families. that's my comment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> i've been struggling with the definitions in the planning code of [indiscernible] -- for many years. this is a good change. thank you, supervisor peskin. let's get it through the board of supervisors and review the map better. but i ask you to not hold it up, to do another round of consultation with developers. people's lives are at stake. literally their housing happen under siege for the past three

years of -- two years of covid-19. we need real definitions of group housing rather than the residential hotels. thank you for doing it, supervisor peskin. go to the full board. >> clerk: thank you. let's go to the next caller, please. >> i work with [indiscernible] hello? >> clerk: you're on the line, sir. >> okay, thank you. again, i apologize. i work with [indiscernible] -- and i'm in favor of this legislation. the one thing that we need and everyone can agree on is the backbone of any community and

area are families. that's one thing we don't have a lot of in the tenderloin. we need two-bedroom and three-bedroom dwellings. it's so important especially here in the t.l. >> clerk: next speaker, please. we have 30 listening and five in the queue. >> hello. i oppose to the group housing definition unless you also increase the residential density to avoid an [indiscernible] -- last week supervisor peskin flatly denied this. i don't think this is a sufficient analysis. think if the city could arbitrarily remove amenities from projects they don't like. a town could say they'll prohibit bathrooms and if you

build an a.d.u. you have to use an outhouse [indiscernible] -- that removing amenities would be a de facto zoning by making this less desirable and feasible. let's look at this group housing for the mini kitchen. currently this is the densest form of housing that san francisco allows. peskin wants to eliminate this amenity without analyzing the feasibility. this looks a lot like an amenity removal that is a de facto down zone by reducing the desirability and it looks like peskin is responding to the [indiscernible] seeking to put an end to them. so there is what i would call an intent to down zone. this would force developers to switch between co-living or

residential dwelling, but we allow far less. my recommendation is to increase the residential density and match the current so this is not a de facto down zoning anymore. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's take the next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in district 5. i think there is a good intent in the group housing and other developments in other parts of the city besides the tenderloin and chinatown. i think the process is incorrect in this case according to state law. under section 5(b) of item 3 notes that the -- that supervisor's ordinance is change

the [indiscernible] applicable to rh1 districts, increasing the capacity in those districts. this ordinance in [indiscernible] together ensure there is no net loss in residential capacity in san francisco. that is in reference to center build 330 [indiscernible] dnr 2021 says: it is uncertain how many new housing units will be created in the supervisor's ordinance as drafted. i don't think you can say there is no net loss of housing by saying there is no net loss in a bill. you actually have to do the math. where is the math? there is no math.

supervisor mandelman's bill does not make reference to this bill [indiscernible] -- supposed to counteract that loss from item 3. i think advertise insulting on the face to say there is no net loss actually means there is no net loss. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's take the next caller. >> i've been living in san francisco for 15 years and renting. i'm calling to speak in favor of the proposal to allow to be able to build -- >> clerk: i'm going to pause

your time. we're on item number 2 and 3 of the land use agenda. that's the group housing special use districts and the definition. if you can redirect your comments otherwise we'll move on to the next caller. this is not general public comment. go ahead. >> okay. then i'll wait until the appropriate time for general public comment. >> clerk: sir, there is no general public comment at committee meetings taken at the board level. we only take public comment for items listed on the agenda. so let's move on to items -- to the next caller. again, folks, we're on items 2 and 3, the group housing special use district and the group

housing definition item. if you would like to speak for items 4, 5 and 6, that is the planning code r.h. zones, that will be taken later in the agenda. let's move on to the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the planning and policy manager at tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. we ask for your support on this which would establish a better group housing district. in recent years as the projects have been proposed in ever-greater numbers, the tenderloin residents are unclear about the definitions. the tenderloin residents have been clear about the type of housing needed, affordable housing units with kitchen amenities. the establishment of a special-use district in the

tenderloin and chinatown, neighborhoods with high concentration of low-income families will serve to prioritize the housing the community wants and needs. we thank the planning staff and supervisor peskin's office for their commitment to residents and to developing and refining this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's move on to the next caller. again, folks, we're on items 2 and 3 on the land use agenda. if you would like to speak, you just press star 3, otherwise we'll take this last caller. >> i wanted to speak about item number 4. >> clerk: thank you so much. there are two more callers in

the queue. let's take the next caller, please. >> hello, i am the interpreter of the next speaker, the president of [indiscernible] association. [speaking alternate language]. [speaking alternate language].

[speaking alternate language]. [speaking alternate language]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the president of community

china association. we have over 500 members living in s.r.o.s. the living conditions in s.r.o.s is physical and challenging because they need to share a bathroom and kitchen with many other households. some are in a room with [indiscernible] three generations together. but there are still people living in s.r.o.s because the rent is cheap in chinatown. it is easier for new immigrants or families or seniors who don't speak english so they can find their job here. otherwise, s.r.o. is not an ideal housing choice. however, many developers are looking to develop in chinatown. the goal [indiscernible] make

money, but not serve the community and it is gentrification. it does no good to our community. we need affordable housing for families now. therefore, i urge the commission to support supervisor peskin's legislation. thank you. let's take the next caller. >> good afternoon, members of the land use committee. i am a resident of the tenderloin for over 20 years and i support supervisor peskin's legislation. the chinatown communities continue to have the highest

concentration of low-income communities, many residing in s.r.o.s. many, if not all, live in overcrowded conditions in units without access to kitchens in chinatown and the tenderloin struggle with food security because they can't prepare their own meals at home. they -- group housing units defined by their lack of cooking and food storage amenities perpetuate this in chinatown and the tenderloin where many units lack access to complete kitchens. residents who don't have the ability to store fresh foods at home must subsist on more

expensive foods. this is i personally felt the lack of kitchen facilities in the s.r.o.s, as a resident who lived in these facilities, i was diagnosed with diabetes some years ago at 50 years old. this is not a trait in my family. [indiscernible] -- good nutrition and lack of facilities to make that so. i urge you to support these planning code and building amendments to address the inequalities and to remove the ambiguity around group housing for future development. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's see if we have any more callers.

>> i would like to say i support [indiscernible] -- we are overpopulated with single certains and it would be nice to have a family unit in our area. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you so much. madam chair, that was the last caller in the queue. >> chair: thank you so much, madam clerk. we have a motion to approve number 2 and send it forward to the board and a motion to amend number 3. supervisor peskin, did you want

to address any of the public comment? no. take roll on that. >> clerk: we need to close public comment. >> chair: public comment is now closed. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend item 2 moved by supervisor peskin. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. on the motion to amend as stated by supervisor peskin. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: and on the motion to continue item number 3 as amended. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three eyes. motion passes.

>> clerk: item 4 is ordinance amending the planning code to revise the definition of group housing; ordinance amending the planning code to rezone all residential, one family (rh-1) zoning districts to residential, two family (rh-2) zoning districts, and to provide a density limit exception to permit up to four dwelling units per lot, and up to six dwelling units per lot in corner lots, in all rh (residential, house) zoning districts, subject to certain requirements, including among others the replacement of protected units; amending the subdivision code to authorize a subdivider that is constructing new dwelling units pursuant to the density exception to submit an application for condominium conversion or a condominium map that includes the existing dwelling units and the new dwelling units that constitute the project; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. item 5 is ordinance amending the planning code to revise the definition of group housing; ordinance amending the planning code to rezone all residential, ordinance amending the planning code to create a density bonus program in rh-1 (residential, house, one-family), rh-2 (residential, house, two-family), and rh-3 (residential, house, three-family) zoning districts; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302.

ordinance amending the planning code to provide a density limit exception for lots in all rh (residential, house) zoning districts to permit additional units (“bonus dwelling units”), up to four total dwelling units per lot exclusive of accessory dwelling units, and to require that if such bonus dwelling units are ever sold, the sales prices would not exceed an amount determined to be affordable at 100% of area median income; amending the administrative code to limit initial rental rates and rent increases for bonus dwelling units; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. anyone wishing to speak call 415-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 2482 697 5972 then press # and # again. if you have not done so, press star 3 to speak. >> chair: thank you, madam clerk. welcome to four-plex-alooza. what we are doing is important. we are potentially rezoning half of our city. i want to first of all thank all of you for your help on these really important issues. what we're going to do is have each of you present on your legislation.

they're all related. we will take them in the order mentioned. then we will have a presentation from the planning department who will present on what happened at the planning commission and their analysis and we will discuss and take public comment. i look forward to a robust discussion on these issues. madam clerk. >> clerk: through the chair, with the addition of supervisor safai, we actually have a quorum of the board. so beginning at 2:53 p.m., this is the special meeting of the board of supervisors. >> chair: thank you very much, madam clerk. [ please stand by ]

>> over the weekend, we caught a drafting issue with this part of the ordinance and i'm working with the city attorney's office that will explicit limit this condominium version property that consists of

although i understand from the city attorney there are some hiccups in trying to incorporate that into this legislation which will come up if that gets raised and i also

heard about a desire to see monitoring requirements for exception added in that and that seems reasonable to me. i understand the legislation. if it comes out of committee. it's not going to come out in exactly the form i brought it to you and that's the way the legislative process works, but i hope if the program comes out when it comes out usable by real people outside the billing and it is likely to actually result in more than a handful of units being added to our housing stock. i want to thank deputy city attorneys for their great work and partnership over these many months along with audrey maloni and aaron star at the planning department who are joined today by colleagues from the planning department and mocd for any questions and i want to thank jacob bentless in my office and with that i thank you.

>> chairman: before i turn the baton over to you supervisor safai, supervisor peskin wanted to make a comment. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and, first, i just wanted to say i welcome this discussion and am kind of fascinated by the three versions that are before us and have half a desire to lock all three of you in a room together because the three of you are not a kwor rum of this committee and you can work it all work and come back with the best thing. but i just wanted to traud over old ground because it's ground through various policy conversations maybe some of the overarching thoughts that we collectively should put into this. part of that from the original a.d.u. discussions dating back to the early mid 2000s where there are aspects that supervisor safai's legislation touches on relative to

proximity to transportation corridors. there's what we ultimately ended up with which is cost of hawkins waivers and the ability to trade a benefit to a property owner for a long term rent control benefit. they're in the same vein have been ongoing discussions and policy calls by this and previous boards as it relates to regulation of short-term rentals and new construction relative to when do we allow subdivision maps and why i note that many of the e-mails that we are getting say we want more apartments. we don't say we want more condos. so i think we should keep all of that in mind. i say that as the supervisor who comes from the geographically smallest district in the city, but it

has the same number of folks of any other one in the ten districts and that is actually a district where i'm pretty sure i don't have any single family zoning in the northeast corner of the city at all. i get nervous when i see detached homes in other parts of the city. i don't even know what to do, but i think we should also have the conversation about density minimums. it's the same conversation that we've been having it can be zoned rh 3 and choose to build one hugettifus on that property and some pieces of this legislation and not in others the interim legislation that

we've passed has been helpful incentiveizing more density and i've recently had a talk with the director of planning who's interested in this board pursuing in conjunction with the planning department and planning commission making that legislation permanent. so i think we should be having that conversation as well. and then when it gets to the conversation that was a pretty exciting one, a half a dozen or so years ago around inclusionary, everybody talks about what's feasible, what's not feasible, supervisor mar's version, everybody's quick to say it's not feasible and actually in the inclusionary conversation, we did feasibility by putting together a technical advisory committee and coming to a somewhat scientific conclusion under the auspices of the controller as

to what actually is feasible noting that that has to be changed from time to time because it's not a static number, it's a dynamic number and a lot of inputs go into that. so i just wanted to. there are many other things that i can throw out, but i just wanted to throw out the apriling policy considerations that the three of you should think about when we lock you into a room together. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, you have the floor. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i think there's a little bit of detached housing in district three, correct? there's a little bit of detached housing. >> supervisor peskin: they are on r.h.3 zone properties. there may be a tiny smidge, maybe a handful of properties at r.h. twovmd.

>> okay. i think supervisor mandelman did a good job of setting the table. i really want to recognize the hard work he has put into this conversation over the last two years i'm not going to reiterate those things. i'm just going and having the conversation around feasibility as it pertains to the legislation that i put forward here today. the idea was to say in exchange for additional up zoning and density, in exchange for streamlining meaning that the

project must be finalized within six months or less, we would be doing at least some level of affordability. had a number of different builders in the community put together their numbers and look at the feasibility of that. essentially, the way we've laid it out here today is to say if we're going to do additional density and i believe we need to do that. i don't think any three of these legislations are a silver bullet, but they will make a significant change. i think the map you'll see from the planning department today where it shows a significant part of the city that will be impacted by this legislation, a good portion of district 10 and then a portion of district, i

think a good portion of district eight and all of district four, there will be impact and there will be the ability to create more housing, but there's an if you're not dealing with a single family lot that's empty that we will have to demolish that property

to really fully realize this. my proposal, my legislation deals with that and as i said, in exchange for additional units we ask for one small affordable. they work, but it doesn't seem there's a lot of appetite in this room or on this board to deal with that. i haven't seen an acceptance of that. i think supervisor mar is trying to get at it from a different angle. i do agree with supervisor mandelman and what he has said over the last year and the more opportunity people have, they will be smaller. they will not be as expensive

of what we're seeing on the market today. i am very open to working with smapz. >> supervisor mandelman: on that work. the other thing that my legislation does it increases the density in all areas without doing away with that we wanted to have it be a streamline process. we believe in that fundamentally. that might be fally for this board to engage on because i don't think there's a lot of acceptance or appetite for streamlining in general and that's okay. it's okay to have that

conversation. but i think the goal of preserving the option for someone that doesn't want to maximize density. i appreciate i saw supervisor melgar's amendments today, the option to up zone rh 1d to rh 1d 2. i think it's a good way to say if everyone is going to be dealing with density, you can too. i'm not opposed to that. ful i think that's an interesting concept that i just heard today. so that's good. what else did i want to say? i mean, other than that, i think priority processing, i mean, that's something maybe to talk about in exchange for some of the things that we're talking about because i think that's an important thing. it sounds like folks really want to do something -- a different version of sb 9

locally. i don't agree with that, but i'm open to the conversation about how we're going to achieve some form of streamlining. we have to deal with an amount and we have to put something forward that will produce units. i'm not for putting something forward that i don't believe will actually achieve any -- that will not achieve really producing units and, again, this is not a silver bullet, but it has the ability and i think we'll see that when we see the maps today. has the ability to have a significant impact in the city. so i appreciate that and all the work that you've done, supervisor mandelman and look forward to working with you. i don't know if we need to be locked in a room. maybe if you buy me a coffee, we'll come to some form of agreement, but that's all i really want to say, thank you, supervisor melgar. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor safai. and last but not least, supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, chair melgar and colleagues for this opportunity to present my proposal and

really to engage in this important policy discussion about how we can best shape development in low density neighborhoods including the entirety of my district to meaningfully address our housing affordability crisis. and i also really do want to acknowledge and appreciate supervisor mandelman and supervisor safai and their staff for their work on their proposals. i believe all three proposals reflect a lot of thoughtful work by each of us in our respected stakeholders and i did want to express my hope that we can find agreement on one, you know, one proposal that we can unify around to move forward for adoption by the board. and just wanted to -- actually, i do have some slides that i wanted to share for my proposal, but before i do that, give a little background. i've been coming at this a little differently than certainly supervisor mandelman and the planning department have. so my proposal really comes out

of a two-year community based planning process called sunset forward that the planning department has led in coordination with my office and the district four youth and families network set forward identified expanding affordable housing for low and moderate income for families and seniors in the sunset as one of our top priorities. and so i've really been focused on this and we have been working to address these urgent needs through traditional affordable housing. 100% affordable developments for educators and families through the sunsets first three small sites acquisitions to permanently affordable housing. but we've also been trying to think outside of the box and explore innovative new ways and new strategies to expand housing in the sunset and other low density neighborhoods for working families who've

traditionally been the heart and soul of our communities, but can no longer afford to rent let alone buy a home here today. and a lot of the new ideas that we've been working on with stakeholders including affordable housing advocates, tenant rights groupses, homeowner groups, including the san francisco land use coalition and also contractors and architects in minority contractors, we've been focused on looking at how we can support homeowners to expand their homes to increase housing for their extended families for themselves as seniors who might want to down size and for community members that need housing. and so, this is an area that as you know, we've already been working on. like with adus. i sponsored the legislation thank you for your support to waive building permit fees on adus and we've created with the

planning department affordable adu pilot program that just wrapped up this month. so my quad plex proposal is affordable. it sort of builds off our community-based planning work and looking at how we can incentivize housing that meets the needs in our low density neighborhoods. i did have a few slides here. so just the goals of my affordable quad plex proposal are to incentivize production of moderate income family housing in low density neighborhoods. secondly, to support homeowners to expand their homes. to meet the urgent housing needs of multi-generational families, seniors and essential workers. and thirdly and importantly to stabilize and prevent further gentrification of homeowner neighborhoods like the sunset, omi and bayview hunter's point.

most of the rh zone neighborhoods are predominantly the majority of people of color particularly in district four and district 11 and district 10. and then also as you know, i introduced my quad plex proposal in november alongside a companion piece of legislation called the housing development incentive program and thank you all for your unanimous support on adopting that legislation last week where we created a program offering technical assistance, financial incentives and streamline permitting for adu and duplex to quad plex projects. and then the housing development incentive program is an expansion of the successful affordable adu pilot program in district four. so these types of small scale

projects in incremental development in our low density neighborhoods are an extremely important part of our city's overall housing development strategy in expanding housing and meeting our arena goals and so, you know, i think we're all pretty aware of that and i appreciate this important policy discussion we're having right now how we could further incentivize this development. just this next slide is just highlighting i think what we're all pretty aware of. our housing production has played out in the current cycle which we're just wrapping up. and, you know, we can see that, you know, we've exceeded our production of above moderate income housing units by 148%. but then we fall short of producing affordable housing for moderate low income and

very low income households and we fall in the shortest for moderate income households only creating 27% of the goal. and then, i guess this next slide in point is just -- i just want to make is that these types of small scale developments, conversions of single-family homes are already moving forward in my district and i think other neighborhoods. this is just an example of one recent one. it's a tri-plex that was built on a former single-family home and those units, the three units sold in 2018 from $1.3 million to $1.4 million each. they're nice units. and the upper ones do have an ocean view. that's nice housing for the folks that can afford it, but this is not housing that's meeting the priority needs of our community in the sunset, i think, in our city.

and i would also point out that the building, the small apartment building to the left of this tri-plex is the sunset's first small sites acquisition that happened at the end of 2019 through meta and the tenants at that building when the owner of the building put it up for sale, were very concerned that their building would turn into another one of those luxury condo developments that's staring in their face. so thanks to meta and the mayor's office of housing for supporting the small sites acquisition there. so this is just a quick brief summary of my proposal and you can see the details in the legislation, but basically it's incentiveizing density in rh zoned districts and lots with affordability requirements. so it would apply to all rh 1

and rh 2 and rh 3 zone districts and provide density by permitting up to four units per lot. so this would be an alternative to sb 9 by allowing four units without a lot split. and in return for the density bonus, the conditions for the bonus dwelling units would be the affordability requirement at 100% ami for rental or sale price. a minimum of two-bedroom units because we've been underproducing family-sized housing in our city during this last period and finally a regulatory agreement with the city including the cost of hawkins act waiver. and i just wanted to finish by saying that we have within our stakeholders union working on this proposal, they have

included minority contractors and small developers. so we've been working to and as well as affordable housing developers to address the feasibility questions about requiring affordability on such small projects and so this is an example. or, yeah. i'm just presenting the feasibility analysis of building a quad plex unit with two affordable units. those are the bonus units. unit three, and unit four and it's assuming construction costs of $600 per square foot. it does assume that the homeowner puts 5% down for the affordable units and also it has a traditional 30-year bank loan. but it also does assume that the city will provide a subsidy for the creation of those units like we do for our affordable housing program of $230,000 per

unit. and these would be two-bedroom units and it does show that it does allow based on this analysis where the homeowner would in the new quad plex be netting about over a $1,000 per month for the affordable units and, yeah. so finally, we also have a feasibility analysis for a six-unit building as well even though that's not part of my proposal. i know that the planning department has recommended that for corner lots and it does pencil out with a net income for the property owner. so i'll just wrap it up there. i know the planning department has a presentation and i look forward to the presentation. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar. we will now have audrey malone. are you here?

>> thank you so much. i want to make sure everyone can hear me. >> chairman: we can hear you. >> great. thank you so much, supervisor melgar. we're going to give one presentation on all three ordinances today. with three ordinances, we're considered by the planning commission at various hearings. the commission voted to recommend an approval with modifications and disapproval of supervisor mar's and supervisor safai's ordinances. the main difference between supervisor mandelman's proposal versus supervisor mar and supervisor safai's proposals is that the later two propose an inquiry where it does not fundamentally, the department supports increasing density. which all three ordinances do. unfortunately, given our current economic and other pragmatic realities, we do not believe that even six-unit

projects can support inclusionary units. it further, with the state passing sb 9, single-family zoning is all about eliminating in urban areas of california. without rezoning from rh1 to rh2, the proposals are less likely to result in new housing and this is because of four units with little to no process. each rh-zoned property would be allowed up to three units with no income restrictions or rent controlled requirements. so the department is working with supervisor mandelman on his proposed ordinance and on our recommended ordinance which the commission unanimously endorsed. the condition found it would create a program that would

take the best aspects of sb9 while still maintaining the control through our program. we would really like to emphasize the importance of seeing these recommendation z as a complete package which will not only increase density but also existing residents from placement and open opportunities for project developments for those who have been excluded from the process. so the commission's recommendations for supervisor mandelman's ordinance which they approved are as follows. the first is to rezone all of the rh1 zoning districts to rh2. the second is to increase the proposed ordinance for corner lots from four units to six units. the third is to adopt a local alternative for sb 9. so this local program would create two avenues for projects seeking to utilize a density.

one path would be for homeowner and the other path would be for nonhomeowners. that path would require the subject property to be occupied for at least nooechlt years or the lot or property can be owned by a nonprofit organization. so in exchange for meeting those requirements, the owner could bypass many of the traditional processes that adding densely financially feasible under section 317. removing neighborhood notification under section 311. creating a condo conversion pathway and granting a fee waiver for historic evaluation when those are required and some other abbreviations that we can get into if you would like as well. so the second path i mentioned that would be available for properties that would not meet the owner occupancy but would

maximize the density on the lot. it would not be sponsored by traditional owners but development professionals. as such, the abbreviation such as the ability to deliver commitment units and waiver those hiss those would not be waiving the pass. the fourth recommendation that would result in a square footage of more than 4,000. the space recommendation is to increase funding for the housing program. the six is to amend the ordinance with the technical requirements of sb 10. the seventh is to pursue the adoptive residential design standards and the eighth is to recommend the projects that certain requirements that would allow those projects to apply

to form condos via a new construction pathway even if they are not new construction. the department would like to thank supervisor mandelman for including any of the commission's recommendations in his ordinance that's before all of you today in addition to myself and erin star, we have many of our staff here today to answer your questions, since we know we may be getting into the weeds on this one. so those staff members. the manager of our flex team and our adu program. managing policies and strategies for our community equity division. james papas, a senior policy and land use planner. and bridget hicks who is our senior manager managing the sb9 implementation. with that, thank you for allowing us to present here today on the commission's recommendations and all of us are available for your

questions. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. colleagues, do we have any questions or comments for our colleagues on their proposal? >> supervisor peskin: i could riff off a few other things. they've all been toucheded on. >> supervisor melgar: okay. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. i did have a number of questions. obviously, these ordinances cover a lot of ground. i guess, first off, to supervisor safai, i'm trying to understand, you made a comment that surprised me that there wasn't a lot of appetite to include affordability and that sort of surprises me given this board of supervisors and certainly this committee. i'm just curious on what you

based that whether that's based off of feedback from supervisors or more from conversations with housing developers and providers around their appetite? >> supervisor safai: not housing developers. i think in general just through the chair, if that's okay. >> chairman: yes. please answer the question. >> supervisor safai: i didn't know we were going to get into a back and forth. that's great. in general, over the last number of months, you've heard their recommendations. that was the basis for their denial of this and what i was trying to point out was supervisor peskin's point, i think that supervisor mar came in. i haven't had a chance to look at his pro forma. we produced the pro forma. there is in my mind, it is feasible. i think in general, the conversation then turns into are we actually going to be able to produce something that really creates an incentive for

people to participate. and so i have heard from other colleagues that they didn't believe that our numbers were valid and that's okay. i mean, i think in general, what i was trying to go was to trade affordability for a streamline process and i felt like that was a good trade off. we can't circumvent or do away with discretionary review. that's something that was embedded in our charter, but what we can do is say we will have a time limit on the amount of time it takes. but i am also conscious to affordability. i think that's a conversation to have. what will incentivize people to take advantage of this program the most. there is and we will have in the next couple of weeks a conversation about at least the way we're doing it, the bmr program and the mayor's office of housing. it will be no shock to any of us in this room or maybe it will to find out that we have hundreds and hundreds of units

sitting vacant. to your point, i know you've talked a lot about vacancy. we start with the city. there's vacancy in the bmr program and because of that, there is some cumberness dealing with that we postponed that conversation but i've intended to take that on and so the conversation shifts to and we've had this conversation and some of the other settings, who will take advantage of this program. who will go through and hence what we're trying to do in ours is preserve options. i may not be able to afford to do four units. i might not have the facility or the ability to deal with the bmr program or that level of

affordability. i might not have the desire to do that and then it becomes, i do agree that by design, these will be affordable and so that's what i was responding to, but we do need to deal with the bmr program maybe apart of this or separate and beyond from this and i intend to do that with all of you. >> chairman: okay. of there's folks on the roster. forgive me, supervisor. did you have more questions? thank you, chair melgar. . through the chair, just on this same point and it relates to i think a point that supervisor peskin brought up in the beginning around feasibility which is often the question we're looking at in terms of what kind of affordability can be required.

i'm curious from planning. i think you've indicated in your presentation that the planning didn't believe that the inclusionary would be feasible at this scale of projects and i just wanted clarity on that position and alzheimer's what that is based on. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. audrey malone, planning department staff. we've looked at our inclusionary requirements over the years based on both performance and studies and have found that our inclusionary requirements for the city worked because of our economy as a scale. taking out the economic conditions that make construction costs very high, we still have this issue of the fact that these are very, that the property we're talking about for these kinds of programs are currently not very dense. they are single-family homes or

at best two unit buildings and so, when you look at the proportional amount of inclusionary housing, you are asking them to contribute as apart of their property, the amount becomes a very high percentage of the total property and therefore will obviously affect severely the return on investment for that building and of that unit. even when you only add one additional unit that would need to be affordable. in addition, we had a study conducted by efrj urban and james papas from our department is here and would be happy to go into the details of that. but they ran a performance on both sb 9 and its potential impacts and feasibility as well as supervisor mandelman's original four plex ordinance which would essentially allow four units on rh zoned lots of the density exception.

and that balance again under current market condition even in areas where housing costs may be less, it still would not be feasible because the sale price for those units would then also be less. but i'm happy to go over the details if you would like. >> supervisor peskin: >> supervisor preston: if you can do so briefly. i'm trying to get a better sense of the basis for it not being feasible, but also looking at. obviously, once you hit ten units, we've determined as a city that inclusionary units are feasible. and then when you have supervisor mandelman's proposal which based on the input from planning, you've got corner lots that are now up to six units and i'm really trying to see like does the -- do the

studies on this and the data on which the feasibility is based still say 10 or is there some reason, you know, if supervisor mandelman were proposing eight units on a corner, would it then be feasible to include one or two of those units as affordable? so, yeah, i think if you can shed light on that, who was it, mr. papas, i believe. that'd be great. >> sure. good afternoon, supervisors. so just following up on audrey's point. what we've analyzed so far has been specifically the three to four plex proposals and the sb 9 proposals which are essentially duplex proposals. so that's where we've left the analysis at this point and so i

can't, you know, speak to this space between up to let's say a four plex and the ten-unit buildings where we have set our inclusionary to start. so i can't speak to that space there. but what i can say is that for the analysis that we've conducted, the cost of building a new building particularly from the ground up and that would include substantial renovation if you're trying to add vertical units on top of an existing home that those construction costs are so high on a per square foot basis along with architecture and engineering and other costs that are going to be associated with that project and then -- the cost of a family home, it just -- the financial picture for whether it's an existing

homeowner or a developer who is proposing this kind of project, it simply doesn't make sense relative to the value of that existing home. and we generally found that to be true across different markets as audrey was saying because the costs, the construction costs are the same around the city and so even in those more affordable markets where a single family home might be found at a lower price, you're still having extraordinarily high construction costs to contend with. and so it's just not leaving in these projects value capture opportunities that could belated into a unit subsidy essentially. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor mar and then supervisor peskin. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i just wanted to followup on supervisor preston's questions

around affordability and the importance of it and the feasibility of including that in a quad plex legislation. just in terms of the importance of it, again, you know, i showed you an example of a project that recently was completed in my district and, you know, a tri-plex. it was on an nc lot. that's why they were able to move ahead with that. a tri-plex legislation would basically allow this and more, you know, on any -- pretty much any lot in my district. so, again, it's meeting the housing needs of a certain group of folks in our city, but it's not really meeting the priority housing needs that i've prioritized from my two years of community engagement work and that's for low and moderate income families and seniors. so i think it's pretty clear even though like sort of a

liberal quad plex proposal is pitched as affordable or missing middle housing, i think it's wishful thinking that it will be in most of the neighborhoods. so the way i've handing affordability in my proposal is as a public subsidy, it's a way for the city, an innovative new way for the city to create that middle housing that we've been the farthest away on in the arena numbers. subs tea for a two brrm unit is far less than any of the other affordable housing financing that we have per door. which was one of the best examples of middle income housing that's about $350,000 of subsidy from mocd per door.

also, i did want to say that in my proposal is different approach. i think that supervisor mandelman and supervisor safai in that it's centered and focused on homeowners as a developer versus speculators and combined with the incentive program that we're creating with the planning department and so i think that's an important difference and not just in allowing us to be able to shape the kind of housing that's created through this program, but also because homeowners have equity in their homes, they don't have the acquisition cost of the property which i think is why it makes it infeasible for a developer driven strategy because you have that two million dollars acquisition cost. >> chairman: thank you,

supervisor. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: just a couple of observations relative to the back and forth between supervisor preston and supervisor safai where supervisor preston was asking the same question that occurred to me when supervisor safai said what he said. i then understood, supervisor safai, and i don't want to put words in his mouth. to say that it was really the trade off. it really wasn't the lack of interest and affordability, it was the trading that you didn't see the interest and so i wanted to address that. and address it kind of in a larger way around facts. so with the planning department as it relates to a variety of avenues wherein members of the public are interested parties can appeal. can appeal to the planning commission.

can appeal to the board of appeals. can appeal to the board of supervisors and i remember way back when i undertook a due process appeals project that actually supervisor melgar is now fine tuning because i couldn't figure out how to do it 20 years ago. which in those days, the conditional use could only be a field of the board of supervisors if 20% of the property openers did so within the prescribed time of 30 days and what have you and of course, in san francisco, a lot of those people were taints but they were denied appeal rights. it reminded me of old days in this country. at any rate, i tried to solve that. i couldn't figure out how to do that. i substituted four tenants.

i. supervisors could have fixed their names and everybody at planning and every developer said we would be inundated with appeals. fact didn't happen. i had a bet with ann marie rogers from the planning department. i forget what the exact confines of the bet were and we never did actually. i forget who was supposed to take who out to dinner for whatever the bet was, but guess what, we were not inundated with ceqa appeals when we changed chapter 31 of the administrative code and that gets me to the fundamental issue of drs which is and i'm not going to make up the numbers, we're just going to ask. how many projects that are approved by this city through dbi are subject to discretionary review and how many of them are actually the subject of a discretionary

review request and which by the way i will put a number on but is a small percentage. and how many of those actually go to a hearing which is a much smaller percentage of that small percentage. there's stories i can tell you and these are objective standards. how much is 15'. 15 times 12". a planner blew it. the only way that the party could prove it to the planning commission was to drag it in front of the planning commission because staff was not actually makes this city in this country kind of great.

i guess what i want to take issue with and quantify is when you streamline, what do you lose, what do you gain and is it a solution looking for a problem or not? and when we're talking about feasibility, it's great to hear the folks that i just looked at on the screen talk, but i don't see an actual feasibility report in anything that is in our board packet. we did that for inclusionary. we actually had a real life document and then we had a political negotiation and supervisor safai was at that table and then supervisor breed was at that table and housers were at that table and thank you, mr. controller for doing the study and then we actually, you know put the pin on the donkey but we did it within very narrow confines of what

feasibility was to be with a caveat that every six months, we would revisit that granted covid got in the way and what have you, but we're going to do that process again. so i don't want to talk about if feasible, if not feasible, show me some numbers and then let's get as much value recaptured as is absolutely economically feasible. that's my $0.04. >> chairman: supervisor safai, can i give you my feedback before i let you go or did you have an actual answer to some of the questions that have been posed? >> supervisor safai: [ indiscernible ] >> supervisor safai: one of the things i did leave out, i think some of this has to do with who we believe or how we believe four plexes will be

built in this city. i have to tell you, i don't believe we will get much volume at all if we believe this is going to be on the shoulders of existing homeowners. it is exceedingly difficult and let's play this out. you own a home, you have equity in that home. where do you go? you have to rent a home. you have to move for the construction to be going through the process regardless if you get dred or not, there is bureaucracy built and and process built around 311 notification. that is years. so for you to be able to then move from your home, invest in that home, see it upgraded and built, you're talking about a couple year process minimum which is significantly expensive. the idea that we would then look for subsidies, i think that's a creative idea, thank

you, supervisor mar, but i think in practice what's going to happen if we're able to do this is you will have small builders, maybe some of them minority contractors, others that will buy these and invest in them to create more volume. we also have looming folks. we're really starting to see it play out now that the city is having to be competitive for the first time. we didn't receive all the tax credit on projects that we had in the past because we're competing and if there are now consequences associate wednesday that goal. so it may play out in some scenarios where an existing homeowner does that, but on volume, this is really going to be small builders, small contractors and others that are doing this. that's why when i approached

this. we were thinking scenarios where someone night do four units. they might buy a couple of homes together and on scale maybe 12 to 16 units if they're doing multiple homes in the same area. and i think that will play itself out in a lot of these scenarios. so one of the points i wanted to underscore, i'm not going to get into a back and forth about dr and process, but i will say a lot of the process that's built around the ideal does add significant delays i don't think there's any debate to san francisco compared to other localities as one of the most arduous and long entitlement process. >> chairman: okay. thank you, supervisor. i will give my initial comments. first, let me just say, thank you so much for the work that you put into it and for the engagement with community

groups. i also have been working with folks in district seven with the land use committee with the greater west portal neighborhood committee. while there are similarities with districts 11 and district 7, there are also differences. and so i, you may remember i was the director of the programs for the city. i did run the numbers on all of your proposals and i want to say thank you for that and for the engagement that you had with me particularly you, supervisor mar even though we had heated and intense discussions. i think that, you know, the outcome is better because we engage in these discussions, so i appreciate that. so i will say that in my district and district 7, even though i think we sometimes unfairly get targeted, we actually have a very diverse

population. we have folks who have lived for multiple generations in their homes. folks who are mismatched with their housing types. folks who are older, who have five-bedroom homes that have a low tax basis and could recon figure the space to use it better and literally have no place to go. we do need new housing of all types. we need affordable housing for seniors, we need very low income housing for folks and we also need market rate apartments and condominiums because that is what our population needs. so i think that while i like the idea of having an inclusionary component, when i ran the numbers, i could not make them work without a sub

sea and i understand supervisor safai what you're saying. however, there are things that are important to san franciscos. so the ability to weigh in with conditional use, to look at design guidelines. that's what my folks are telling me. the other thing i will say is doing this does not prevent us from evolving this later in terms of when we do identify a subsidy source or create the programs that we all intend to create, but that is not today. the last thing i will say about

the numbers, supervisor is that there was a good analysis in the planning packet, what i didn't like is that it would be a developer doing it and perhaps it was the assumption like you that homeowners don't have that ability. i want to firmly take the stance that i want homeowners to have that ability. i think that if we, you know, assume that it will be developers and make up the frame work to do thanks, we are actually inviting speculation. [please stand by]

i will be happy working with you supervisor mar to build out subsidy programs and that makes sense and for our detached and

individual family zoned area to permit for this density to take place without displacement. and to make sure that families can stay in the communities they love and to pass on their assets to their heirs without inviting speculation and displacement. so, those are my initial thoughts and i appreciate the back and fourth and the robust discussion that we're having. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair melgar and thank you for your engagement around this and as i have said, i am supportive of almost all of the amendments, i would like to talk about number 3. so, maybe that might be one you could hold off on doing today and do it later.

[laughter] but, if that is the will of the committee. i will have any clarifying amendment on condo conversions and only allow those where there's a single family home. because i think i understand how this happened now the planning commission had recommended changes that i want to keep this simple as possible and it makes sense to allow the condo for new condo units. folks on the committee and the

board may agree or disagree but i am not centered in doing an end run around tic regulations through this legislation and so with that amendment, we'll be coming shortly. and i guess i would just you know, this conversation about feasibility, i'm not sure that fourplex, without bmrs will be feasible. we'll have slow production of four-flex if we have it even under the legislation that i'm proposed. for various reasons and there was a y going from one of the other supervisors up here and i think there are many things that the drive developers to build monster homes and prove it's profits and idon't know if it'so produce three, four, five and six unit buildings. the point raised by supervisor mar, i actually think some of

those buildings are a good thing and seeing a three-unit building built where there's a light rail train, i actually think it's a good thing and i think it would actually be a good thing for the city to see more market rate and affordable development throughout the western half of the city. i can see a universe, in fact, there are countries, there are places in the world where con fronted with a housing crisis, the government would allow the production of housing that would meet everyone's needs. one member wants to get san francisco there and it makes me

a realist and given where we are in terms of a housing crisis that is state wide and in san francisco, i do think that we need to participate in what needs to be a state-wide effort to produce more housing that includes more market rate housing. and i think that is probably all i've got for now. >> clerk: thank you supervisor mandelman. supervisor preston. >> thank you chair melgar and thank you for your comments supervisor. supervisor mandelman and i hope we can get to that world you describe or make this country this state or at least this city further in that direction sooner rather than later. but that's not before us. i did have a couple of questions

and comments. first, i do agree with the assessment. everything i hear that we're probably not meeting our goals through fourplexes. the flow under these scenarios relatively slow production probably initially and some of that up to other market forces down the road. i did want to address an issue, supervisor safai brought this up and i think it's important around in some cases we are dealing with demolitions and often likely demolitions not by owner occupants but by real estate speculators or developers. and appreciated it interesting that and i will say this, one of the these versions the big impact is more in a similar vet to my colleague supervisor peskin on that front and we have

almost no rh1 zoning in directing 5 and we have a history of demolition, shameful history of demolition so when i hear about people's homes being demolished, it's something that i think people in d5 are certainly sensitive to. and i'm going to ask you about the issue of demolitions and are we assuming a certain level of speculators buying property and demolishing it and under these programs and i think supervisor mar hazarded the systemic and envisioning more of a pathway for current owners of property e don't have the land acquisition cost. can each of you for your proposal, just address, do you see the primary users of the

zoning changes here as being a real estate developer or a speculate or acquiring the property and demolishing. or are there any disincentives baked in or incentives for it to be the homeowner, the current homeowner instead of the developer. >> it's one of my amendments. >> want us to go in order? four, five, six. >> go ahead supervisor mandelman. >> so, my measure does not change our existing regulation of demolition. supervisor deskin and i tried to address concerns. the planning department has lobbied mightily to get us to address demolition because they

believe and and this legislation it didn't seem necessary and it didn't seem appropriate and and that is what it is and now there are protection force tenant and tenant-occupied belongs baked certainly into mine and some of the others as well and i know it's in ours and which i think is important and i think that the requirement that requiring any condo conversions and

single-family homes and the right direction in terms of avoiding speculative development but that is how i care about mine. >> supervisor safai. >> thank you. i wanted to respond to that but also address a couple of the other things. i will start with it and i think it's a great question and i'm following up on some of the things that the planning department highlighted and again, we have these arena goals and not to say that this is a silver bullet but if we were to do this right we can get booed production. i think as an urban planner i think if you are looking around the world you are looking around how cities ve involved and they're moving they're trying to address and it's a matter of how

we're intending to achieve that and create more volume so i think that we're not talking about traditional urban renewal that was sad history and in your district and other parts of the city and we're talking about some of the existing housing preservation rules that exist that say, there's a certain amount of demolition that you can do and ultimately at the end of the day, some of it again to borrow supervisor peskin's term it's folly when you see it late out in practice. you start to open up the wall as you look at the continue of the building and what you are asked to preserve to keep the structure itself and ends up being an supervisor in some ways in futility and you are left at the end there's no recognition of the building that was there other than maybe some of the floor plates that talk about

sealing height and some of the walls and that is our demolition rules and so what we say in our we respect preservation and look for category eight and some would not be in exchange and there should be level of affordability and there should be considerations driving to help working families and you know, to your point, we have the highest concentration of owner-occupied homes in the city and we are right at 70% and most of the families, as you know, are house rich in cash poor. what i see playing out, if they want to hand on generational wealth, most of them then hand it off to someone in the family and many family stays there i

have multi generation family members that have lived in san francisco for decades. and i've met and i'm sure you have to, but i've met people that have said this was the house i was born into this was my grandmother and great grandmother's house and those families hand down well. when the projector the property ends, the property ends up hitting the market on the open market, maybe it expands into such or are we creating an afternoon where we can see the natural evolution in the market that would create more volume so what we tried do do is a, yes, thinking about all these things about historic preservation and charter and if these fall into this category we would preserve that but if they didn't, we allow for that because, and i

know you know this better than anyone supervisor melgar, when there's existing carves and cut out and and you have set backs and you have the ability to work within an existing framework that is a lot larger than your average 2500 square foot lot or 25 by 100 so we allow for it and we allow for it to happen in a thoughtful way but we do say if you really want to get that volume, you have to tackle this and the planning department agrees with us and thinking about how we can advance as a city this is about allowing for when you are able to alter, you are able to do something, does

it make sense to preserve a certain percentage of the walls just to say that you've preserved a certain percentage of the walls. >> before i go to you supervisor mar, if i could just engage with you, supervisor safai, you brought up my name. to your point, supervisor, preston. whether it's a developer or speculate or or own who are is developing this and the legislation safai actually invites this and i think it's just, you know, sort of my experience and the bmr program, your legislation is silent as to how we determine who gets to purchase or rent these units. when you build them as bmrs. right now the bmrs you go through the dalia process so,

the go through the dalia process that everybody explains about and non profits, also, folks who engage in it looking for housing alike, and then you know, tell them, whoever the lottery picks will get to live in your homes and i find that really problematic and i think it much less likely an owner-occupant would sign up for something like that as opposed to a developer who can just go in and demolish the home and build the units with a bmr requirement even if pencils out, which i'm still not sure it does and then, you know, turn it over and walk away. so i think that that is a more likely scenario and i for one, don't want to sign up for that. i think that you know, what my intent and policy goal is is to allow owners in our neighbourhoods to be able to

expand their properties so they can have multi generational living or age in place and rent out the space that they no longer need or build another union and having a scenario by definition invites the only people out to do this is the ones who would be able to walk away and that is developers. >> can i respond to that. >> i'm going to go to -- >> do you want tofield. >> she had a direct -- she wanted to respond to me directly. >> still great. >> what i would say to that is, there's an easy fix for that. if something were intending to do this program and they would be exempt from that aspect of the rule so that would be a

simple fix. just again, to say that because they have to go through the dalia and they don't chose, when, if you are living in it and you are doing renting, yes, you have ability to screen the renters but if you are selling it, you don't have the ability to know the sellers. our fair housing rules are set up that you can't pick and chose who you sell something to without really violating the law and so there's a way you can tackle that problem and i respect it and there's scenarios people that have resources that have family members that say live with us and we'll design your house and we will downsize naturally within your own environment and that is a great thing if we can actually make something like that happen, in scenarios, i would be all for that but i think we also have to deal with that was the only thing to do here and we would

have little volume. not that much val so one way to address it is we could specifically say if you are going to owner occupied then we have a specific path for you that makes it more feasible and less burden some. that would be my response. >> super -- >> i appreciate you highlighting that and i'm dealing with my own mother who is dealing with aging in place and we're going through that process and it's not an easy process to go through so that is a real life scenario. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> i had a couple of points to make in this good discussion. one is around like our sort of vision for how the development, this small scale development would happen in our neighbourhoods and we can already see that through the adu, adu legalization and i think there's still a lot more potential to add housing through

adu so i've been focused the last two years and with sb9 it allows any single family home to go to a duplex and quad plex in a complicated process and so that is if we have close to 100,000 single-family homes in the city, you know, thee receipt theorettickly we're talking abos through adu and duplexes so there's a lot of potential here and most of that especially adus ask duplexes are very much doable for an owner, homeowner and developer and i think when you get to talking about the triplex, the technical assistance comes in and and

build a four-storey building with three bedroom flats and a groundfloor retail and no parking because of the planning historical resource determination that it wasn't the house wasn't a historical resource. so you may remember that and it was a couple of years ago and wement matily decided against the appeal so that project went forward but although he said rent would be affordable but there's no assurance to that and so that's the development that i would like to see again it's homeowner driven. if it's developer and speculate or driven, it's just where we'll end up with the same arena

imbalance in the current cycle that we had in the last one where we were above moderate and the moderate income. >> supervisor preston. >> >> thank you chair melgar and thank you for this conversation and just on the issue of speculate or purchasing and potential demolition and i very much appreciate the i think the goals chair melgar that you articulated including the residency requirement part of it and i would suggest potentially as a friendly amendment to just not just forward but back on the residency because what we're all describing is an interest in making sure that the long-time owner has a path to doing these

units and i think the investments and propose that will is a good [end of translation] investment stating there intent to reside there for three years after and wouldn't necessarily pre seen the speculate or who buys it and it's the tics, the tic market that is so heated where the buyers may still claim they want to live of there but they're still part of a speculative endeavor to buy property so it's just potentially a suggest to go towards and what i think is some common ground around trying to prioritize or focus on existing owners as opposed to speculators or developers. and then the second thing just also appreciated your investments on the rent control and rent limitations of the rent ordinance and very much do

believe that we should tie for those units that end up being rentals, to tie the rent increases, the allowable rent increases and i appreciate those investments and i did have the question on that point, my read of these is that there's nothing that would require these to be rentals and these could all be mapped i would assume as condos or apartment buildings and just trying to understand while in principle, i like them being rent control units and i'm curious if anything would require them to be actually rental units. >> can you answer that because we had protest conversations with that. >> thank you, supervisor safai. a question for the committee. and for the board.

is whether to allow any of these units, any of the new units to be condoized. the board could require, could just close the door to that and i don't think it's the right path but the board could decide to do that but i believe the rent control that is just one

concern and i'm not sure if it hits me sitting here and it's something for us to think about whether for the non condos, i agree with you, the condo discussion can be a separate discussion but for what is not a condo, and if we are pinning some of our affordable housing objectives to having some rent control on those units, that could be very powerful things and it could also be meaningless if these all end up being owner occupied units through tic life arrangements. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman and i had a pretty robust discussion about this and so my universe and

district 7 is that we have a lot of folks who have, right now, adus or apartments where they're actual families are living there in what i keep hearing from folks is that they do want some kind of mechanism after the kids are grown to pass on part of their property to their heir and still live in the property together. african american families don't have choice in terms of the affordable housing programs that we have and so, we wanted to have both the balance and we

wanted to do that and i think the rent control is important and supervisor mar's legislation has around the rent cap and i, my issues with that part of the legislation were again, like supervisor safai's it not say who would be doing the eligibility for whoever gets into those units and we currently don't have anyone, not even the mayor's office of housing is that has a regime to

assess privately owned non deed restricted apartments in the private market to do eligibility for that and i also worried about the owners of these apartments because it is a very narrow band of folks who are at 100% of ami and it really narrows the pool of eligible people who would look for those apartment and if you have one and there's not enough people in the pool, we say be setting annan empty apartment for a long time which the scenario with the empty bmr that the they were talking about with them of them and there are 120% of ami and a lot of neighbourhoods that is getting close to market and we've have been talking about my amendment maybe i should just go head and read them into the

record and i'll go to you and you know, circulating and number one is the what i've been working on and the land use coal decision and detach residential homes and they will allow for the sense tee increase and waiver preserving the set backs characteristics to the neighborhood's ar techture applying rent control to additional units developed by the density waiver and i feel like this is a top priority to help expand our rent control stock which we are losing just to the second and speculation and three requiring the planning department report out on design or residential design standards and it looks like we are cut north and out so if you can actually start from the

beginning. >> so number one, changing rh1d and and preserving set backs and applying rent units and requiring that the planning department report out on residential standard die sign guidelines within three months and i want to share there's clarity for the neighborhood charter districts in the code already and like westwood park and another neighbourhoods that have work the closely with planning on guidelines that i do find to be generally objective and.

>> the issue is to place some level of unit parity and this was recommended by the planning department and to some degree it's also included in supervisor mar and safai proposal and i want to make sure we strike a fair balance is allowing it to maximize units and promote family size and decent size units so with that, thank you for this robust discussion.

any other comments or questions? >> i haven't read them because they got plopped on my desk but happy to vote them up for the purpose of discussion. >> after public comment. >> yes. thank you. >> question may have some public comments here in the chamber and then we can invite those listening to us on-line. >> this is for items 4-6. if folks can just lineup near the curtain. >> good afternoon share melgar and fellow supervisors it's been a long time and i'm glad we're all back. i know i'm on the clock so i

only have one minute and 50 seconds left, so, i just want to bring up to your attention that as you all know, up zoning has been well founded it will up the price of lots. so, there's no question about that so my only question to this beside' and what is for us, what is the value capture for the community and i mean that is why san francisco land use coalition is supporting the only version of this fourplex up zoning and that it happens that value capture and that is supervisor mar's version. i also want to bring to your attention that there will be homeowners who would be a special particularly in districts where there are families who would want to live with their grandchildren who would want to live with their

children and they would be willing to take loans and they would be willing to take advantage of the programs that supervisor mar offering. also -- i just want to add a few suggestions, if you are willing to consider that. one is, a look back for tenants because tan a mount to demolition is not just preservation. i'm not a preservationist i'm a humanist. we need to look at whether or not tenants have lived at these place and tenants do live in single-family homes, particularly those that come within the adu are under rent control. so we do need to have this look back. can i have a little bit more. >> no, sorry. >> you can write to us. i will. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> corey smith on behalf of housing action coalition. you have 600 plus e-mails in your inbox supporting supervisor mandelman's proposal and there's copies of them in paper for you to have as well. as mentioned we were here to support supervisor mandelman's proposal although there's pieces of all three that we think make a lot of sense. a couple that we have submitted to the supervisor, to limit all discretionary review and notifications that are allowed under law and homes for is really fascinating and definitely something we want to get right. as we see it, there's an individual who lives in their homes for a long time and it's a single family home and the only person that's lived there and there's no tenants and there's no we want it to be easy for

that individual to demo their home and add additional units and that same way, supervisor mar brought out, we want to be creating funding opportunities and grants to make sure that long time homeowners, especially in traditional excluded communities can take advantage of those opportunities to create capital to create generational wealth and supervisor melgar was saying, and we think that that needle can be a thread in a cause a tive way. we want a sb9 option for these projects we think the proposals are well intended we agree on the sub sized affordable piece being a deal killer and i know talking to residents asking the average person if you want to run through the dalia program, and lease abmr units through the city the majority will say no. we are in a unique moment in time talking about zoning reform. joe biden and congresswoman cortez are both talking about how important this is and we

think that doing so, keeping feasibility in mind is key. also i want to add sb10 allows us to go above everything being proposed here. up to 10 units per lot. >> thank you for your comments. is there any member of the public that would like to speak for items 4-6 on the agenda today. let's move on to the remote. joe from our operations division is supporting us today and he is checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have done so and would like to speak, you just need to press star 3 and it will indicate that you would like to speak and the system will say that you are raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that until it indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin public comment. it looks like we have 33 listeners today with 35 of them in the queue.

>> we'll be able to see much more of them through the applications of the proposed ordinance. because of the deficit of homes we have in california, because it's so large, the scale has overshadowed the potential of smaller development to provide a solution. they have a significant role to play and this ordinance is the most practical we commend it to

the committee. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next speaker, please. >> and sf has been an affordable housing not a market rate housing shortage and one of the problems with change be

neighbourhoods characters and neighborhood design guidelines and can quickly be ugly, boxes of smaller homes and ceqa by rise streamlining and no neighborhood notification is a terrible precedent. the whole west side is about to have ceqa eliminated. opioid occupancy. how long does the owner really have to live in this thome for it to be a house that can now be useful. so, rent control. or hawkins waivers. what is going to happen to rent control? it doesn't seem to be spelled out very well.

why do we need six units on a corner? why not 25 feet high? it makes no sense to me at all. thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, my name is christopher roach i'm an architect 24 year resident of san francisco and i'm here speaking as the chair of the aia public policy and advocacy committee who are strongly supporting supervisor mandelman's haney legislation with some key modifications and we sent you our official letters endorsed by the aia board. we support the supervisor intention to create distant exception to allow fourplexes on single family lots and on corner lots and really commending from working with our group the planning department, commission and others on the improving the

legislation. however, the achilles heal is it maintains all of the guidelines public notifications and conditional use for demolition and review processes and it will make it too difficult risky and expense for ordinary property owners to build any new housing. the additional amendment discussed today, for rent control, condos are just piling on to these already restrictions and we think will make any real production for feasible and furthermore, the way that this legislation eliminates sb9, proposals, we think is the wrong direction and we need more options for creating new housing and not fewer. so --

>> hello, caller. >> caller: i'm mark zardina and as a third generation san francisco and former president of the western between peaks and current chair of the land use committee we feel that many of the neighbourhoods in san francisco, especially on the west side, have eligible miss to

districts and they're an essential element of san francisco's culture and in response to federal recognition of the importance of preserving this character ceqa includes historic preservations review by excluding ceqa from the current densification bills especially at the state level, these reviews are excluded even though there are accommodation and resulting preservations do not preclude increasing density. compatible witness is the fact that many neighbourhoods have adopted design guidelines compatible with the preservation and i've been acknowledged and used by planning and historic review even when they're not (inaudible). i support the inclusion of ceqa and historical review and guidelines and associated neighbourhoods notifications as amendment to this housing

legislation. with 55 that are need today allow for density resources and in cases are already near at capacity. act as defacto limits on the density on the west side. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next speaker, please. >> caller: hello caller, you are on the line. >> >> caller: let's circle back that and next speaker please.

>> hi, my name is careen and i'm an architect in san francisco and i lived in san francisco for 32 years and i'm calling today to support supervisor mandelman's proposal. i think of all three, and all three have something to commend, i think supervisor mandelman's proposal is the most realistic and the most likely to actually increase the number of units built in the city. it proposes truly incremental but meaningful change and in addition i would like to support the planning department's recommendations and i'd also like to see some additional measures to help incentivise the density exception and reduce the over all cost of development which would result in greater production. the height and bulk requirement should be as they are under the planning code and these kinds of

projects that use the density exception is especially the corner lots should be exempt from the rdgs and of course, as my colleagues have already stated, we would like to see approval through ministerial review and one more piece that i thought was interesting and gordon mar's proposal, about is he speaks a lot about suppose sorting low and moderate income homeowners. i think that people will often underestimate the complexity of developing a four-unit project. so if there are subsidiaries developed by the city and proposed by the city for such homeowners, it should include support and thank you for listening and i hope you support the proposal tonight. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon

supervisors, i'm anna stayia and san francisco and race and equity and all planning coalition member. urging you to incorporate substantial investments to amene new units created are truly affordable and to continue the hearings for these items until all the amendments are ready. [please stand by]