justice to black san franciscans at the scale it should be. that's my two cents. thank you. >> thank you. madame chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you. president walton, do you have public remarks. oh, public comment is now closed. >> thank you, chair melgar and to the committee for hearing this item today and the committee who came out and public comment. this is something that we have known for years in terms of having a tool in place that has not been effective in addressing the real issues of gentrification and out migration. i wanted to not only have the hearing to see the data and see where we're missing the mark but also because we do have new opportunities with the new legislation to really go after more descendants of the family

and we can be successful if we get more aggressive and work harder to identify certificate of preference holders because at the ends of the day we cannot afford to leave anything on the table that is going to provide an opportunity to bring the black population back in san francisco and focus on affordable opportunities. if not the black population here in the city will be extinct and we should definitely get the information and data on who's been able to purchase and who's been renting and all all the information on the original loss of housing but it's going to take true reparations to address the displacement taken place for black folks here in the city. we're going to continue to work on this and other strategies and other qualities to change that

dynamic but i would love to request to continue this hearing to the call of the chair to make sure we get the regional data and ownership versus rental, updates and with the new strategies in place. thank you, chair. >> thank you, president walton. thank you, staff for being here. i'll make a motion that we continue this to the call of the chair. on that motion, supervisor peskin. aye. supervise preston. preston aye. supervisor melgar. you have three ayes. >> we're at item 4. >> adding article to require owners of certainly residential construction project to maintain a labor compliance bond and specify compliance work on the project and amending the

building code to require owners of such project to file on the condition receiving permit for restriction. members should call the number on the screen, 1-415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 2498 132 1461 and press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already and would like to speak press star 3 and the system will indicate you have been unmute. >> we're joined by monica burnett. >> thank you. good afternoon. we have no further updates on the item and respectfully request it be forwarded to the board. all right. colleagues, do we have comments

or questions? >> would you like to make a motion? let's go to public comment. >> are there members of the public who would like to speak on the matter? seeing none we'll move to our call in line. support is checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already and would like to speak press star 3 to be added to the queue and the system will indicate you have raised your hand and for those on hold wait until the system indicates have been unmuted and you can begin your comments. looks like we have zero callers. >> with that the public comment is now closed on the item. supervisor peskin. >> i'll move item 4 to the full board. >> on the motion made by supervisor peskin to move item 4 as recommended. supervisor peskin, aye.

supervisor melgar, aye. supervisor preston. absent. >> the motion carries. madame clerk i wonder if we can take a quick recess because i think supervisor mandelman and mar are planning on joining for the next two items and i don't see them here. if that's okay, colleagues? a quick two-minute break? okay. we can take a five-minute -- okay. [gavel] >> thank you.

is is

>> welcome back. we're joined by supervisor mar again. ordinance amending the planning code to rezone all residential, one family (rh-1) zoning districts, except for residential. one family, detached (rh-1(d)) districts, to residential, two family (rh-2) zoning districts; to rezone the rh-1(d) districts to a new class of residential district called residential, two family, detached (rh-2(d)) 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 administrative code to require new dwelling units constructed pursuant to the density limit exception to be subject to the rent increase limitations of the rent ordinance; 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, item 6 is 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. members who would like it speak should call 1-415-655-0001 and press 2498 132 1461 and the system will indicate you have raised your hard and have confirmation. madame chair. >> thank you. before i turn it over to my colleagues, supervisor mandelman and supervisor mar, thank you to both of you far your hard work and your staff's hard work and all the work you've done within the community including folks min community and for the many hours of discussion and heated sometimes and sometimes productive that have shaped what is becoming a very fundamental shift in how we do zoning on the west side in particular.

so just thank you so much for your willingness and effort on all this. we'll go to supervisor mandelman first. >> thank you, chair melgar and having another conversation today we were here on march 7 and had good conversations with some colleagues and i believe we have made some progress and especially i want to thank chair melgar and jim lowe in your office to engage and think through the things that were concerning to you and as a quick refresher the ordinance would allow for an exception density limit up to four units on all rh zoned lots not using the density

bonus and complying with requirements. this would go further on corner lots allowing for a density exception of up to six units on corners again providing it can fit within current height and bulk limits. the ordinance incorporates the recommendation from the planning commission and following sb9 that allows for ministerial approval of duplexes or two units on two lots for a total of four and the commission recommended we rezone all rh1 pars sells and create our own local equivalent of sb 9 to allow the same density for the same yard requirments. we have to add more housing for from historically single-family housing and we started this a year ago and think we should do

this in a way to respect the long-standing pattern of open space and interior residential lots that's important to provide air, light and green space essential to a livable urban requirement and this requires where a low-income unit has lived a replacement unit will be offered and the provision reflects changes in state law for the requirements in single-family districts. the ordinance would also protect historic resources by limiting the use of the density exemption to those that can proceed without impact on a local, state or historic landmark or category a historic resources. it makes no changes to the demolition control of the planning code that required conditional use approval for any demolition or merger of a

residential unit and allows home owners to add to the value of their property for a change in the subdivision code for allow for a family to add additional units and sub-divide their unit. we moved amendments that would further require rent control created through the density exception and create a detached zoning district in all areas that are currently zoned rh1d to maintain the required side yard and have a report for the district in light of the project. i support the amendments and believe they made the ordinance stronger. i'd like to thank chair melgar for that and i understand chair melgar as a few more amendments

for today we talked about and i'm supportive of and in closing the intent of the ordinance is to allow for modestly sized building to be built in the rh district making up 60% of the land and have only seen a small amount of new housing in recent years. this is a very small and incremental step towards addressing the 82,000 units we're supposed to plan for over the next eight years but i think it's a good step to take and does it in a way that promotes greater geographic equity in the way housing gets built and will hopefully open the door for more middle-class housing for san francisco families in neighborhoods across the city and with that i want to thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to the conversation today.

>> thank you, supervisor. supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair melgar and for this discussion. since it was the first hearing was over a month ago i did want to re-summarize and reframe it and add to it. i believe we're able agreement that incremental development in low-density neighborhoods is an important strategy for our city to increase housing production. i'm in areas of the city which haven't seen as much development i think because the lots are too small in the rh neighborhoods.

for me providing affordable housing is important and again this is a strategy i've again focussed on quite a bit creating incentives for the creation of new accessory dwelling units by sponsoring legislation to waive building permit fees and creating a pilot a.d.u. technical assistance program and with the planning department and community partners and colleagues, i thank you for your support and chair melgar for your co-sponsorship of our legislation last month creating the housing development program incentive for homeowners scaling up the program by providing a broader range of technical assistance and incentives such as grants and no-interest loans and streamline permitting for creation of affordable a.d.u.s

and in my legislation my goal has been to incentivize the production of new housing that's affordable and suitable for families that have been priced out of neighborhoods like the sunset which have historically served as beacons for working and middle class family and single-family zoning no longer exists thanks to sb9 and the legislation that preceded it and quadplexes are already being proposed and their permits streamlined on single family lots without any additional local policies and analysis by the turner center at u.c. berkeley found sb the will result in an estimated 8,500 market feasible units in san francisco. my legislation will keep sb9 in place and create a local alternative paway for

homeowners that allowed for tri plexes and quadplexes without the requirements of a lot split infeasible on most rh1 sites in our city and in exchange for the density bonus we would require an assurance that the bonus units are affordable to households at 100% a.m.i. and have at least two bedrooms to incentive i'd much needed middle income family units and bonus units would be required to be rent controlled and covered by owner-occupancy components to discourage speculation and the conditions are extremely important because our housing production over the past decade has seen the biggest deficit produced for middle-economic families and have seen an overproduction of luxury condos because that's what's most

profitable and there was analysis pro forma created by housing developers that shows it pencils out to create quadplexes and sixplexes with two to four bonus units affordable to middle income household. the financial unless includes a subsidy of $230,000 per unit in the form of a zero interest loan repaid on resale. and again, this is a key part of the incentive program for home owners the planning department is working on and hoping to launch later this year and a highlighted an example of a recent tri plex project in the outer park side completed several years ago. this was formerly a single-family home on a lot demolished and turned into a four-story stacked condo project and it the units sold for $1.3

million each and there's projects like this in my district approved recently. again, we'll see a number of these through sb9 which makes them allowable on nearly 100,000 single-family lots through our city. this is housing that meets the financial needs of developers and speculators and does meet the housing needs of higher income households but it's the type of housing that has been predominantly built in the past decade and doesn't support the urgent housing needs of moderate income families that have become such an endangered species in our city. thanks again for our colleagues for considering my affordable quadplex proposal to condition additional density bonuses beyond sb9 on affordability assurances and speculation controlled to make sure the housing we're incentivizing is

housing that needs our priority community needs. and i would add through the a.d.u. pilot program we found a strong interest among single-family home owners to create housing for family members and friends and community members that need it. i do appreciate supervisor mandelman's leadership and work and jacob in your office on the quadplex and sixplex proposal. my concern is that in the absence of affordability and anti-speculation conditions on the bonus units it will just facilitate more unaffordable housing we overwhelmingly built recently and lead to further gentrification of our working class, bipoc neighborhoods including the outer sunset. i look forward to continuing the

discussion. i did want to say i would like to see us moving forward with one quadplex proposal to the full board and not two or three of them. i'm open to the discussion how to make that work. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair melgar. colleagues, i want to make some maybe high-level comments and observations as i've been watching this a little bit at a distance. i say that as a supervisor for the most part of 20 years has been speaking to the notion of density equity and insofar as i represent the densist sit --

corner of the city and that's what this does but between the two pieces of legislation we have a conundrum in not moving affordability for dendensity. to me it harks back to the conversations we had with the former mayor that was freaked out that as we took the inclusionary rates in the charter and started an advisory committee we would end up with inclusionary rates that rendered new residential housing infeasible and we said and committed to a third-party process that was feasible and that's the dynamic number that gets revisited every three years when you don't have a pandemic

and that's what we were doing for section 415 of the code. i think that's an important conversation to have in this context and we're flying blind a little bit. so when i look at -- i'll be -- no offense it supervisor mar, candid, when i look at the way this bonus unit concept has been formulated my off-the-cuff thought is it renders these infeasible. having said that, and by the way the pro forma produced some meetings ago requires the injection of $230,000 per unit of zero interest money. that's a subsidy with value. that in and of itself is a sign of infeasibility because we're not sitting on a pile of cash we can loan for free. having said that, there probably is a sweet spot in there for some value recapture and i rely

on sophisticated third parties to produce that and then it gets more complicated because of the housing accountability act which there's very little case law around and a lot of will be determined by the courts and decisions that have yet to come down. that's based on an admonition we cannot do this without being feasible and i don't want to wind up unable to tweak them and we have to ready to that ground carefully and the non-speculative safeguards i think are being put in and while

supervisor melgar hasn't spoken to them, the notion of a period of a time, owner-occupancy hold is very good and anti-speculative and i think lends itself to anti-displacement and we know the math outer -- majority of evictions happen in the first three years and they're held to the board of realtors and they won't touch it and they're all elected democrats and that's not about to change but i think as we hash this thing out and as supervisor mandelman and mar have been working on this, some of this i think we can put forward right now.

i think turning the rh1 into rh2 we can just get that out of committee today and send that to a full board as we tweak the rest of it and have part of mail right now. i just wanted to put that on the table because if we really are going to do the bonus unit concept correctly, i think it does call for some independent feasibility analysis so we actually can do what supervisor mar rightly wants to do which is maximum feasible, underscore, feasible value recapture. anyway, those are my not too well articulated thoughts. and i will note as i have noted in the past there has been quite a bit of evolution over time because i was sitting in these chambers a little less than