1980 and 2018 despite overall population growth, people earning between 30% to 120% were not building enough but rebalance the housing ratio in san francisco. let's allow people to live near where they work, reduce green house gas emissions, improve mobility for all. improve our public services and make housing affordable at a pace determined by san francisco as recommended by the planning department. let's make san francisco a golden gate that welcomes new residents as this melting pot had before. >> hi. current resident. i was displaced from san francisco at the start of the

pandemic. as unemployed [inaudible] an adu also passed, i didn't know they would affect me. . now, without them, my home in sf wouldn't exist. i might not be able to live here. if i go back in time, i would give public comment to say, please create my home. i'm here to pay for and ask to create space for future san franciscans. the current san franciscans living in overcrowded spaces don't know how the unit will be

built. other crimes kick in. if we really want to see more value captured, we should be encouraging ten-year buildings. we should be building on top of the process and making something even more the process in many of these units won't actually be built. to take advantage of these opportunities. but also for fixing the current inequities in san francisco and only a few districts: [inaudible] >> hi, i rent a 12-unit

building back six years on the corner lot. i support these changes because greater density, our city's only shot at becoming affordable and meeting the challenges of climate change. people want to move to san francisco and people want to stay in san francisco. that map only works if we build more units more densely. we have so many single family homes where only the wealthiest can live. . the richer will buy buildings from the already rich. of the we're pushing the issue off to the rest of the counsels in the bay. and build more units. i work with people every day, mostly black and brown, born and raised here who simply cannot afford to live in their home city anymore. they don't need an entire building which is the only neighborhood that san

francisco. they use stable long-term place they can stay with their families and right now the options simply aren't there. even just for renting, let alone to buy. of the city is already just desperately unaffordable. we're not stopping displacement. and legalize multi-family homes across san francisco and towards continuing to allow for greater density across the entire city because these proposals are not enough, but they would be a good start towards fixing our housing crisis. thank you for your time. >> hi there. my name's ian. i'm a resident of the castro and i'm calling in support of supervisor mandelman's legislation. pretty close to home for me because i live on a corner lot.

and i whenever i've looked at single family homes, renting from single family homes nearby, it's just like they're always more expensive and i just think this is really the only way we get out of this housing crisis is by building more middle housing. so, anyway. i would urge the board to support this legislation. thanks so much and happy thanksgiving. >> caller: hello. i hope you can hear me okay with my mask on. i want to echo what a lot of people have said that this is a great idea. it increases access. it increases options for people. it will increase sustainability. two hours doing soul crushing

commutes which is what i had to do for awhile. and i also just wanted to say that i'm so encouraged by this proposal and all the comments that we've heard to support it. one thing that i think may be overlooked in what's good about this is that many folks in san francisco are skeptical of big developers and big developments which fair enough, i don't have a problem with it, but this scale of housing four plexes is exactly the scale of housing that would be possible for smaller developers and for individuals. so i think this is the perfect thing to be able to add units and do something that is more gentle and something that, you know, provides housing for

people but is less intimidating for people maybe who are afraid of the changes that can happen with this. and another critical piece of encouraging smaller developers is to make the process more predictable and make it faster. so that means doing ministerial approval. people that don't have deep pockets can't forward to spend five years waiting through ongoing reviews and designs, redos which is what happens. i actually designed multi-family housing and it's incredibly subjective. there's any number of ways that you can interpret what the guidelines are. so having ministerial approval and just eating up the process any way that you can is going to do so much more to bring the units and to make it something

that can be produced by individuals and smaller developers. so i encourage you to pass this. thank you so much. >> hi, my name is brian salarski. i'm calling in support of supervisor mandelman's legislation. along the planning department's recommendation for six units. i think the reality is that we need to accept really is that the city is changing. and it always is. and when we don't adapt with that change, then things just don't work. in this case, we are -- have a lot of very high returning people who want to live in the

city and if there's a restriction supply, then basic economics tells us that the price is going to go up and that is exactly what we see in the city. and have more room for more people in the city and bring the prices down that is it. thank you very much. >> caller: hi. my name's davy kim. i'm a renter and want to call in support of supervisor mandelman's legislation. as a proud knob hill resident, i can't help but think there's so many reasons to stay, there's so many great

restaurants and accessible small businesses like corner markets, hardware shops, pet stores. i absolutely love it here and what i also can't help associate this neighborhood character with the amount of dense housing and apartment units that exist out here. i'd hope that other neighborhoods might have the same opportunity to benefit the same way that our neighborhood has. you know, to be clear, i'm not advocating all neighborhoods become knob hill, but simply that any neighborhood might have the ability to be transit friendly and i think this will bring us a step closer to that. i also want to respect this concern over this issue of value capture. but i want to appeal to the same concern and maybe flip it

a little bit to say we should be spreading the wealth and not hoarding it. knob hill and san francisco especially by this cycle of lip service to changing our policies that inaction can strip any reasonable new supply of housing and it effectively barred low income families from becoming apart of the community. i didn't arrive at this conclusion on my own. i'm simply listening to the overwhelming evidence of the equity matters and urban governments and urban economy that, you know, show reasonable measures like this for more apartments can help the situation. either way, we as san franciscans should not be

afraid of diverse communities. so i support this legislation. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. with united to save the mission. it's a continued frustration and a front to our working class communities of color that the city continues to state real estate investors increasing our insanely high market rates while our working class residents can make the city if they even have a home at all. we have multiple families living in a single apartment. we have families in sro and a

single rv and the mission bay shore cannel stick. our families in the mission make 40% less and yet we we keep hearing talk about the future for new san franciscos. what future do our working class families have. i can tell you that weltier folks have a hard time getting capital to renovate and expand. they have a hard time finding housing for a year or two while they build to utilize this expanded zoning.

of each time we make zoning changeses, we have a choice. we should choose to leave nothing on the table to create a requirement for deeply affordable housing and capture value for our communities. the market is not going to create this deeply affordable housing. our leaders cannot continue to operate in an alternative universe of the wealthy while all residents of color live in this experience and if we're going to ask state legislators to do the right thing for communities of color in san francisco, we need to legislate an example doing right by them by the board of supervisors. thank you. >> hi, my name is jessica. i'm a local real estate agent

and i support this legislation. i look to housing in san francisco and it's been a struggle because the supply is so short and the prices are so high that living in the city that they work in so we've been looking outside of san francisco because there's just not enough supply. >> caller: hi. i live in district five. i support increasing the ministerial aspects of the bill. a couple months ago, i attended

a planning commission where a homeowner was allowed to build a 4,000 or more square foot mansion in liberty hill because it was allowed by zoning. it was a single family zoning district. it was captured. there was no affordable housing that was created and i've seen that happen a lot and that's not to say the planning commission is doing something wrong, but the planning commission has to do what the planning code allows. for households living in a 4,000 square foot four plex makes sense. a 4,000 square-foot home is only affordable to a family who can spend millions of dollars on themselves. of that's the status quo and yet we are not able to have 4,000 square-foot home four plexes in cases where only a single family home is allowed. and i think over 70,000 miles

from san francisco. i'd also like to point out the jobs housing support for 2020 which was recently published this month. in 2020, we had an unmet need of over 120,000 homes for the last ten years. now, according to the planning department projections, by 2040, we will have an unmet need of 105,000 homes. so we'll improve that unmet need by 19,000 homeses. we will still be in the home for over 100,000 homes and that has real cost. real people are being displaced and have been displaced for decades. something has to change. if we continue ton the status quo, where is the value capture from having a housing deficit of over 100,000 units. you know, are people -- our most vulnerable communities are leaving every day. where's, you know, why aren't

we doing anything about that. if we continue to say value capture, we're losing a lot of value from all the people that we are losing every single day. so that's my comment. thank you. >> i want to call in support of supervisor mandelman's four plex legislation. any increase in ministerial approval because i'm just tired of watching all of my friends move out of the city. i'm tired of having to think about when my life progresses am i going to be able to stay here. will that make any sense. san francisco still zones wealthy neighborhoods for less housing than eastern neighborhoods like the mission and the western addition. st. francis woods, glen hill,

forest park. everybody in city hall is in favor of more offices and invited 100,000 more people to the city in the last ten years. now, we need more homes where san francisco can welcome people without making it the hunger games. thank you. >> caller: hello. i live in ashbury in district 5. and the planning department's recommendation to allow up to six units on all corner lots. this legislation will add more affordable homes. by providing more options across the city. i've lived in the city for a decade and want to call san francisco my forever home.

however, i worry every day on whether it will be viable for me to even live here in a year. the cost of housing is exorbitant. we can't pass legislation for homes without building across the city. it's a reminder of policy. to a progressive stage and end this and support more homes for more people. please say yes to more homes, more density, and more neighbors of all income levels. please pass this legislation. thank you. . >> caller: hi there. my name is danny sadder. i'm calling to support these billses and i want to first thank supervisor mandelman for his leadership and bringing them forward. i think this is legislation, but it's also actually very modest and historical perspective and much of what this legislation would do is simply to legalize what used to

be allowed before massive down zoning that we saw in the 1970s. in fact, this planning department showed that about 30% of the homes and the city would be illegal to build today. i just wonder if we can imagine what our city would be like without all those amazing residents and neighbors who live in those 30% of homes. so i ask you to please support this and remember our city is in crisis and this is the least we can do. thank you. >> caller: hi. i'm martin munos. i'm a tenant in district 5 and i'd like to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this proposal forward. i am in strong support of this proposal because i never thought it would make sense for so many of our san francisco neighborhoods sold out four-story megamansions enough for moderately sized apartment

buildings. it's simply common sense. you know, i would caution the commission to listen to young people on this issue. i'm never going to be able to afford a million plus dollar mansion in san francisco. and frankly, that's what a single-family home is in san francisco. but i one day might be able to afford an apartment somewhere in the city and certainly not a full single family mansion. i'd be weary of listening to comfortably housed, especially homeowners talking about value capture. we should be capturing value from these single-family mansions: the fact is right now without the status quo allows people to build giant homes and tears in our city and we can't build small apartments. that makes absolutely no sense. we hear from supervisors that they want to up zone the rich parts of the city. so i urge you to please

consider this proposal and to strengthen it so that we're capturing value from these megamansions and allowing for smaller apartments to get built all across the city. thank you. >> hi there. my name is joanna govman. i am a resident and homeowner in the castro. i want to thank my supervisor, supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward. and i support not just legalizing up but also the cleaning department's recommendation to allow up to six units on corner lots. this work, you know, there's been a lot of discussion over what's happening locally and impacts locally. in my work, i have gone into disadvantaged communities in the central valley to support

energy efficiency programs and clean energy programs and as part of that work, i met a lot of people who did want to live where they were living and i also met a lot of people who could not afford to live elsewhere and really did want to live closer in our urban areas on the coast. what i saw when i went there is the first thing you notice when you drive out to the central valley is this maybe it's 40° hotter than it is out here. it's unpleasant and unsafe for seniors. i also met elderly disabled folks who had to carry their propane tanks out i met folks who had their propane tanks that blew up.

and people whose homes were really not what i would hope to live in and not what they would hope to live in. and i think part of the reason why they were experiencing these conditions is because we make it so hard to live here in san francisco. i think from an environmental perspective, from a climate perspective, adaptation perspective, it's important that we allow folks to live here in san francisco. and, in fact, researchers at u.c. berkley have found that one of the most important here, the most important climate action that we can take here between now and 2030 is to have more urban. so from an environmental perspective and from an environmental justice perspective, i hope that we can allow more neighbors in. thank you. >> caller: hi. i'm a renter in district eight.

i'm here today to urge the commission to support a proposal from supervisor mandelman, the planning department. immigrant and issues close to my heart [inaudible] san francisco must build enough housing to support new and existing residents. an increased supply of housing and supported by research and data and urban planning. our status quo for zoning has not been subject to environmental reviews and we don't have time to keep hoping for a silver bullet. >> hi, my name is christina soleji. we've lived in san francisco for two years in two multi-family buildings. and we love living in the city

and i would love to raise my son here which as everyone has said before is just getting more and more unrealistic as we are looking to increase the sides of our current department for something else dipping our toes in the housing market which is absolutely crazy right now and i want to consider the fact that other people have said we need a variety of types of housing and sizes of locations to suit people in all phases of life. not everyone is in the middle age height of their career. there's, you know, young people. people with children and we want to have a spot for everyone in san francisco. some of the most beautiful postcard images of san francisco are of multi-unit housing. knob hill.

north beach. all these quintessential lovely neighborhoods. it's not scary. we love it. it makes a vibrant exciting neighborhood and i don't -- apartments are not a four-letter word that we should be afraid of. so to summarize, i'm in full support of this proposal. thank you, supervisor mandelman. it's low-hanging fruit. we definitely need to do something like this as soon as possible. thanks so much. >> hi. i'm a renter in d6. i'm calling to support this legislation because the housing crisis is having a devastating impact on my generation. looking for housing has become a demoralizing experience. an entire neighborhood very effectively off limits. anything other than a luxury

single-family home is illegal. i once made a graph. to nose dive in the 1980s. around 0 shortly after 1989, the year i was born. to think that my entire generation is excluded from the wealth building opportunities, the previous generation took for granted. how are we to gain a foothold. i support this legislation because it will create housing opportunities for middle class households without taking public subsidy dollars. i also thanked and support to reduce unnecessary costs for bringing these units online. so i support making approval objectives and ministerial. thank you. >> hi. my name is joe rule. i'm a renter in district five

and i want to speak in favor of supervisor mandelman's proposal. i think it's first worth reiterating just the reality that the high cost of housing is caused by a lack of housing supply in the city and that if we were able to get more housing units in this city, we would see -- we would begin to address the crisis that is the high cost of housing in the city. my partner and i recently moved to san francisco and while we understood that prices here are really high, what was most shocking to us was the amount of leverage that landlords have over perspective tenants because there's so much demand for a place to live that they really get to kind of ask whatever they want and really through the full colonosscopy before deciding. along these lines, strong protections are really

important. and what we had in chicago as well. tenants also can build power when they have choice about where they can live and that's something that can be addressed by increasing the housing supply. we love this beautiful walk of the city. i can't help but be pessimistic about our long-term prospects. we'll definitely never be able to afford luxury single-family homes in the city and those are largely illegal in most of the city. every day we do not address the high cost of housing, we communicate to low and moderate income families that they're not welcome in our city and i think that's just really terrible. this proposal would add more homes and provide more options for people to live in our city and i urge you to support this proposal. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners.

cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in support here to say and after coming to these hearings for goodness, five years now, it's really heartening to see so many people speaking up and showing up to support more homes for people. we're in support of the proposal and do think that allowing six units on corner lots makes a lot of sense. that does get a below rate market housing as well. given the current policies around statements and other state laws that work. we also think that the ministerial approval process for not just four plexes, but quite frankly all housing is something that the city needs to continue to pursue. for the variety of reasons why i and our organization think that passing this legislation is important, san francisco's

history of discriminatory zoning is going to add more homes that are smaller and therefore more affordable. it's going to add homes across all of san francisco which will help residents at risk of displacement because when we do add homes for everybody, the probability of somebody gets displaced and evicted out of the city goes down. it is going to be an environmentally friendly tool. we know that the plan is in housing and housing isn't the only thing we need to be doing for our environmental crisis. but it's certainly a big piece of the puzzle. and then this will also create jobs for people so they can hopefully have the opportunity to build housing in the city and then live there long-term. when we think about the pieces to the puzzle or this placement

crisis. zoning is one of the pillars that we know is important in allowing small apartment buildings. we also know that more funding for subsidized affordable housing and housing in general is important. we know that process reform and other regulatory reforms to encourage housing is being built faster will make a difference. and there's a piece of this that's important to regional collaboration. oakland, berkeley, san jose, many other cities are in the process of allowing these types of buildings. and i'm disappointed that san francisco was not leading on this. san francisco tends to be a city that leads on these issues, but we've got the opportunity to do things right right now and i look forward to these discussions by the commission and the eventual vote at the san francisco board of supervisors.

thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chance kwar with green belt alliance. i am proud to live and work here in san francisco. my organization green belt alliance has been working for over 60 years to encourage both the protection of open space as well as directing development and growth into our existing communities to promote climate resilience. we urge you to take decisive action today by supporting supervisor mandelman's proposal to legalize four homes on every residential lot. as we've seen smoke, heat waves, floods, droughts, and other houses intensifying in

the last few years, it has never been clearer that we cannot afford status quo. increasing our development cannot be overstated. the science shows we have opportunities before us to reduce super commutes, reduce i missions and increase water efficiency. today, by supporting supervisor mandelman's proposal. you have the opportunity to contribute to a more resil identity and more climate smart bay area for generations to come. thank you for your time. >> caller: hi. my name is rhett young. i live in the mission and work in the downtown. i'm calling to express my support for all units and six units on corner lots without layering on additional design. i believe this proposal's only

a minimum first step to realizing the housing that san francisco needs reducing inclusionary and discriminatory zoning preserving land and preserving the environment. san francisco cannot afford more of the status quo or further delay. my preference could be to even further up zone across the city and to reduce discretionary oversight for the board of supervisors development by making more improvement. at a minimum. i hope supervisor mandelman's legislation will be passed. thank you. >> caller: hi there. i'm a life long resident in san francisco and i'm calling to voice my concern and lack of support for this initiative. i think we need to increase more density in the city, but this particular piece of legislation will result in

neighborhoods that are primarily minority majority being overwhelmed with new gentrification in neighborhoods. neighborhoods that are often looked at as the sunset and other areas seeing more density. it's not realistic to take corner lots and other lots to convert into four-unit buildings. the lots are too small and if you include the two -- the required two staircases as well as the setbacks, these floor plates will be very small to have such structures. and i don't think it's a good idea. there's much better ways of achieving it that would incorporate affordable housing by having these only four units. none of these will be required to have affordable housing and you will be increasing the housing stock with new expensive units which will only price out more people from living in san francisco and if we have bigger denser areas such as creating the commercial

strips with higher height limits for the structures, you would get more buildings, more units in the buildings and be able to incorporate affordable housing. so there are better ways of achieving thissing goal and i think it's a major mistake to really attack neighborhoods like visitation valley and the bayview for this type of housing because that's the only area where it would be affordable to buy a single-family home in san francisco and tear it down. thank you. >> caller: i live in district 8. supervisor mandelman's district. right on the border of district 7, 9, and 11. i support supervisor mandelman's proposal to legalize buildings, four plexes citywide people live in homes

so we should allow more home building. it's really that simple. i wanted to address some of the concern about value capture that i've heard which feels like a buzz word chosen by people who just want to oppose homes. homes are valuable to the people who live in them. the value is the home. it's valuable to the neighbors. it's valuable to the climate. it's valuable to the people not being displaced outside of our city. when you don't build in the richmond district, median income 113,000 we should be building in the richmond, not in richmond, california. one of the yerlier commentors stated a concern. they said they lived in bernl. i note that from 2010 to 2020, bernl's population actually dropped and over that time, the district built 0 new buildings

in more than four housing units. i can assure you over that time, it's not a neighborhood that escaped gentrification. it's beauty and wonder has become less and less successful of. truly, it's a micro-causm of the san francisco housing department. to put a san francisco spin on sb9. traditionally, the san francisco spin on housing policies has had bad results. so let's not rezone all units just to avoid the requirements of sb9. let's not desperately avoid ten-unit buildings. let's not protect the quote unquote mid block open space which by the way is a euphemism for private yards and no real public benefit. and let's not reduce the scope of ministerial review.

let's not increase discretionary reviewing. we should have clear rules on exactly corresponding ministerial approval. it cannot be subjected to endless discretionary reviews. studies have shown that one of the biggest cost of building is the administration and endless bureaucracy and that doesn't take into account the huge number of people that have considered the small project but then gave up in frustration when it wasn't possible. let's build more housing. . let's build more homes. people live in homes. >> caller: hey. i've lived in san francisco for about six years now. i'm a mexican immigrant. i came here for opportunity. i called here to support

supervisor mandelman's initiative for denser housing. and i think probably the main reason is that i would like to be able to raise a family here and i really can't imagine how to do that with housing present as they are. thank you for your time. >> caller: hi. i'm a resident of district one. my parents live in district four. so i call in a lot but i'm strongly in support of supervisor mandelman's proposal to legalize four plex units. [please stand by]

so it makes sense to make those legal again and i think it's a smart solution with little trade off and -- i am a member of san francisco and richmond and a fill ant group as well and i'm calling urging you to vote in support they need to be in a

position where we set the rules, we make it clear up front what a home builder or a proposed home builder has to say and you meet the rules and you do it or you don't. because if we have this process, for every single little proposal, we're going to find that nothing gets done and the same thing is going to be true if we have to subject these proposed small apartments to below market rate and solution requirements but nothing is going to get done if we want to do that. i want to add a technical comments on a personal story here, i actually, it was funny, i got off the phone last night and if you went to school you are familiar with this and students call in these fundraising places where they fundraising for the calling and

asking me for money and he wanted to know a bit about my life story and how i got to san francisco and where i currently am today professionally and i talked to him for a fair amount and one of the questions he asked how i ended up making it into san francisco where i grew up and went to school in the south bay and say told him that when i was starting out i was a contractor and intern and on the barack obama campaign and working in a small start up but i wasn't getting paid well skidi had to work and save to make ends meet and i got to a point where i was offered a full-time job but it wasn't paying enough. the only way i could see myself living in the city where i worked, in a way