okay good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday february 27th 2025 when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to we

ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're a lot of time is reached i will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. there is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and finally i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. >> at this time i'd like to take role commission president so present commission vice president moore here on your commissioner campbell commissioner imperial here commissioner mcgarry present and commissioner williams here. thank you commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance items one a and b for case numbers 2023 hyphen 005187c way and va r at 54

fourth street and 509 ministry conditional use authorize ation and variance are proposed for continuance to march 6th 2025 item two case number 2020 hyphen 009915c to 37 sanchez street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to march 6th 2025 item three case number 2023 hyphen 009469d or seven excuse me at 77 broad street. discretionary review is proposed for continuance to march 20th 2025 item four case number 2019 hyphen 01762 to emv and 570 market street appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration is proposed for continuance to april 3rd 2025 items five a, b and c for case numbers 2019 hyphen 017622d annex c way and vega at 570 market street downtown large project authorization conditional use authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to

april 3rd 2025. i have no other items proposed to be continued so we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar. again you need to come forward . >> seeing none we'll go to a reasonable accommodation request for this is has to i humbly request to plan commission continue items one 854 three and 1b509 ministry. this is the first time i've ever seen on the planning commission calendar a switch between residential hotel rooms and tourist hotel room and ironically the first hotel rooms are on set big phenomena and the residential hotel rooms are for three between mission and market. i think this is a substantial change to having tourist rooms

on sixth street and residential rooms are part of me quote unquote residential rooms are allowed to be converted to tourist hotel rooms on fourth street. please continue with this for about a month for at least more than one week this is really important to the planning commission understanding there is a whole lot of people in the south embarcadero and residents who are there. it's been traditionally restful to use south of market and there was a big struggle when we did the into the area plans for the south market and so there was a lot of care put into this by the people then this kind of works out the market to make sure that services were provided you need to have real input and real

thinking about what's going on here. i'm asking for the commission itself to require a staff report at least two weeks in advance so that you may be aware of and think through this as well as public. i'm asking that you continue it about a month certainly more than one week to do that because iteration after commission and for the public thank you very much. okay. last call for public comment on the continuance calendar seeing none public comment is closed and the year continuance calendar is now before you commissioners commissioner imperial i'd like to change the later date for items one a and one b 50 the 54 fourth street

and 509 mina street to either march 20 or 27. the reason that i'd like this to to to be changed to a later date because i think there needs to be more information in terms or information or investigation in terms whether there are tenants and whether these units are vacant and if they are vacant at this point what are the background of the tenancy to that? so it may take some time for it is staff to do that kind of look out. so just wondering if we can do that change of lead to a later date for items one and one b and i'd like to hear other commissioners opinion that commissioner williams thank you president. i also want to lend my my my name to to this continuance. i think there's a lot of

complicated land use. this is a very this this area has a lot of history and there's a lot of nuance in in this change. it's a pretty big change and and so i think it's worth it for us to take a little bit more time also a lot of the community organizations that have been in this area for for decades haven't really had a chance to to weigh in as well. and so for that i'm i'm lending my name to this continuance for a couple of weeks or three weeks and just just to add one point of clarification, we have done tenant history and site visits to verify tenancy and occupancy of these units that information would be in your staff report prior to the hearing. i don't think we have a significant objection if the commissioners still want to push it out another week but i want to clarify it's not we are including that in your staff

report and have done that research. thank you, commissioner campbell. that was actually going to be my question was do we have reason to believe that that's not in going to be in the packet? i mean this translates to bringing units to the market and i'd hate to prolong that activity so assuming that there's been due diligence i don't see a need for for changing that date. >> commissioner moore i would support a continuance and the reasons are that's a majority of us are not really familiar with the whole issue of sorrows at the time several years ago when this came up for the first time we were actually encouraged to visit this hotel rooms and look at some in person and i would suggest that anybody who has not done that would use this opportunity to do so because it is an extremely important learning

experience to understand the whole subject of our rooms better than barely understanding the appreciation . so i would appreciate for all of us to revisit that and continues item and takes an opportunity to visit as our rooms and see what bought would be up against. >> thank you. maybe perhaps perhaps maybe we can move it to march 20th. >> yeah this would be good. yeah i'd like to propose a motion for 1a1b to continue to march 20th and the remaining items are continued as proposed. >> second, there's nothing further. >> commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed except for items one a and b to march 20th on that

motion commissioner campbell may commissioner mcgarry nay. commissioner williams. hi commissioner braun i missioner imperial i commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners campbell and mcgarry voting against placing us under your consent just really quickly on that as acting zoning administrator also continue items one, b and five c to the date specified. thank you. >> acting zoning administrator consent calendar all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item six case number 2024 hyphen 011339c way to 55 california street conditional

use authorization item seven case number 2224 hyphen 010575 see way at 1463 haight street conditional use authorization item eight case number 2024 hyphen 011113 seaway at four one columbus street conditional use authorization item nine case number 2024 item 010813 seaway 21 venice avenue ground b conditional use authorization item ten case number 2224 hyphen 010541 seaway 1530 through 1542 hate street conditional use authorization in item 11 case number 2024 hyphen 004085 drm at one oven's order discretion mandatory discretionary review commissioner campbell i believe you have disclosure to make so i'd like to recuse myself from item number six 255 california street that is a commission from my firm and my employer so i think it's most appropriate i am recused from that matter and

that item. do i hear a motion to recuse commissioner campbell from that item? there's a few more commissioner. i wanted to come and you move to recuse commissioner campbell second and this is for item six on the recusal for item six for commissioner campbell. commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry high commissioner williams i commissioner braun i should imperial i should have more right and commission president so i so move commissioners commissioner campbell you are hereby recused from item six. >> is there any other public comment or requests from members of the public to remove any of these items off of consent? >> seeing none public comment is closed. >> i actually have this

presence so oh please go ahead . i apologize. i've never had to speak about the consent calendar before. >> my name is charlene chen. i'm the midtown terrace neighborhood liaison to souter tower. so in speaking about item 11 on the consent calendar so you would like that to be removed from the consent calendar and heard today as a separate item? >> yes. okay. so that's all you need to do at this point and then we'll remove that and then we call that up you'll have opportunity to speak to it. >> okay. is it my understanding that it will be called at the end of the regular calendar or generally when items get removed from consent we place them at the end. >> it's at the discretion of the commission. i think it could be very brief if that helps. >> okay. item 11 will be removed from the consent calendar. >> shall we hear it first on

the regular calendar at the end may i like to get a read on the audience who would like to speak on this item? please raise your hand. i'm just taking some heat calls here for the project just to okay. >> and maybe one other neighborhood representative that i think that would be okay. >> well looks like it looks like pretty light so we can do it at the beginning of our regular calendar. >> very good. thank you. item 11 will be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar last call for public comment to request that any of these items be removed from the consent calendar seeing none public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you commissioners i would request that we act on item six first to allow the recusal of commissioner campbell separately commissioner braun, you have a comment i'm just going to move to approve item six second on

water. thank you commissioners on the approval of item six on consent, commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams high commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 on the remaining items on consent with exception to item 11 which has been pulled off of consent . >> commissioner braun i move to approve item seven through ten second thank you commissioners on that motion to approve item seven through ten on your consent calendar. commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams high commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under commission

matters item 12 the land acknowledgment i'll be reading the acknowledgment today the commission acknowledges that we are on the side the unceded ancestral homeland of the dramatist aloni who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions the raw material and we have never ceded loss nor forgotten their responsibilities as a caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in dark traditional territory. as guests we recognize that we benefit from leaving and working under traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the roma to challenge our community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you commissioners. item 13 consideration of adoption draft minutes for

february 6th and february 13th 2025 members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes seeing none public comments closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners commission lebrun moved to adopt the minutes the second thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes commissioner campbell i missioner mcgarry commissioner williams i commissioner brown i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us in item 14 commission comments and questions if there are no comments or questions from members of the commission we can move on to department matters. item 15 directors announcements item 16 review of past events of the board of supervisors there is no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday.

>> good afternoon commissioners aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. so we're coming to the end of black history month for a big chunk of that. i was traveling around new zealand but i did manage to get back in time for the department celebration which was held this past tuesday. it included some delicious food ,music and a panel discussion by three black artists. one of the key ideas of the artists touched on is that in our current climate celebrating black history month, black artists and even black joy itself is an act of resistance. that's something worth remembering these annual celebrations can sometimes feel routine and it's easy to struggle to find fresh interpretations. but in many ways our current moment has given us an unexpected gift the chance to reassess and reinvigorate these traditions by openly and vocally celebrating the history, culture and contributions that some seek to erase. we actively resist that erasure . we affirm that these stories matter, that this joy matters

and that we will continue to honor and uplift them. so happy black history month. >> this week atlantis committee first on the agenda was supervisor bolton's ordinance that would amend the third street alcohol restricted use district. the amendment would conditionally permit certain bars within the bayview neighborhood commercial district. commissioners, you heard this item on december 5th of last year and adopted a recommendation of approval. during land use there are no public comments or supervisor discussions. the item was subsequently sent to the full board with the positive recommendation as a committee report. next the committee considered supervisor walton's ordinance to create the leland avenue neighbor commercial district. the controls in the new ncd will remain primarily the same as in c two but with some controls to better reflect the community's needs. commissioners, as you heard this item on february 6th and adopted a recommendation for approval during the land use hearing supervisor walton introduced the item and chair the overall goals of enhancing foot traffic in the corridor

and fostering small business opportunities. he emphasized that community engagement efforts began in 2023 and that the drafted legislation aligns with the committee's goals. there were three public commenters in support of the legislation. there was no additional committee discussion and the item was sent to the board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. >> then at the full board this week the ordinance that would amend the planning and health codes for inclusionary housing ordinance and non-potable water exemptions sponsored by the mayor passed its second read an ordinance sponsored by the mayor for development impact fees and requirements for nonresidential to residential conversion projects. also passed its first read the third street alcohol restricted use district sponsored by supervisor walton faster passed its first read ad as did the leland avenue commercial district. that's all i have for you today and happy to take any questions if you have them. if there are no questions from members of the commission we

can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items or opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. good afternoon commissioners bridget maley. >> a couple of things. one i just thought it would be good to. i know staff has been working on the revised housing choice map, the zoning map and just want to make sure that we're moving forward with as much public outreach as possible regarding that. i do understand that there's a

significant amount of density decontrol that's being considered and i think a vast number of residents of san francisco don't understand what density decontrol is. >> so i think that outreach on that should be as extensive as possible and as soon as possible because i know you're under the gun to get this something passed. but i do firmly believe that density decontrol is not something most san franciscans understand. >> so encouraging you to encourage staff to do some outreach. thank you. >> okay. last call for general public comment seeing none general public comment is closed we can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners item 11 was pulled off of consent and we'll take up that matter now for case number 2024 hyphen 004085.

>> commissioner williams had a comment. >> thank you. >> sorry. sorry, john. i just wanted to make a comment on what the the woman bridget maley just commented on. >> and just just to check in with planning director hillis what what kind of outreach has been done so far and i know we've talked about this before. is there any plans for the future as far as public outreach? >> where were we out with that ? yeah. just so i mean we've had several meetings where we've talked about the past outreach and i'm happy to kind of provide you with that information. again, we continue to do outreach mostly as requested. and when i folks want to meet with us we definitely do. we have been out talking to the supervisors and taking their recommendations on possible meetings and who we should talk to. so the plan is to bring a map to you and have a series of

public hearings on various elements of of the rezoning over the next couple of months that would include a map and we'd hear public comment on that. supervisor chan has a has a ordinance you will hear shortly too about a potential bail notice to folks. so this is going to go on for the bulk of this year kind of outreach and engagement on the on the rezoning and different topics. one topic is here before you today so i'm you know and i appreciate that thank you thank you rich for for you know giving us an update but i do remain concerned like the woman just mentioned that a lot of people don't understand really what's going on as far as you know, density, decontrol and other issues are complicated and and so you know, in addition to what's already been done and what's being

continued to be done, i was wondering if if planning would be open to suggestions from either the commissioner or from public to enhance that or that that you know that that information to get out. and i think you know the more the public knows the better. and so absolutely be please make any suggestions you want on kind of where we we may be lacking in our we certainly density decontrol has been a topic of of of you know ours and the community's concern and we get it like it's not the most straightforward but has been a topic of discussion throughout this. like most of the of the especially on commercial corridors where we're proposing to rezone there's a component of this where removing density controls we've done that as you know in most of the city when we did area plan. so i get it it's a complicated issue but we've been talking

about it a lot as well. >> so so it's it sounds to me like you are absolutely okay. that's good. so i would encourage the public to reach out to the to the planning department. right. we can right the commission as well and let us know if you have any ideas on on outreach in your community. >> thank you. okay. item 11 for case number 2024 hyphen 004085 drm at one of unzueta mandatory discretionary review oh you have talked from commission before we before we begin this item i just want to disclose that i visited the project site in october of last year and met with the project sponsor and commissioner campbell. i also visited the project site around the same on the same exact date as commissioner brown. you all right? >> good afternoon commissioners

. gretl gunther planning department staff the item before you is a request for mandatory discretionary review with conditions of approval for project at one law of inside a street the location of sutro tower. mandatory discretionary review is required for all building permits at the site. the project is located in the open space of twin peaks immediately adjacent to the midtown terrorist force knowles in clarendon heights neighborhoods. the project site is located within an rh one d zoning district the family and senior housing opportunity special use district and a 40 x high and bole district. the project proposes the replacement of existing metal panels located on the lower three horizontal trusses of sutro tower specifically replacement of the existing exterior facing corrugated panels located on the towers horizontal trusses at the second through fourth levels as portions of the existing panels have been determined to have paint containing led the existing panels would be replaced with similar newly fabricated panels with non

leaded paint and in compliance with the san francisco building code. the existing panels are 36in in width and range from 10 to 40ft in length depending on location after removal and inspection of newly exposed services, rust abatement and surface maintenance would be performed as necessary and the new replacement panels would be installed. the replacement panels would be similar in size and shape to the existing panels with the corrugations of the replacement panels identical to the existing or the replacement panels will be painted at an offsite location and arrive at sutro tower ready to be installed. the color of the replacement panels would be aviation orange red to match the original color of the straight portions of the tower in compliance with their neighborhood agreements and the standard conditions of approval for sutro tower, the project sponsor sutro tower inc sent a notice of community meeting to neighbors and neighborhood association liaisons on january 30th 2025. the community meeting was meant to provide information to neighbors regarding the exterior horizontal cladding

project and to answer any questions about the project. >> the community meeting itself was held on february 12th, 20 25. to date the department has received one letter in support of the project. >> the department has also received three letters in opposition from two members of the public and one neighborhood organization regarding the project's original placement on the consent calendar of today's hearing agenda. >> this project includes the standard conditions of approval for sutro tower as submitted in the revised analysis sent to you via email on friday february 21st and i also have hard copies as well for your reference the department supports approval of this project and recommends that the planning commission approve the project as proposed with the standard conditions of approval for stripped or tower. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. the project sponsor will give a brief presentation as well. thank you. thank you. project sponsor you have five minutes and i have the i have letters that we received this morning in support.

that's the one that ms.. guenther referenced as well as copies of the letter which you all received via email yesterday. thank you. ms. gunther president so vice president moore and members of the commission i am kristin thor peters representing sutro tower inc commonly referred to as sti, the owner and operator of sutro tower. sutro tower operates as san francisco's primary communications facility. as you have heard me say many, many times before, we are very, very lucky to have it. we are here today seeking approval of a like kind replacement of the exterior cladding situated on the horizontal trusses located at levels two, three and four which protect sensitive equipment located inside. this project is seemingly non-controversial with the main concern of the neighbors and you'll hear from them not being the project itself but whether

this commission's 1988 policy of discretionary review allows the commission to take such discretionary review on its consent calendar. so we've provided you some background information on these topics via email yesterday and in the packet you've just received. so we're not going to spend any more time on this unless you have questions. >> in addition to myself we have ron on here yet. >> ron hamburger from sga is enroute and should be here soon as well as raul velez estes chief operating officer and any of us are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you for your consideration. >> okay if that concludes project sponsors presentation. >> members of the public each have two minutes. >> hello again my name is charlene chen. i'm the neighborhood liaison from the ten terrace homeowners

association. >> i have no objection to the project itself and the replacement of the horizontal panels. my objection today is to the unilateral placement of this mandatory discretionary review hearing on the consent calendar which is the first time to my knowledge has this been done since the resolution for a mandatory discretionary review was passed in 1988? so my request would be that any future desire to place our mandatory discretionary review on the consent calendar be done with prior notice to the neighborhood which we did not receive and also in after agreement by the three neighborhood liaisons to confirm that there are no objections in the public or neighborhood residents to the

project and therefore it is appropriate to place perhaps on the consent calendar as opposed to having the discretionary review hearing. and if that needs to be done by adoption of a condition to be added to the standard conditions then i would certainly urge the commission to do that. >> thank you. >> i'm walter kaplan. before snl's layers on to sutro tower from the four chanel's neighborhood organization i support and stand with the requests that charlene just made that the additional condition be added. the only thing i want to say is sutro tower has been there for 50 years in its first 25 years of existence. it was the proverbial real neighbor from. now over the last 25 years both

the neighborhood and sutro tower have matured and we have worked together for a bigger, better sutro tower. they have gone the extra mile to make the structure safer, more secure. they have done all the maintenance that would be required. they've made sure the lead paint that was used over the years has been removed. and we support their continued efforts in that regard. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed and this matters now before you commissioners. >> commissioner moore let me say that this project has been very strongly stewarded by the people in the neighborhood and

there are two people in this room in addition to everybody sitting on the dais that is supervisor melgar and director hillis who have looked at this project intensely in the past and really seen the efforts the neighborhood has put into it. and i'm delighted cheering that you are still in support of it but i will direct the question that you are asking to our city attorney and asking as to whether or not a mandatory discretionary review can not be on consent. she is the only one who can really guide us in making that decision. >> thank you for that question, commissioner. i have not had an opportunity to research this since it was presented to me as a fait accompli but we will be happy to take a look at it and report back to the commission for any future items. and i'll make sure i coordinate with the secretary mr. ryan and as well would you then guide us in adding it as a condition of approval because i think a new vote in the future cases would probably come back and said we are not putting that consent and i'm sensitive given the

efforts this particular neighborhood has made that they do indeed retain the right to do so. >> yes. well, as you know, commissioner, any time something is put on a consent calendar it can be taken off at the request of a member of the public. so even if it's listed as a consent calendar item, it can as it has today but be removed from that. so my inclination without having done the research is that it's probably acceptable to do so for that reason. but i would like to take a closer look before i answer that. >> commissioner moore i would just add that i think i think staff is heard loud and clear not to put this matter on consent anymore moving into the future. so i'm sure as long as i'm secretary to remember that as well and it's in the public record and we do often take things off consent because we're being asked so i think we do not need conditions just make a motion to approve and that's a motion i'm making. >> second, there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion that has been

seconded to take discretionary review and approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell. hi, commissioner mcgarry. commissioner williams i listened to braun by mission imperial high commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us on item 17 for case number 2024 hyphen 009753 p.s. a window replacement standards planning code amendment. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners marshall taylor planning department staff. the ordinance before you would amend the planning code to limit restrictions on wendover placement projects in certain buildings. it is sponsored by supervisor melgar and she is here to present the ordinance to you. i will return after a presentation to share the staff report. >> thank you.

>> thank you so much. hello. good afternoon. i'm your animal guy supervisor for district seven and over the past few months my office has heard from many constituents in san francisco struggling with unnecessary red tape and excessive costs to replace their windows which is one of the most routine things that one replaces in one's home. >> the current planning department standers as you know because we have talked about this before and for homeowners to and property owners to pay thousands of dollars for custom wood windows or undergo a burdensome process to prove that their home is not a historic resource it means that tenants are left in drafty rooms dependent on space heaters that increase fire risk and energy consumption. this is neither fair nor sustainable. i actually had a conversation

with one of my colleagues last week the supervisor for district nine who told me that she had spent the better part of the year organizing the tenants in her building to try to get the landlord to change the windows because they were so drafty and the landlord said actually i'm intimidated by the process and that's why ab deferred it. this is why i've introduced legislation to reform these outdated standards prioritizing true historic preservation while giving everyday homeowners and property owners the flexibility to choose cost effective, energy efficient and climate resilient windows restrict materials and designs in non historic homes doesn't just create financial barriers it also limits our ability to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions and meet our climate action goals. over the last decade nearly 20,000 window replacement permits have been filed with

the department. with these reforms we can save san franciscans millions of dollars while supporting sustainable living. our city is not a museum. it is growing evolving. it's a community that should reflect the needs of the people who live here. i also want to express my support for the recommendations outlined on page eight of the staff report which ensure that these reforms align with other planning code requirements where still streamlining that permit process. >> these recommendations strike a balance between flexibility for property owners and maintaining key design principles that contribute to our city's architectural character. i urge your support for common sense reform and i also want to thank the staff particularly aaron staff for putting up with me and my temper over the last few months and getting this done. thank you very much and i'll answer any questions or have the presentation from staff. okay.

>> thank you supervisor. good afternoon commissioners michelle taylor planning department staff. the ordinance before you aims to simplify the planning department's review of replacement windows. the department supports the recommendation for approval with modest modifications for the proposed ordinance. >> under the proposed ordinance the department's review of window replacement permits would be modified as follows. as currently written, the ordinance would update the planning code to limit any regulation of the size, location arrangement design and materials for replacement window permits on non historic buildings. replacement windows on non historic buildings would not be subject to planning code requirements or design review. any window framing material including vinyl would be permitted on street facing elevations of non historic buildings. the proposed ordinance includes exceptions to building code and

fire code requirements. it also includes exceptions for historic buildings. the department will continue to review replacement windows on identified historic buildings under code under current code and design guidelines. it's the department's understanding that there are two primary goals of the ordinance which is one to allow flexibility regarding framing and framing materials on replacement windows specifically to allow vinyl frames on windows visible from the street. >> and two to improve the permit review process for applicants. >> the department supports this and while the ordinance will simplify the review process for applicants the broadness of the current language may also create unintended conflicts with other sections of the planning code. >> the proposed language provides exceptions for historic buildings and building or fire code requirements. however, it does not include exceptions for existing planning code requirements which may include storefront transparency, window location,

residential exposure or bird safety requirements. therefore the sizes. therefore the department is proposing modifications to the ordinance which would achieve the intended goal to allow for flexible framing materials and replacement windows while avoiding conflicts with the planning code. really we believe by allowing more flexibility around the framing materials this will provide applicants with greater certainty and clarity when applying for window permits. therefore the department recommends that the commissioner adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications of the proposed ordinance as follows modify 136 to a to clarify and narrow the language to say that department will not regulate frame and sash materials for replacement windows 11362a will also be modified to replace the regulating body from the city to the planning department so as to avoid confusion or unintentional conflicts with other city codes.

we recommend adding two new exceptions 136 to d and e new subsection d would add specific language meant to avoid conflicts with other sections of the planning code and e new subsection eve would be added to create flexibility for cultural districts who may in the future want to draft objective design standards for housing projects subject to the housing accountability act under 136 6136 to b one and two we recommend replacing the historic building language in the ordinance with the historic building definition found in planning code section 102. this recommendation is simply meant to ensure consistency with how the planning code already defines a historic building as adopted by this commission in 2023 as part of the housing constraints ordinance. overall, the department finds that the proposed amendments would maintain the intended goal of streamlined review of window replacements.

these modifications would also respond to property owners who request greater flexibility as it relates to replacement materials particularly providing accommodation to property owners, confronting the costs of window replacements. these amendments would also ensure consistency with the planning code requirements. the proposed modifications would also minimize potential contradictions with established codes and policies while still simplifying the process. to date the planning department has received public comments regarding the proposed ordinance from 26 individuals and organized sections. >> one of these was also a joint letter in support of the proposed ordinance signed by five community organizations including the sierra club, the san francisco tenants union and s.f. climate emergency coalition and more than 30 individuals. the letters expressed support for less burdensome and more affordable processes for homeowners and a de-emphasis on

the said on esthetic requirements. letters also noted the expense and burdensome process of replacing aging windows under the current standards. >> a small number of letters also request expanding the ordinance to include historic buildings. the department has not received any letters in opposition to the proposed ordinance. this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you. that concludes staff presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. >> hi. my name is michael keane. i'm vice president of foxtail hill windows and doors who've been handcrafting wooden windows in san francisco since 1991. >> and i just want to state that getting rid of the current standards of the wooden street facing windows was sorely in small businesses and hand craftsmen here in the city in favor of large companies that are heavily invested

in doing away with the standards because they're selling mass produced vinyl windows. it directly hurt local small businesses and could potentially result in the loss of jobs for san franciscans to the benefit of these companies based elsewhere. second, i find it a little troubling that there's such a misconception about the price of wooden windows. an article in the san francisco chronicle this past july written by danielle achieve quotes a homeowner as saying that they were that the only option was to get custom windows which was going to cost $40,000 for five standard size western windows. an estimate he got from the planning department and quote and i mean i go to the planning department all the time i probably pulled half of those 20,000 permits myself but i they didn't personally inspect these windows when they gave them this quote and they had no idea or no way to understand the exact details. so i find it troubling that this $40,000 estimate wasn't even fact checked by the reporter before publishing it because it's clearly caused a panic around quotes on getting

windows we do do quotes for free and everyone that i know that makes windows in town does the same. >> and i think that removing or in trying to insert vinyl windows into these front facing windows front facing openings is going to be difficult because even in that article they talk about a standard size of window. and i mean i measure windows every single day and i could not tell you what a standard size window is. i mean every building is shifted over 100 to 100 years they've been sitting there and every inch of slant quarter inch of slant. what we can account for as a custom window business and these vinyl windows will companies would use shims and i mean it just truly looks awful . >> but believe me i understand that home ownership is extremely expensive. i hope to be a home owner myself one day. i was born here and i plan to live here my whole life. but one of the reasons i'm so proud to be from here is that it is beautiful and it isn't a

museum that we live in. but i think that the architecture and character of the city deserves to be protected while san franciscans deserve to afford to live here live here at the same time. but i think punishing local businesses local small businesses isn't the answer. and i think that if we want to help out homeowners with costs then we should lower the permit prices. i definitely agree with streamlining the permit process. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners . i'm courtney kroger, former member of the historic preservation commission and i want to acknowledge the challenge that this issue brings up. i also want to note that the revised windows standards should be coordinated with the objective design standards, the preservation and the citywide design standards. we've got two things going here at once and the commissions are

working through the objective design standards at this time. i also want to note that i think the historic preservation commission should have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. they are after all, the city's body of expertise on historic resource issues and not just category buildings. so i think they we would all benefit from their review and comment. >> i have a few questions and comments if i'm understanding the department's proposed amendments, they narrow the scope to replacement of frames only within an existing opening and do not provide for additional enlarged openings. >> a next question is how will category c buildings that are located in historic districts be treated? so if you have non contributing building in a historic district, is it allowed to remove all of its sashes and frames and replaced with vinyl? i'm not entirely clear yet on how category b buildings will be treated.

again if window frames and sashes and category b in a category b building could be replaced couldn't that be a potential secret trigger? and would a historic resource evaluation be required? >> what happens in the case of a potential historic district where individual category b buildings have seen their window frames and sashes replaced by vinyl? do they no longer qualify as a historic district? >> i would hope that the department will also offer advice regarding other methods and materials and ways to upgrade existing windows that is an alternative to vinyl. and in conclusion i hope that you will send this to the hpc and try to coordinate it with the city. the citywide and preservation design objective standards objective design standards. >> thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon.

afternoon commissioners. i share the concerns expressed by the two previous speakers. i do think that and your colleagues on the historic preservation commission i think would agree with me that windows are often some of the most character defining features of buildings not just category buildings but many of the buildings that make up the fabric of our neighborhoods that aren't necessarily individually categorized as a's but contribute to the overall streetscape and character of our neighborhoods. and so i think that we should encourage the historic preservation commission to review these standards and provide some input and comment to you. >> they are as the previous speaker said, the the the tool the the group of people who are the expertise experts in preservation and you rely on them for for advice.

i also agree with the concept that there should be some acknowledgment and overlap and alignment with the preservation objective design standards and the citywide design standards that are under review and ongoing now. i also just want to echo the first the gentleman that spoke first there is a little bit of a cottage industry in san francisco. we we do have significant victorian homes that if you try to insert a vinyl window into some of those windows it's just they're not going to fit and that's just going to ultimately cause more angst for the property owner because they're not going to fit they're going to leak, they're going to not be the right alignment as he mentioned and the shims will show, etc.. >> so i would just encourage you to to encourage the department to perhaps think

this through a little bit more before we before we take this leap. thank you so much. hello. >> excuse me. can you hear me? can you hear me? hello, commissioners director and city staff. my name is garen checkley. i'm a random resident of san francisco. i'm not a lobbyist for the vinyl and the vinyl window industry. i'm not a lobbyist here but i am the organizer of the letter supporting supervisor mogherini's proposed performance up proposed reforms. you would have got this in your briefing packet signed by over 50 residents, renters and homeowners and by some big tenants rights and environmental groups as well. >> so you've seen that letter a few dozen times in a briefing packets by now you know the reasons why we want an easing of window requirements environmental financial oh lots of reasons. but today i want to make a bit of a different argument for all of you. >> i want to ask what kind of

san francisco residents are looking for. we've got big cost of living problems here. housing expenses are too high for renters and homeowners. >> people are furious when they open their ever rising new bills. then people go to try to fix their leaky windows or they ask their landlord to. >> and our city windows standards talk about esthetics and neighborhood character and ogs oh geez when you open your genie window bill like that's the thing that the city is talking to you about. this is why residents of the city lose trust in our local. >> i've spoken to dozens of people about the current windows standards and i can attest that the vast majority of people people who can't be here who can't take vacation to spend time here in the middle of the day despise them. >> people feel the standards encapsulates everything that's wrong with the out-of-touch, pedantic, contradictory, unnecessarily onerous city policy.

>> the current windows standards make it feel like we're living in a perverse joke almost that the city wants us to upgrade our homes to be climate resilient and simultaneously makes it expensive to upgrade our windows to do so. >> it's not just this policy it's death by it's death by a thousand cuts each cut that makes it more expensive and harder and frustrating to live in the city that we all love. >> two people who don't know all of you personally it feels like the city is run by people out of touch with the realities and the challenges of living here. look, the elections of the past couple of years have made it clear that people just want to live in a place that gets the basics right. >> and that includes dealing with the high cost of housing and energy. >> supporting supervisor melgar is legislation and simplifying the window frame requirements. just helps one of these thousand cuts. so i urge you to take the small step towards restoring public trust in our and policies and support this legislation. >> on behalf of all the people that i've spoken to. please just make it easier to

upgrade our windows. save on electricity bills it should not be this hard. we just want to have a that gets the basics right. thank you. good afternoon commissioners bruce bowen from doros heights improvement club. >> i'd like to thank supervisor melgar for comments and clarifications of the changes that she is accepting which i interpret to mean accepting all of the staff's excellent and all the planning excellent recommendations as it allows among other things for me to cut a number of my comments and but there are a couple of questions. well, first of all, in terms of the original language, i think one of the things that was most alarming and about the ordinance as originally drafted was the audacity or the audaciousness of the sweeping deregulation that that an implied even if we stipulate that window replacement rules are complex and and sometimes burdensome this planning code

is to an old and other design glide design guidelines are so just being cumbersome or putting pressure on homeowners and landowners isn't necessarily a reason to allow for taking a taking a chainsaw using that metaphor purposefully taking a chainsaw to existing regulation. so excepting planning was excellent modifications to the ordinance i think is a good step. >> there are a couple of questions or additional comments i'd like to make though. and consistent with the earlier comments you've heard about historic preservation. well first of all, one question i have is regarding the sudden and apparent complete collapse without much explanation of planning's long standing opposition to plastic or vinyl windows. it seems almost like there was some something else going on behind the scenes here or some way that something that had

been so entrenched in planning policy is now just kind of swept aside almost like steamrolled aside. the second is about the status of historic or older buildings staffs the planning executive summary talks about how this code change would limit restrictions on window replacement projects in certain buildings. even with the revision to the the kind of historic buildings that would not be subject to the changed rules and the lack of review that the change rules would bring. there's very little understanding public understanding of what those what historic buildings are exempt from this kind of change in regulation and in the language in this summary should really say it would limit restrictions on window replacement projects in all but a very few buildings because of the list of number the number of houses, the list of houses

that would be exempt from the changed regulations would really i think be fairly small. and very few people really understand with that list of historic houses is even with it even with the changes that planning is represented. so there needs to be more outreach and probably a study of which houses should be exempt from the changes in regulation. >> thank you. my name is patrick. i'm just a random resident. my concern is over the environmental reasons of wood and wood and windows versus vinyl windows because we all know wood comes from trees which you can plant and grow vinyl on that has to be made from oil which is pumped out of the ground, processed and in doing so it puts more carbon into the air wood and windows and traditional wood and windows that are 100 years old

that can be retrofitted with double pane glass and weather stripping. the mechanisms are also a lot simpler than vinyl windows. wooden windows work by having a sash strung with between two ropes with pulleys at the tops and weights on either side. each weight weighs half as much as the sash so when you push the sash up the weights move down and it's all balanced. >> modern vinyl windows use a complicated mechanism of springs and gas cylinders. modern vinyl windows are often engineered to fail after 20 years or so. >> this is so the companies that make them can sell new windows, wooden windows or designed to last for a long time. you may hear someone say oh this building has old wooden windows on it but you never hear someone say it had wooden windows as wooden windows on it that have lasted 100 years.

>> good afternoon commissioners. that's a hard act to follow. >> i support the concerns already expressed about this legislation really that should go to the historic preservation commission. give them respect. give them them to let them look at it before you pass judgment on it. when you talk about doing the vinyl windows, you know, full disclosure my house was built in 1912. we purchased it because it was old. we love the house. we live in a row of 12 or 13 older houses. we all love our houses. people who buy these homes love them and respect them and do everything they can to protect them and they add to the character of the neighborhood. people walk by and comment on it. so we believe that we benefit the neighborhood. >> when you talk about death by

a thousand cuts chipping away at historic preservation standards is death by a thousand cuts. that's really what's going on here. and i have been a member of the sierra club and i will tell you there are their local groups full orientation now is pro-development. that is so anything you see with local sierra club on it. just remember they are now pro-development. >> i believe you talked about the objective design standards and perhaps there's some consideration here with that. but really seriously even if you write that in the legislation, what's going to get approved between now and when any districts do all that you need to put the horse in front of the cart and not the cart before the horse you need to go to the hpc. you need to do the objective designs standards and then please come back and look at this legislation. >> and my last comment is on the planning department who

always very humorously says oh, you know, nobody wrote to us well nobody knows what the f you excuse my french is going on because the planning department never really tells anybody anything unless they have to. >> one person came here who's definitely pro-development and he's going out to people he knows are going to prove this and he's got a whole bunch of people involved. but i can tell you my neighbors don't know anything. i'm in the outer sunset and nobody knows anything about this. so please do not lose. we haven't gotten any letters and the excuse that they haven't gotten any letters then that means that they haven't told anybody. >> please send this to the historic preservation commission and don't make a decision today. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, george cherish. i think the most troubling thing about this is sort of the raising of the vinyl windows and i think that you know the

thing about windows fenestration especially in san francisco in our residential neighborhoods is it does make the house. it's like it's like your hair if your hair looks terrible you look terrible. if your windows look terrible you're going to look it's not going to look so good. and those vinyl windows do not look good. i mean i'm very concerned. >> i'm glad i made everybody laugh. we need a laugh. jesus christ. >> okay. sorry. i mean it was bad enough to hear gene hackman died and then i hear all the other news. anyway, windows i have a question about the opening. >> it's not clear to me what that means if it's existing. i mean because this gets into i'm sorry to say at 317 because when you make an opening bigger that's changes the volume of the house. >> so please make that clearer. the other thing i saw that i thought was kind of interesting in the staff report was about

the list that the department went through of windows. >> and it seems like the role of the department when people come in to pick wherever they come in could be to educate people say okay, well here these windows you know and here's this guy who's in the city who makes these beautiful wood windows and maybe you should talk to him or this and that just a list of the window companies particularly focusing on the local ones. seems like that would be a good way we're all trying to get the economy going in san francisco. >> that seems like a way to do it. and i'll just say finally i really do think the existing opening thing is very important. but the final thing i'll say is about vinyl windows. the report says on page four that they're the least expensive. and i'll remind you of that old expression what's cheapest dear? so people can get those windows but they may not last very long and while they're up there they don't look so well. so i think everything that people said about going back to the hpc and that his design standards was valid too.

so thanks a lot. >> last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed and this matters now before you commissioners. thank you. before open up the floor for my fellow commissioners i would like to invite supervisor guard. so if you may want to offer some of your comments or response to them. >> sure. thank you very much. president so so i just i do want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the public comments. >> as i noted during my presentation i accept all of the department's recommendations. so my issued ish i accept the recommendation that we not mess with size or you know it's just the existing frame people seem to be really fixated on the vinyl issue. >> nothing in this legislation requires a final windows.

>> it simply gives a choice to the property owner to pick what is most cost energy efficient and also durable. >> if you are a landlord and you have energy costs and you are being forced by the bay area air quality management agency to replace your gas boiler with electrical and incur that costs vinyl may not be the most cost effective thing because it will decay much faster than fiberglass or aluminum or any of the other things that are available in the market. >> what my legislation simply does is give flexibility so that you're not required to treat your 1950 single family home in the excelsior the same way as you would a victorian in an article ten neighborhood which is i think what we do right now. and so i am simply putting it to you that we change the way

that we do the process for allowing people to do the right thing by their property and their environment and make it easier and more flexible. so i will say to those of you who are in the construction industry materials are always evolving in the construction industry and you know the climate crisis is real as are our ever escalating pge any costs. so i have no doubt that by providing this flexibility while we still maintain our design standards overall we can give the you know, make way for the industry to evolve. now i think that yes, it is true that some of the manufacturers road products are you know, done somewhere else. you still need to hire a carpenter to put them in. so that is you know that you

can never outsource that. i think that you know, there are points about how we are used to having our neighborhoods look. but it's also the case that our you know, planet is changing and we need to deal with it. and so i am making a pitch to you that we please adopt this legislation and move forward with what we need to do. thank you. thank you. supervisor milk. commissioner. vice president moore let me thank everybody for weighing in. >> i am particularly thrilled about the detailed and knowledgeable support from the majority of speakers minus one having us look at what the real issues are. >> it is very difficult for a city to go to pay a lot of attention to windows as expression of how we think about our city and that goes

back almost ten years to two years ago and all of a sudden basically make a spin a 60 degree turn in order to want to do it differently. >> i am not here to battle with supervisor melgar because many of the intents and now in her legislation are important particularly looking at permits length of permits, types of permits required including not pitching it against parking though just a matter of other legislation that needs to nail that in. i don't think it's a wooden windows versus pigeon but i like to talk about that. i do not believe that we are bracketing the proper choice of materials. i believe that in choosing vinyl i think then it's almost like a cost analysis that the effectiveness and longevity of vinyl windows is pretty much known in the industry but that's a minimum standard at this moment is indeed fiberglass. for one that allows you a more interesting choice of profile

it allows you a more gutsy expression of facade depth which you would you kind of lose with vinyl. >> i'm in the middle of a project myself that replaces or repairs and replaces wooden windows and in 1949 building and it is very interesting that a local craft industry indeed is extremely supportive of replacement repair and that is kind of like the way we bid the job because in the standard windows manufacturers who offered to give you cheaper windows you have to either take it all take them all out but you have not the ability for partial replacement repair and i believe that that is environmentally a better way to go. there is obviously certain facades where the materials don't matter as much as they do on the street facing facade but i am in a i am in strong support of one supporting a very skilled local window

replacement and repair industry as two gentlemen very eloquently spoke to it and i want to caution that i think that this legislation requires a slightly deeper dive into the window installation technology because the cheapness of a window replacement is not just in replacing a sash in a potentially mis functioning frame and it's when the frame is properly inspected and repaired or potentially replaced. that is where the costs are but that was the longevity of a windows. i do not see that particular aspect being considered because cost is not just in not to repeat exchanging a sash was a cheaper sash. again materials no vinyl minimum fiberglass and technically deeper dive in what's being required. >> you think?

>> commissioner mcgarry i'd agree. i've been a carpenter for 35 years. i grew up in a house that was an 1840 house stone house and as the bus went by every morning all the windows would rattle. so my first carpentry was actually making shims for wooden windows to stop the butter to keep us so my mother could get an extra 20 minutes sleep in the morning. a few years on to an apprenticeship i have hats off to the foxtail who makes windows and doors and made my first windows a third third year apprentice. >> but i agree vinyl is absolutely there's puritans. >> it's either a sash window casement window you're a pivot you know center pivot then you know you're you're a connoisseur and you love what you do but it's what you can afford to do. you know we can make them but it's the people who are and the

industry that are going to buy them. >> so variety is the spice of life. you should be able to wear whatever haircut you want as it was mentioned earlier without judgment. i've got 6 or 7 windows that be replaced. i've got basically the 1980s mach one aluminum windows and every steel is pop so they're all foggy and they're terrible and i if i ever can afford to replace them it will be wooden windows. but that's me. you know i'm a puritan but vinyl are the were absolute worst looking but in our 1840s house now we have back in ireland in the west of ireland we have one with fiberglass and the fiberglass is amazing. it's oh and the fiberglass front door too and when you hit the deadlock six locks are built in within the door so and it works fantastic.

i miss my old one. it's still sitting in the garage there up against the wall because i just can't get rid of it. but it's it's rough now, you know? so variety is the spice of life. you do need it. i will be getting a quote off you or one of your one of your equivalents in the city in the next year or two. but i believe we do have to have a variety and i thank you supervisor melgar for addressing an issue and the age old issue that basically nobody touches. but if you want a wooden window you're going to get a wooden window. you know, let's make sure it's a sash. the statute better than casement the frame is going thank you. >> i like to take this moment to thank you supervisor mouthguard and also thank you our staff michelle and everybody else and our historic preservation planner as well working collaboratively and

also with our legislative staff erin starr to really craft this planning code amendment and very adequately addressed the issues that we have to face with this energy efficiency and affordability is very important for the well-being and livelihoods of all san franciscan in my personal professional experience i think that we need to look at window not only between wood all wood versus just all vinyl. there's a lot of different options in between with client aluminum windows my colleagues cited fiberglass windows those are all really viable options depending on your house or your property and it's changing in cost for the material itself and the labor cost is something that none of us here actually

have any control on and i genuinely believe this has become an equity issues if a homeowner a landlord that actually operates on as our all for 80 occupants and quite frankly they are really tight on their budget on how much grant money they can have to really afford to upgrade not just even upgrades i actually visit a lot of these roles and i actually see a holes on the roof, a holes on the corner of the window just because they really cannot afford to replace it with the kind of money that it will require for anything that is aluminum or wood. so i also visit some of the other struggles they were able to use some of the vinyl windows on their side, a rare side and the sidewall and the

occupants actually are happier because they're their houses not moldy. they're not leaking in water and i think that one of the point that supervisor malcolm mentioned that was really important is that yes there is a cost for the materials but then we are still needed. the local contractor subcontractor to install them. i'm pretty sure that we will hire the closest contractor that is willing to do the work as possible. >> right. so i mean in also with my experience serving on the historic preservation commission as a commissioner for two terms and i found that the staff actually amendment to modifications to supervisor melt guards proposal is really adequately addressed the concern of retaining the essential character defining features of the essential historic buildings. so i am in support of the staff

recommendations with modifications and i would like to also open up the floor to my fellow colleagues commissioner braun as well. thank you supervisor for bringing forward this legislation when this started to become a topic of discussion a little bit more 2 or 3 years ago maybe it's curious to see who would take up the mantle on this issue and see where it went. so i appreciate it. you know, i think that the staff modification needs to the legislation do make a lot of good changes to this, you know, ensuring that this really is just about replacement windows i think is a good modification. there's a risk of potentially this going quite a bit farther with the openings in the building prior to that or changes in size of windows. >> uh, i also appreciate that there are historic building protections built into but the original legislation and then

also the department's recommendations and modifications for aligning with our operative planning code definitions of historic buildings. so i'm glad to see that there are still protections for restored buildings. i agree in principle with the idea that we should be diversifying the allowable materials for such an important opening in the building. you know even it's the place where the building's building envelope loses so much of its heat and uh, i do generally support diversifying that but i also want to balance that against against important visual um uh, the important visual appearance of the historic buildings that we have and those are important resources for us as far as the this debate that's going to happening about the vinyl windows themselves um yeah i don't love the look either to commission mcgarry's comments they there's ways to improve it they can be painted with framing but still you know it's it's it's a different look and

not my favorite but i see this trade off here of these major environmental uh and comfort benefits for for tenants and for for homeowners also noise benefits i've actually worked for many years in an office building that was when i started working there is on a very busy intersection and it had single pane windows in it that were also in some places pretty leaky but single pane windows and i went on vacation . the building was getting fixed up, windows were replaced with vinyl windows. it was like a museum and the temperature gain when the sun was hitting the building it was like night and day. and so i realize you can achieve all those benefits with all kinds of modern windows but if by allowing this great diversity of materials allows more people to have quiet, comfortable homes and reduced passenger bills and use less energy and potentially have fewer greenhouse gas emissions if they're not on the super green plan then i'm in full support of that.

so i do support this with the staff modifications. thank you, commissioner campbell thank you. >> thanks everyone for coming out to i was very excited about this these amendments san francisco has some of we are notoriously the most restrictive when it comes to window replacement out of all the cities in the united states. and i think when it comes to when we think about you know, the housing element and our goals there when it comes to streamlining approvals, affordability safe and healthy and climate resilience this is a really great area where we can make some significant changes. >> of course the planning staff always does a great job of highlighting things that we're not thinking of so i also really appreciated a lot of the recommendations with the exception of materials i am less scared of the vinyl windows particularly for a category c and b buildings so i would be much more open to providing that wider range of

material options for homeowners . i just want everyone to be aware that vinyl windows are about half the price of your traditional window replacements with 2 to 4 times the energy performance. this is this would make a huge difference in so many ways not just for homeowners but for our climate goals. so i think this is a really important thing to keep in mind . i have vinyl windows on you know, three quarters of my cat b house and they're fantastic. they're really great. >> so that's all my comments. thank you commissioner imperial thank you supervisor for bringing this issue to light. this is something that we've had conversation on in the commission and you know our sentiment or at least my sentiment is that you know it's something that vinyl windows is something that viable. >> however this legislation actually brought up in terms of the and the issues that homeowners face and i am

sympathetic into the homeowners in that case and also in some cases where perhaps property owners are not able to replace their windows because of the permitting process. i believe that at the end of the day there's a big issue which i think this legislation is trying to address. i do also support the planning department recommendations. i think it really strike a balance in terms of protecting historic buildings and and also the what the department is trying to achieve with the cultural districts as well. >> i do just have a question in terms of like aligning this with what of the public comment has mentioned in terms of what we're doing with the the objective design standards with city wide and the preservation design standards. how is this going how is this recommendations going to be aligned with this design standards?

>> so i believe this ordinance just deals with replacement windows and the objective design standards are sort of forward looking on new construction. so it's sort of answering a question that's not answered in the objective design standards. but i don't know if liz or rich want to add to that so okay. >> thank you for me i you know, i you know, i support the legislation with modifications . thank you. thank you, commissioner vice president moore i wanted to ask is to whether or not it's automatically implied when window replacement is considered that we if we are on the lower end of materials of vinyl hopefully it is a fiberglass that we are talking also not going from single that we're not replacing it with single pane if energy performance is a is a is a requirement or the desired outcome i think double pane is the answer. >> fortunately the department of building inspection is very strict on that. i think title 24 requires you

to put in double paint at least in your home. so i'm glad you're clarifying that because it is not spelled out. but for us to hear you affirm that it's important i also want to ask you about we have multi tenant or multi resident buildings which are owner occupied and some of those buildings as a c, c and ours makes a windows the owner's responsibility let's say you have a t unit apartment building we would be implying that every owner can do their own thing. have have you considered to just to describing that on the outside these buildings look like rental buildings however they are owner occupied that's a particular twist here which i would like you to think about because i think it would be unintended unintended consequences to all of a sudden have 20 different windows facing the main street and you're kind of saying what's going on here? that actually is a very

insightful comment, commissioner. i don't think that was something that we thought about. >> i would hope that the building full of condos would have you can you're responsible to replace it but you have to replace it with this type. but this ordinance we would not be enforcing that and we would not have control over it. >> and unfortunately there is a big gap between how each place in owner occupied buildings are handled versus what gbi and you actually see and i would hope that commissioner as a supervisor melgar will think about that including yourself. i think it is one of the possible loopholes where there could be unintended consequences and i would like us to think about that before this legislation goes forward. >> thanks. thanks. >> thank you. commissioner williams thanks everyone for for your

insightful comments. >> i like my fellow carpenter mcgarry have mixed feelings about the vinyl. obviously i would prefer wood windows. i've you know, installed many, many windows in san francisco as a general building contractor and as a union carpenter and so i'm very familiar with with the different windows and the different situations that they go into. i'm glad that i'm glad that supervisor melgar is open to the to the planning department's recommendations. i think there were you know, they had a lot of good points there and yeah, you know i just just to put it out there that there are local businesses that make wood sash windows and you know and that's i think it's important to put that out there as well if there are people

that don't think that that's an option, they'd be surprised that they are affordable and and you know, if you want to go in that direction and you know ,one other thing i wanted to touch on is you know, in my experience the bigger the opening, the more precarious vinyl windows start to become as far as their structural soundness. >> and so i wonder if if there's any if there's anything in the legislation that addresses the size of openings and because i didn't if there is like the the max opening height in with um for a vinyl window since since it's kind of you're looking right at me so yeah sure if you wanted me to

answer that i mean that's originally why we had like size and all of that in the original legislation but after speaking with at the department staff you know we agreed that that was just opening the door to mayhem because you know, maybe a landlord wants to make the windows smaller or get rid of the window altogether because they don't like the tenant and so we didn't just didn't want to open the door. >> i just want to, you know, again reiterate that the legislation doesn't force the biden a window. >> it just gives the flexibility. so if a bigger opening you know ,is better with a wooden window than a vinyl window that the property owner can make that choice given their long term goals, their wallet, their you know, all kinds of things. and so and i do think that somewhere there's room for guidance from the department, from the staff to, you know, have objective goals, you know, into if we can say you know, if your opening is bigger than x y

or z, you know, these are the performance you know, goals that you can consider so nothing is required. >> it's just the flexibility to choose. >> okay. thank you. thank you for that. yeah i i, i agree the the the economic points that are raised are are important and um and so you know i am definitely you know that that's something that that i consider um and so um as much as i you know i do love wood windows and i and i love i love the dogs and and all of that because they're they're you know they are part of this are the city that i've grown up in they're part of the the the being as fortunate as we are to live in such a city with beautiful architecture and so much variety you know, that's also important that we keep that that going you know and so

so having said all that i think just this does strike a balance and so i would being supportive of with the staff recommendations yes. >> thank you. thank you. commissioner brown i'm on the verge of a motion but i actually forgot to ask one question earlier so um since we still are able to set specific policy within objective design standard ads and um that's part of the community plans there was there was a mention in the staff report that it looked like basically the eastern neighborhoods plan areas all have bans on vinyl windows. so that's the central waterfront area plan these some area plan mission area plan and the showplace square patrol area plan. i'm curious does this mean that that those restrictions continue to apply since it is

kind of essentially an objective standard that exists in those plans? >> thank you, commissioner. um, the as you noted in many of the eastern summit areas area plans there are design guidelines. they're not objective standards . one of those guidelines was for new windows. they not be final. i think that it brings up a fair question but it would the planning code would amend that guideline. >> i guess i'm a little so but but going forward if different rward, um then this in the

future you could not allow final windows in certain areas of the city. >> i think we would always recommend against final windows particularly when an area plan requests no vinyl windows. mm hmm. but planning code would still allow for a flexibility on materials. >> yeah. okay. yes, i did see that the phrasing of the language that was included in the staff report from those plans was listed as a should uh, item. um, as i'm sure the interpretation of that is i yes, mr. chair, i just wanted to clarify that our recommendation only includes cultural district objective design standards so we it's very narrowly narrowly tailored to that specific so it doesn't actually cover the the plan areas as it says the cultural

district designs. yes. okay. okay. thank you for the clarification. >> i wasn't clear on how those policies and those plans interacted with this uh, i am going to make a motion to approve with modifications or to recommend approval with modifications i can i a commissioner imperial you want to comment? >> yeah, i'd like to comment. thank you for bringing that up. commissioner braun in terms of the specific area plans that completely restrict on the vinyl windows, i wonder whether you supervisor melgar you know think about it in terms of those area plans since those are actually you know of course there was a committee a process order was a process that happened in that. so i would just advise to consider those area plans as well as part of the

recommendation. thank you. thank you, commissioner campbell. >> i think my question is also first supervisor melgar about the vinyl material. my understanding of your original proposal was that you wanted to cast a very wide net on optionality in terms of materials. yes, that vinyl was included. yes. that recommendation is to remove the vinyl from that list and you're okay with that which i don't think that's so the recommendation in which list are you talking about? okay. i think that what i heard commissioner imperial will say is to consider the process that the eastern neighborhoods went through in terms of coming up with the design liner guidelines and how this squares away with it. so i will do that. i understand i understood from staff that those had to do with new construction not with existing replacement but you know, going forward if we're

going to consider the replacement i would consider talking to the folks in those you know, that were part of that process. >> i was actually part of that process you because i worked at the mayor's office of housing at that time, you know, going forward. >> but i i understand what you were trying to say. >> i think okay. thank you. very good commissioners, if there's no further deliberation there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. commissioner campbell commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams i commissioner braun high commissioner imperial high commissioner moore no and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against commissioners that whole place is on item 18 for case number 2021 hyphen 005878 see wp for the tenant protections replacements replacement units and tenant rights informational

presentation you have like when you come up to could come with you. >> thank you we're taking a break i don't know i don't know i'm still here like this or should i but there's a way to get it bigger at the press. thank you. oh, thank you. i'm glad i'm checking in with you because it was like no, they took it away, lydia and then i just move it like this. >> yeah, it's just like we take a recess here or like i don't i

don't know. good to see me. yeah. bye bye. five minutes. yeah. i think only no come back from paper. okay, if i could have everyone settle down. we're going to resume our regular session. >> so commissioners, we left off on the regular calendar on item 18 for case number 2021 hyphen 005878 s.w. for tenant protections replacement units and tenant rights informational presentation. hi. hello. before we do the the informational presentation and i'd like to make an acknowledgment and also first since i requested for these

tenant protection hearing and as well it's a small business protection hearing and i'd like to thank the planning department especially planning to do a planning director rachel tanner for really working with you know with the community and also including you know and also including me as well in this kind of conversations as well in updating. i also want to thank ms. molina, leon perera and also in have in working in this all of this ted and protections and also working with the committee as well. and so i'd like to give special thanks to both of you because i know you spend a lot of time working on this. i also want to thank precedent lidia so for actually accommodating and putting this in the calendar for us to have a hearing on this, i really appreciate your your input as well in terms of how the you

know, our hearing can go and should form added and really appreciate to allow the the community members to also do the presentation also for the planning department there will be the presenters will be mr. lisa chen who's the principal planner and also molina leon ferrera who is the senior planner. i also want to think most of all is the community stakeholders, the community that's really been pushing the planning commission and the department for more comprehensive term tenant protections especially in the rezoning process. i'd just like to make a little bit of introduction of who are these groups are rep s.f. as name as race and equity in all planning is a housing justice coalition of 40 s of b grassroots organization of advance equitable city planning as a failure c to san francisco

anti displacement coalition is also a group of tenant organization allies who organize against soaring eviction and rent increase in san francisco also want to thank choo choo the council of primary housing organizing asian as a nonprofit coalition of 22 base housing developers and tenant advocates and their collective long standing mission to foster development of permanently affordable low income housing in san francisco under community control and through non speculative means of ownership with adequate provisions for tenants services and empowerment for community stakeholders. >> there will be three presenters it will be priya prabhakar from the rep assaf amalia macias, levon torres from 70 displacement coalition and john avalos from chuchu and joseph smoke from rep s.f. will also be presenting and available to answer questions during the commission deliberations so want to thank everyone and also the planning department and also the

commission for having these i would consider a very important conversation to have in the planning commission in times that sometimes we don't talk about tenants. so thank you again and i'd like for the planning to do the presentation. >> so i think we're going to allow the community stakeholders to present first and then we'll be followed by the staff presentation so that the presenters want to come up to the microphone and then i think their slides are up when you get there and then i think you all know there's the timer on the dais that you can watch for your time if you can. >> good afternoon commissioners. >> my name is priya prabhakar from the recent equity planning coalition rep s.f. also joining us are john avalos from the council of community housing organizations and john to la

renta and joseph snook from the reps of coalition of our coalitions appreciate the opportunity to make this brief presentation. good afternoon commissioners. my name is amalia macias la ventura from the san francisco anti displacement coalition. >> our counselors, lawyers and advocates are the most knowledgeable experts when it comes to the threats facing tenants and what protections actually work. their expertise and recommendations are detailed in the letter that we sent the commission last week and we will only be able to highlight some of the main concepts in this presentation. >> our coalitions are committed to protecting tenants from being displaced. we have been raising these issues before the commission in the context of the housing element for more than two years and now face with up zoning. this issue is extremely urgent . we are grateful to commissioner imperial for advocating us to have this hearing and to rachel tanner and to marlena leon ferreira from planning staff

for meeting and working with us . >> we wanted to start with our data so the data we're showing you comes from our network of nonprofit tenant counseling organizations and tells a much more detailed story than the rent board's data about the struggles that tenants face every day particularly in terms of eviction threats. despite strong tenant protection laws and a network of counseling and legal defense tenants in san francisco are still displaced at alarming rates. as you can see here, data from the eviction defense collaborative shows that there were over 2000 evictions filed with the court last year and we show this because the data pooled from the rent board seems to indicate that there were only 924 eviction notices issued in 2024 which is less than half of the cases tenants actually experienced. the rent board doesn't report every type of eviction which is also why the numbers from the eviction defense collaborative are more accurate.

>> this dataset pooled from the anti displacement coalition's counseling committee shows the amount of calls relating to eviction threats or cases which totals about 2700. we show these data discrepancies to underscore that our concerns are based in real community centered counseling and from real concerns that we hear every day . >> our coalitions are especially concerned about three escalating threats. one is the expanding set of density bonus incentives and streamlining tools that mercury developers are using for land speculation. the second is sb 330 the state's housing crisis act which allows for existing housing to be demolished. third are the impacts of capital improvements and what we call renovictions which worsen the increased speculative activity from developers and landlords combined with the looming threat of further up zoning for market rate housing. our coalitions are concerned that the state and the city have put a target on tenants. >> all of the housing element

implementation actions that would move our city in the direction of equitable outcomes have so far been pushed aside to enable market speculation and to put tenants at risk while violating the city's legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. sb 330 is an example of the state's overreach causing vulnerability for tenants throughout san francisco including in areas called priority equity geographies. developers can apply to demolish existing occupied housing with sb 330 streamlining demolition of existing housing triggers a conditional use noticing and public hearing which in the past could lead the planning commission's denial of a project especially if the noticing and public hearing revealed that tenants either had been harmed or would be hard harmed. unfortunately, however sb 330 streamlining means that if the project is code compliant the planning commission can no longer deny the project's approval which would lead to tenants being displaced based on experience. however, tenant advocates know

that most developers seeking to add units to their properties will start with a capital improvement project. these projects that follow the reference procedures for temporary evictions when the work takes longer than expected oftentimes because the scope of the work increases, the temporary eviction can turn into long term displacement. we call this a rent eviction. because of these various scenarios things get complicated for tenants and for tenant advocates. in order to protect tenants against various types of displacement threats which could arise at different times with these different scenarios we have to come up with a comprehensive set a recommendations for policies and systems of enforcement. >> fortunately there are already some implementation actions in the housing element that we can refer to. we called out several in our letter that was supposed to have been implemented prior to january 31st of this year but none of them have been addressed. we're highlight just to to point to point to which is increased relocation assistance for tenants including ero increasing relocation

compensation for temporary evictions from 3 to 6 months and to .2.9 collaborate with d and the state legislator to clarify expectations and advocate for changes for tenant protections and community anti displacement based on recent legislation. >> and i'm going to pass it over to you. >> as described in much more detail in our letter, tenants face vulnerabilities at every step along the development process. the first vulnerability happens when a developer starts to put together their conceptual plans. the next stage starts when the developer submits their project proposal to planning. then there is a temporary relocation phase during which there can be significant delays for the developer and life changes for the tenant. once the new development is completed there is the final stage of moving the temporarily relocated tenants into the new building. >> given our time constraints we will highlight just a few key problem points for tenants and our solutions to protect

tenants. >> developers can apply to demolish tenant occupied housing but more often they apply through the rent board for capital improvements basically renovations prior to applying through either these tracks developers will attempt to circumvent obligations to tenants by coercing them to leave. for these reasons our coalition's recommend engaging relocation specialists for all demolition and capital improvement projects. >> for demolitions there would be a mandatory pre-application process that would trigger a site inspection. >> when developers apply to planning for project approvals there is always a risk that developers will misrepresent the current conditions not just in terms of tenants living there but also how many rent controlled and other units there are and sizes and amenities of the units and other essential information. therefore with the submittal of the project proposal developers will be required to provide certified as built drawings and there will be a conditional use. noticing and hearing if any

units will be subject to demolition or tantamount to demolition. the relocation specialists will write up the relocation plan for all parties to sign. demolition can be delayed significantly. >> construction can be delayed either before or after it starts. it's critical that the tenants are able to move back into their homes if demolition is significantly delayed and it is crucial that relocation benefits are extended if construction is taking longer than expected. the relocation specialists will communicate between the developer and the tenants assuming the development has complied with all the preliminary steps. the relocation specialist will make sure that the relocation plans are in place for all tenants and the tenants will be relocated within the city of san francisco during the period of development. >> once the project has been completed it's time for the tenants to move back into their homes. >> the relocation specialists will make sure that the tenants are aware of the schedule that their new units are in always comparable to their old units

and that the rent being charged is the same as what was agreed to in the relocation plan. our coalitions feel very strongly that all existing rent control units must be replaced one for one by new rent controlled units and any required inclusionary or bmr units would be additional to the replaced rent controlled units as it applies to amalia. this is a lot and there's a lot more detail in the letter that we sent so we thought it would be helpful to leave you with our clear request of what we'd like for the planning commission to do. support these policies and systems of enforcement especially as these become legislation. in order to take meaningful steps to affirmatively furthering fair housing, we expect the commission to incorporate a discussion about tenant displacement and every informational hearing about up zoning laws and other matters relating to the housing element implementation. consistent with housing element action 2.2.9 the commission should make sure that the city

collaborates with state each city and state legislature to advocate for changes for tenant protections and community anti displacement. >> we also need the commission to uphold its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and to take the arena goal seriously by demanding that any up zoning proposal is only applicable for projects that are 100% affordable. >> thank you for allowing us this time to present and we're available after public comment to answer questions and we look forward to working collaboratively with planning towards these solutions. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners and lisa chen with department staff. so today's hearing will provide an overview of the upcoming proposals to strengthen tenant protections as part of the housing element rezoning. >> so we do want to thank wrap

for their presentation today and for collaborating with the department over these past few months on this important issue the housing element and the rezoning as they noted are rooted in our obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and to build the housing system that meets our needs. and so we hope that today's conversation can help hold us accountable to these goals. >> before we dive in in the proposal, i'll take a moment to provide an update on the rezoning itself and give some broader context. and then millennium for a loan from ara will provide an overview of the proposed tenant protections and discuss next steps. so today's discussion is about a forthcoming proposal to create a residential tenant protections ordinance that would apply citywide and address concerns about residential displacement specifically due to new development. even though it will be a city wide policy, we are proposing to adopt the ordinance in parallel with the housing element rezoning expanding

housing choice which will be at the commission for consideration of adoption this spring for the rezoning we are planning additional informational hearings in the coming months as we prepare for adoption including a hearing on a revised zoning map proposal and overview of code amendments ,a hearing on small business programs and protections and potentially on other topics to be announced. >> their work you're hearing about today really is in response to the outreach we've conducted on the rezoning over the past two plus years. during that time we have heard loud and clear from advocates and commissioners that tenant protections are a major concern and that we need to do everything we can to protect existing tenants as we add housing and particularly lower income and vulnerable tenants. >> to address this need we've drawn inspiration from cities like l.a., oakland and berkeley who have all worked to create local implementing legislation that codifies and expands upon california senate bill sb 30, also known as the housing crisis act. >> sb three 30 declared a temporary housing emergency to address our statewide housing

crisis. the legislation has been extended a couple of times and is currently set to expire in 2030. essentially the bill takes a holistic approach couched in the three pieces of housing production, preservation and protection. on the production side it restricts cities from down zoning or instituting moratoriums on building new housing and also requires that we meet specific timelines for processing housing permits for preservation. it sets a firm requirement that projects cannot result in a net loss of housing. and it also requires replacement of rent control and affordable units and new developments. and for protection the bill requires relocation benefits and right of first refusal for low income renters displaced by new development. >> notably, the bill does allow cities to create stronger protections than what is currently in state law. and a lot of our research and conversations with advocates for this local legislation has focused on finding ways that we can either reinforce or strengthen these requirements. >> and of course sb 330 is just one of many local and state laws regulating tenant

protections. we are seen as a leader in this area as a city. and in addition to that the case packet presentation we provided you with a reference table just describing a range of policies and programs that are available for tenants locally. >> we also wanted to share some of the current data on demolitions and evictions to give you a sense of the order of magnitude. so this is you know from planning department and from rent board data we we understand there are challenges to data but this is you know, what our official records show. >> so from 2012 to 2025 records show that 269 units have been demolished or roughly 20 units per year. so over half these units were in single family homes and the rest were multifamily buildings. in both cases the resulting projects did result in increased housing density with roughly two units built for every unit lost. taking a even broader view the data on no fault evictions from 2015 to 2025 show that planned demolitions comprise a small

portion of total evictions just 4% of evictions over the past decade or roughly 17 units per year. by far the most common reasons for no fault evictions are due to owner move ins, capital improvements and ellis act evictions which make up about 95% of no fall evictions. so what we interpret from this data is that our policies generally are working to discourage demolitions such as our conditional use requirement and our rent ordinance. we can certainly continue to strengthen these policies and today you'll hear a range of ideas for doing so. but it is not a fault that we haven't seen a pervasive trend of demolitions even during periods of rapid housing growth. so now i'll pass it over to molina. >> good afternoon commissioners . >> the proposed ordinance scope is to do a targeted and strategic update to the municipal code to codify elements of asbury 5330 to minimize and mitigate the risk of direct displacement due to the residential demolitions as new housing is built to replace

it. the goal is to continue to expand san francisco's tenant protections and to prove upon sb 330 to ensure strong implementation and enforcement of tenant protections and greater clarity on replacement and tenant protection requirements to tenants, sponsors, city staff and members of the public outreach has included five planning engagement meetings with rapp particularly until displacement strategy group and an engagement event with mosey this eviction prevention stakeholder meeting. >> we're also working coordination with the housing implementation team and current planning the rent board and. >> we've been learning a lot about how things get implemented and where challenges to proposed policy lie. we are continuously refining this proposal as we get more important input and learn more. i will now go over the proposed ordinance as it stands today which clarifies demolition intent protection the protections provisions in sb 330 and offers additional local provisions.

the city will clarify sb three throws no net loss of housing which states that projects must not result in a net loss of residential units compared to the greatest number of units that exist on the site within the last five years. >> additional local provisions include codifying tenancy and unit determination processes including site visits as part of a demolition. any demolition permit application. it also considers special circumstances where we may need more flexibility like for development agreements and hope. >> assaf projects the proposed ordinance will also require 1 to 1 replacement of protected units as be 330 finds protected units as it restricted affordable housing rent control units units last occupied by lower income tenants and ellis act units. the proposed ordinance will also codify that units have to be replaced as deed restricted affordable housing if they were last occupied by lower income

tenants. >> in addition to what's on sb 330 additional provisions establish that unauthorized dwelling units are due to use may qualify as protected units and it establishes limits to demolition of el effect units and owner or relative moving units. >> the proposed ordinance also codifies sb 330 tenant right to remain in the unit up until six months prior to the demolition. the right to return if the demolition does not go through and for lower income households to the right of first refusal for a comparable unit at an affordable rent or rental or price or and sorry i affordable rent or prior rental rate or an affordable rate sales price and additional local provisions include increased relocation assistance payments which are already citywide policy notification and enforcement at areas where sb 330 is mostly

silent. these are also opportunities for us to improve implementation to enact stronger tenant protections, additional local provisions include notification from planning to tenants as soon as a demolition permit is completed. there is no it is not eviction will inform them of their rights kick start tenant tracking and provide other resources. the proposed ordinance also brings back posted notice at the site and requires that the project sponsor submits written notice to tenants and defines project milestones. >> in the case of enforcement the proposal ties tenant rights to the planning and building process such as timed relocation assistance through the issuance of the demolition permit and tying the right of first refusal for lower income households to the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. it will be equally important to track newly created protected units as part of our next steps we will continue to engage with stakeholders including rapid

tenant rights attorneys among others. we will continue to collaborate with our sister agencies to ensure the proposed ordinance is aligned with other city priorities. our goal is to incorporate as much input as possible into the ordinance and to present a refined proposal to the public at a webinar in the spring. >> finally we will introduce a proposal for adoption alongside the rezoning in the spring. >> we want to highlight that this proposed ordinance ensures continuity of protections even if the state legislation is allowed to sunset and it improves upon our rent ordinance. one of the main benefits of the proposed ordinance is in bringing changes to how we implement sb 330 to better protect tenants and to get the right outcomes when it comes to replacement of protected units. it also improves upon city coordination, enforcement and public information. >> i want to reaffirm our commitment to continue to listen to input and go as far as we can within our project timeline and in compliance with

state law. >> finally, this ordinance is a work in progress and our goal today is to get your feedback and that of the community and i thank you for your time and if that concludes presentations we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission through the chair. >> you'll each receive two minutes late commissioners. my name is don masumi and i am a lifelong resident of san francisco's richmond district. i'm also a member of richmond district rising, one of the many community organizations of the coalition. >> from the perspective of the underserved communities of this city generally poor working class and people of color. city bureaucracy has had two

purposes. >> first is to provide the illusion that the people can control and moderate unbridled capitalism. >> and second to obscure the reality of how our communities are targeted for profit making opportunities with no regard to the needs and rights of the people living in them. >> this has historically been our experience and the personal experience of my family as we suffered displacement through the world war two concentration camps and the destruction of japantown during the first round of redevelopment. that being said, this commission is composed of individuals who have the opportunity to break the mold and to act on behalf of the people of san francisco instead of those who appointed them or the financial interests of those who are trying to shape them. what we're presented here today

is reasonable. it is just and it is moral. >> the planning commission can choose to fulfill its implicit bureaucratic mission say its hands are tied and that this is the best we can do. or it can choose to be a people's advocate and demand equity in deeds and not just in words. we ask that you work with us and to do the right thing. thank you. >> excuse me folks. i'm going to ask that you refrain from clapping or disrupting the proceedings if you want to show your support. with your fingers in the air silently please. thank you. >> >> hello. >> i'm here because i love san francisco and i hope you make protections that you would make for your parents or grandparents if a developer bought their building. >> my name is fred sherman zimmer. i am the director of policy and campaigns at housing rights

committee of san francisco. >> we see thousands of tenants a year. >> we hear story of stories of harassment, illegal evictions and threats that tenants feel like they have to take buyouts . >> many tenants in san francisco will die for their rent controlled apartment mostly because and many of them actually do. they know they might become if they lose their rent controlled apartment they might become homeless or have to leave this city. >> i want to tell you a story about a couple of tenants. carl was in his 80s and lived in north valley. >> the developer lied on official city paperwork and said no tenants were living in the building. >> and then carl was told he had to leave. >> he didn't know what to do. someone in the coffee shop

which was the only place he went to every day on the corner called us desperate to try to save carl. >> we fought to stop that developer from redoing those house out of it apartments but he died from the stress in the process. i work in various buildings huge corporate landlord who terrorized their day their tenants by making repairs, by covering up their windows for months and time. we actually had a tenant who died during a heat wave when her windows were covered up for three months. if you let landlords make millions off by displacement without protections you put prices on all of our heads. just like if you let landlords make millions off of their building burning landlords will set them on fire. >> thank you, ma'am. that is your time. thank you. and please to every protection

you can. >> good afternoon commissioners. a01 today i am representing the san francisco tenants union proudly. >> i have only two minutes so i'm going to get down to business. it is really great that the planning department has decided to codify sb 330 and the director bulletin number seven. but the biggest problem is right here 4%. this slide shows only 4% of the units that have been demolished in the past 1012 years. >> now we know that that's not true. >> the bar for what we consider demolition is so high that no developer with half a brain would actually file for permits for demolition. this whole document is

addressing demolition of rent controlled buildings. and we know that excuse me they could actually have extend serve remodel. that does not get to the threshold that we call demolition. >> and that's what the problem is. i've been before you in the past ten years arguing against the remodeling permits that the developer was filing with this with this body in two locations at least that i could recall. 505 grandview and 71 hampshire. both of these developments only involve putting one extra floor above the existing building. and it wasn't considered demolition but thank goodness. that commission where director hillis was part of they rejected these projects because they were going to result in a tenants displacement. that's what we're talking

about. demolition is not being addressed correctly in this city. that's why remodels which be called regulations do result in tenants displacement. so we need to do something better and that is what i'm asking you again gladly that this is happening but we need to have a better standard for. >> thank you that is your time . >> >> good afternoon again, commissioners catherine howard and yousef. neighborhoods united san francisco and usf dot n e t that's to the studio audience and usf dot net. please sign on and learn about all these awful horror housing bills and what's been happening. we support the planning department working very closely with the community and there are going to be people after me who are going to be much more elegant and outline issues better. but what i'm going to do is

something totally outrageous which is i want to commend today osi rome and her work. >> she just spoke to you. osi is leaving us again, folks, i'm going to ask you to refrain from clapping so you can waive your hands. >> you can dance. you she's leaving us. she's moving to gasp los angeles and we can only wonder why. but anyway, i think we all want to thank her for her tireless work, her effort in setting the planning code, helping everybody she can with doing this. >> thank you osi. >> hello commissioner. my name is ramone. but if faso tenant councilor waits out of market community action network some can and a member organization of the s.f. adc rep s.f. and choo choo and i urge the planning commission to support the demands outlined

on the community presentations and letter as a tenant counselors we have tenants come to us seeking help for from just costs evictions honor by out landlord harassment or habitability issues due to the owners neglect and cost to hawkins and many more. i have clients that are is a family who had move out of their home because they could not afford it anymore due to the rent increase and at the same time being harassed by their landlords. this is not just one family. this is happening to every of our clients. harassment as a big issues and longtime residents in san francisco are moving out of our city because the unaffordability of the city has become too much. and what's sad about it is that our city is not doing anything about it. so again i am urging you guys

the planning commission to support the demand outlined in our community presentations and letter and we urge the city to adopt our community solutions to ensure residents are able to stay in afford to live in san francisco. >> thank you. >> hi my name is and limb and i am also a tenant counselor at the south of market community action network. >> i am here to share stories of my client who are at risk of being displaced due to insufficient tenant protections. harassment among tenants is one of the most common reason why tenants come to us. we have a senior client who is being evicted and harassed by their property manager. she was verbally and physically harassed in her own home. another client is being asked to leave the apartment because the master tenant passed away and the subtenant has no existing lease. >> they are now threatening and harassing her but because the tenant protections are insufficient in her case she was left with no choice but to

leave as a tenant counselor. i have seen many san franciscans struggling with their rents and keeping their homes. >> i've seen families desperately looking for affordable homes but we all know how difficult it is to find one in our city. >> again, i urge the city to adopt our community solutions to ensure residents are able to stay and afford to live in san francisco. >> thanks so much. >> good afternoon. my name is virginia parker. i've been a residential tenant in san francisco for 37 years. i would like to say that tenants in san francisco need very strong protection from this app zoning and that what the planning department has presented today is not strong enough. i live in the marina when i was canvasing last fall during the mayoral election i can't tell you how many times i heard statements like i'm terrified of losing my rent controlled apartment. nothing else matters if i can't afford to live here. seniors like me who have lived

in rent controlled apartments for a long time we were responsible when we factored and we factored inflation into our retirement planning. but we could not have anticipated a regulatory betrayal by the state and city. i just want to tell you how i see the ups owning that upsetting to me does not look that different from what's going on in washington dc. take from the poor give to the rich. please don't turn the city of saint francis into moral frisco . good afternoon commission good afternoon. commissioners bruce bowen and dolores heitz. my brief comments are triggered by a fax that i read last month that in the city of vancouver over the last 50 years the number of units has tripled the number of of residents has grown by only 70%. yet vancouver is now the most expensive housing market

in north america. this is of course because the increase in land value that densification or up zoning can bring. that fact along with the amount immutable principle of modern society that benefits accrue to networked elites puts in the unique position of present protecting people from the depredations of the market. in light of those facts and observations this puts this topic the issues being brought to you today at the very highest priority the most important subjects you could be addressing. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner. my name is puja eugenio. i'm with samarkand, a member of rep. with a state level of zoning already in place. communities are facing increased displacement at pressure from profit driven speculation before the city enacts more absorbing and developers giveaways as we need

to make sure the city works for its residents and not just developers. the most important interventions to prevent eviction and other form of displacement are for the planning commission commission to enforce accountability for developers to protect tenants and create a new division staff to proactively guide people through every stage of relocation and the city can implement new protocols to inspect existing site condition at proposed developments which will prevent against demolition and displacement. where we urge the planning commission to support the demands outlined in our community presentation and letter. >> thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is zachary ferreira with some can we need the city to work for its residents and not for developers? in soma we've seen the displacement and gentrification impacts of the many tools given to developers to encourage them

to develop in san francisco and we are fearful that what has happened in is currently happening in soma will extend to the rest of the city through the proposed up zoning. >> the state our city planning department and the board of supervisors keep putting money in developers pockets at the expense of our communities. the city has streamlined project approvals by removing public input processes with impact fees and reduced affordable housing requirements that have been put in place for decades. and just this last tuesday the board voted in favor of legislation that will waive impact fees for office to housing conversions in spite of the 33 organizations including ours asking them to amend the legislation. and we don't need more developer giveaways. we need deeply affordable housing and stronger tenant protections. >> so the question we put before you today is what will the city do for tenants who are at risk of being displaced from the proposed up zoning? we urge the city to adopt our community produced solutions and implement equity based policies for truly affordable

housing, tenant and small business protections and community planning. >> equity refers to the allocation of resources on the basis of need and are indebted coalitions that ask whose needs will the city's prioritize the needs of tenants looking to stay in the city they grew up in and love? or the needs of speculators seeking to add another condo to their investment portfolio. >> the needs of immigrant families living doubled up in a one bedroom apartment or the needs of developers seeking to double their profit margins. the time to choose is now. >> thank you so much. >> hello commissioners. my name is ann college sheets. i'm with the san francisco gray panthers and i'm a renter in the mission a lifelong renter which is a not for the faint of heart. >> so the the gray panthers demand a no up zoning without renters protection and enforcement. i think sitting here in this room today that is what what

came to me the most we urge you to support the the demands outlined by the communities presentation and we had a nice presentation by staff but enforcement is really where the rubber meets the road. >> you know this moment has been coming for a long time ever since mr. wiener went to sacramento and and the need for renter protections with up zoning and all the legislation that that ensued build a remedy etc. has been recognized for a long time despite the considerable effort at educating at the state level, the state clearly decided to pass it on to you and so i hope it's in good hands here as down to the local level now and here we are in the meantime, displacement and homelessness has escalated even though the supreme court decision has like swept the visible evidence and scrubbed our city clean. but the problem is still there and getting worse all the time.

therefore we demand no up zoning, no without renter protections and enforcement. thank you for good afternoon commissioners. >> i may lead me here with housing rights committee of san francisco when i started this i mean obviously me here so the committee that it was a very under as an organizer of the southeast tenant association primarily made up of the latino community and allies i want to tell you about our members who have been fighting back collectively against displacement for years. members have peace alice x costa hawkins buildings for sale relocation away from their communities, ongoing construction harassment and as of late a 9% increase in buildings built after 1979. our homes are always under attack and that's why we demand your support and enforcement to hold those accountable that continue to create displacement

and illegal demolitions in our community. we urge the planning commission to support and demand outlined our community presentation and letter. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners. my name is sydney peterson and then the general manager at the four star movie theater on clement and i'm fortunate and grateful to live a few blocks away on california both of which are slated for ups on it. >> i'm here speaking on behalf of small business forward who represent a group of small business owners of workers who would like to live near where we work right now. that's already difficult enough in terms of affordability with our workforces income in the 30,000 to 80,000 range not having housing built for them in the city instead mostly luxury housing for those in the 100,000 income range or greater than 100,000 income range has been built despite city planning goals for low and moderate income housing going largely unmet allowing people who work at small businesses to be displaced even more by up zoning incentives to demolish

buildings and commercial districts will disrupt the economy and vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods and displace neighborhoods serving businesses without any support for their relocation. >> right now former mayor london breeds up so plans do not have any constraints to build for the existing community. instead, the up zoning plans stand to displace even more community members and small business workers out of the city. >> we urge the planning commission to work with community members and small businesses to identify a path forward to authorizing housing that is affordable and does not displace the san franciscans who work at our neighborhood serving businesses. >> thank you. >> hello again. i'm patrick hofman. i am a san francisco resident and i am a student at san francisco state and i still live with my parents. >> i learned about this rezoning plan in 2024 through the sunset beacon. and alarm bells immediately went off in my head.

if you pay attention to the areas being rezoned and if you know who lives there and the kinds of businesses that are there, you can see a pattern. >> when i went to high school i learned about western tradition since i went to a special ed class and they do not teach about this kind of redevelopment in school normally in the sunset district where i live. it has historically been portrayed as an irish neighborhood. in reality it's actually an asian neighborhood. there appears to be an anti-asian motive behind the west side up zoning plan. >> if you look at the west side up zoning map on boulevard between 43rd and 46th avenue where the businesses there do not appear to be asian owned, you can see the rezoning wraps around the businesses and stops dead. but if you go to streets such

as travel street, irving street, clement street, vicente street and so forth, those areas are all being reasoned clomping at certain intersections. meanwhile at the intersection of coal and coral where none of the businesses am a pure oh so i do not have a script. the businesses there appear to not be asian owned. the rezoning continues along coral street but then stops dead at cole street. those businesses are not covered by the rezoning plan. i have named this tactic read zoning the act of rezoning housing puzzles in such a way to take advantage of displace that will harm a particular community ethnic group or demographic. >> hello good afternoon commissioners. i'm very happy to see that we are having such a meeting today and my name is cathy lipscomb and i belong to rap and senior

and disability action. i'm a tenant who has lived in noah valley for over 30 years. with regard to below market rents the 24th street corridor that in my neighborhood goes from the top grandview street to almost the mission dolores? >> can you hear me okay? these blocks are filled with small businesses of all types with mostly residents residential on the floors above and storefronts commercial and residential. it's a mixed use zone. >> some years ago i had i and a few other tenants activists knocked on the doors of these flats and found they were filled with tenants paying below market rents. there are hundreds of them. these shop owners are and residents above unfortunately are and are endangered species

because of the up zoning in the corridor and the developers unhealthy hunger to get their hands into the corridor and demolish in order to structure structures that would bring in fresh and greater capital for them. so it would be a social disaster if they were evicted as they are representatives of low and moderate income people and no a valley which is known as a glittery neighborhood. i don't believe that but i hope you will hear our pleas for no evictions for tear downs in the greed of speculators. we know very, very strong protections. we are 62% of the city's population and we have to live. >> thank you so much.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is steve leeds. a longtime resident of the sunset district. i volunteer for the west side tenants association and the west community coalition which are members of rep. i want to take a moment to explain to you why i'm here and why the issue of tenants displacement is so important. i have faced three evictions from my home the last in 2018 with an attempted eviction based on pure speculation. we learned it a new owner by letter from his lawyers demanding a buyout or more severe repercussions. the pain, the fear and the disruptions to tenants in our building was real and painful. all in the name of profit there is this is something that no tenant in our city should ever face ever and many have faced much worse and had less options

than us. almost six years later i'm still in my home. coercion didn't work. our collective organizing to save our homes and the supports of individuals and organizations in this room are why i'm still in my home and why i am here. currently the housing help and up zoning will be a disaster for tenants and detrimental to the life of our city. it enables developers speculation which is only going to get worse with up zoning displacement and gentrification will increase and ruin many lives and the character of our neighborhoods as well. commissioners i strongly urge you to support the demands and reps community solutions presented today in the detailed letter to you. these solutions will ensure many residents are able to stay and afford to live in san francisco. thank you.

and suzanne martin. i'm a senior. i'm elderly. i live in a rent controlled apartment. i've lived in that apartment for 35 years. i've lived in san francisco for 45 years. i've worked hard to provide for my retirement. i live on social security and a small 41k. and now i'm living in this apartment for 35 years. it's rent control. i have built a support system. i have muni busses. i don't have a car. i have doctors nearby. i have serious illnesses. there's being treated. i have a grocery store nearby. this is important. if i'm relocated elsewhere i

may not have a grocery store nearby that i can walk to. i have a church that's very supportive. i have friends and i have neighbors that support me. whatever i need they're there for me. and then i found out about this episode so i'm thinking how will i manage? and it's important. i've looked for housing elsewhere. senior housing and i can't even get into the lottery. you know, i apply and i get a postcard back and say it's your number 1400. we're only taking 500 for the lottery and who knows i get out of the lottery and i can't even talk to somebody about the qualifications of my income. >> so my best the best advice i've gotten is the rent control works best for me.

>> if i have to move out because my building's been torn down it will work best for me. if i could move within my neighborhood, be relocated for temporary housing within my neighborhood where i have my support. i'm talking about basic support like a grocery store, busses, things of that sort. people i know. i also have a cat. my cat is my family. >> thank you. i don't want to be put in sophie's choice having to choose between a rent over a roof over my head and my family. my cat is my family. >> thank you for your comments. i'm responsible for her. i adopted her. so she goes with me. >> she's in my least. >> i said the rent should be

the same rent and paying now with rent control subject to the increases required by the rent board. this works. so i need to go to a temporary housing with the same rent control and then move back into the new building after it's constructed with the same rent control allowing for my cat. thank you for hearing me so much. >> good afternoon commissioners john avalos with the council, the community housing organizations consider the moment we are in an unaccountable dictator has thumbed his nose at the us constitution, impounded our tax dollars and gutted the federal workforce course we're living in. don't look up a moment.

watching a housing crisis explode while policymakers argue how to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. >> the state set massive housing goals pushes deregulation and streamlining as the solution to building more housing. >> but without a financial framework to ensure true affordability all we get is housing built at a profit for people who can afford higher rents and prices skyrocketing costs that push working people further out. often there aren't even people to occupy the units that the city gets built. it begs the question who are we up zoning for? >> the banks. the developers. what about the people? >> take maria, a health care worker i once represented. she works at the mission neighborhood health center. when i first met her 30 years ago, she lived in the mission close to the center. after several waves of gentrification through the mission she now lives in contra

costa county commuting hours away and paying costly fares on bart to work in the neighborhood of her birth. to see residents who are strangers to her, the state's housing push wasn't designed for her. >> it's feeling market rate development that has left her and working families behind. we need a transformational a and comprehensive approach to address the housing affordability crisis. two years ago we did that with water with a water department in san francisco. we can do that with housing here in san francisco. >> people talk about new day in san francisco, the new day of collaboration and collaboration means working together actually understanding our differences and finding diplomacy to bring our ideas together for everyone to be served and not just the wealthy interests of the city. >> thank you. >> my name is barbara skinner. i support the last speaker. i also support the neighborhood united san francisco and i live downtown in the third district for the last 40 years as a

tenant. having witnessed the vagaries of false promises of affordable housing in large new york city projects especially now with the rezoning plans under the new york city of yes which sounds and acts very similar to what's going on in san francisco many rezoning plans under the new york city plans have become false flags. brooklyn's infamous atlantic yards development in brooklyn was a good example. 20 years later most of the affordable housing never got built. historic buildings demolished bankruptcies and clever projects by big developers ensued with many federal tax subsidies and state moneys. san francisco already has 40,000 empty units. it would instead seem appropriate to lobby instead for tax incentives to make these units affordable and question the seemingly real estate monopolies which control and manage many of the large downtown apartment buildings and deliberately keep them vacant. instead of lobbying for what results in expensive condo

development in large high rises through nullifying neighborhood voices and existing environmental reviews like can we not lobby for what is really needed that is mental health facilities. >> san francisco has practically a new sister city the entire built up neighborhood surrounding the chase center. the big tech companies and the medical buildings. it seems that the historic center of the city has been abandoned. all attention seems to be built to be building towers of steel and glass. >> please do something to preserve and protect both the majestic architecture in this beautiful city as well as the health of our street life downtown and to encourage the appropriate adaptive reuse and maintain health and safety for all those who live and love this special historic city. >> thank you for right. can you hear me? all right.

good afternoon. my name is raina deal. first i want to thank the planning department for this hearing. our original request went in last summer and here we are working together. the community has consistently shown up here to ask to highlight problems but more importantly to give you solutions. the real tangible solutions and protections that we need here in the city. and i want you to ask yourselves i've heard you say before that you're here to serve the city and county of san francisco and the people who live here. and i want you to really ask if the streamlining bills serve the people of san francisco. i always use myself as an example. my family after fighting many waves of gentrification when we were finally evicted took us two and a half years to stabilize. that's two and a half years of impact on my 12 year old and my current 16 year old. and i just want you to like really humanize that. >> can you imagine the last two years of your life living in turmoil not knowing whether you're going to have a roof over your head and those are the things that we're worried

about right? because we've already seen it. i encourage you to have conversations with folks in the community. i encourage you to take a walk down the different neighborhoods that we're seeing need these protections because it's really not going to look the same as it does on paper. and i've said that to you before. and so i welcome you to take community tours, engage with us in authentic conversations so that it provides an avenue for us to have that to a conversation we so desperately want and need. so thank you for this hearing. >> i support all of the protections that were outlined in the presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners joseph snook with race and equity and all planning coalition. i want to start by thanking commissioner imperial for not just hearing the community's testimony had commission hearings earlier last year when we raised concerns about tenant displacement but also taking initiative. since then to make this hearing

happen i also want to thank planning staff rachel tanner and melina leon perera for working with our coalitions and with commissioner imperial for the last several months for getting this hearing on the calendar and securing our pleased to be able to co-present with you today. it means a lot. it really does. i also want to acknowledge the hard work of the san francisco area displacement coalition which is involved at every step along this process. and i want to remind the commission that s.f. edc, the anti displacement coalition is a coalition of every nonprofit tenant counseling, tenant advocacy and legal defense organization in san francisco. we have people who have worked on legislation for decades, including a few of us who have worked as legislative aides or supervisors. so we know how to turn our experiences and our ideas into policy. we appreciate this opportunity to present our detailed and complex policy proposals to you today and we look forward to continuing to work with staff

in this commission to turn these policy proposals until i just lation as quickly as possible. so much effort has been made to take care of developers who either build housing san franciscans don't need or gather entitlements and build nothing. today's hearing represents a significant step forward toward housing element implementation that takes into consideration what san francisco's san franciscans truly need and we hope that this actually represents a step in a new direction where we really do prioritize the needs of san franciscans. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners . i'm tran. i'm here with the san francisco antitrust replacement coalition. my role at the coalition is the tenant counselor network coordinator.

and this is a citywide network of over 300 direct services providers from many of our different counseling and legal services organizations. and their main job is to counsel tenants. so you've heard from tenants here today and a lot of the staff who do council tenants and i want to give a bit more of the framework behind some of the data that you saw from atc. every year we work with our member organizations around seven or a tenant counseling organizations. we also have our legal services organizations. and we bring our databases together because we want to see a complete picture of what is happening to tenants across the city. and i just want to give an example that during the pandemic 2020 to 2022 we saw 20,000 cases amongst our clinics. and you're probably wondering why there were eviction moratoriums.

there were emergency rental relief programs. that seems weird that seems like an inflated number. but i just want to emphasize what a lot of people have said here evictions. >> they don't start at the notice. they start with a $200 rent increase notice. they start with some random notice in a language you don't understand. they start with your windows being cracked open or the wall is open above your head. and they start with an elevator and you live on the fifth floor and you can't do anything you need. and that's what we see in our clinics harassment, habitability, buyouts and evictions. thank you. >> good afternoon. planning commission members. my name is brianna morales with the housing action coalition operating as their san francisco organizer. strongly supports the housing element and this city's efforts to expand housing opportunities while also protecting tenants. this proposal is a critical

step in making sure that san francisco successfully builds upon s.b. 3333 a state law that includes replacement of demolished buildings and tenant protections. what's before you today isn't about changing those protections. it's about making sure that we have local process in place that aligns with state law and serves the people who need it. building more housing is a core part of tenant protections. it gives people more options to stay in their communities and helps our city critical housing needs. >> we understand concerns around demolition and salt presentation about the infrequency of them taking place in the city. >> however, we advocate for thoughtful steps in addressing demolitions and this proposal makes sure that when it does happen tenants unify, utilize their relocation benefits, the rights to remain and return. it's also critical that all parts of the city including the west side contribute to solving our housing crisis too. too often our housing gets concentrated in just a few

areas while others see little to no change creating a fair citywide process ensures that all neighborhoods take part in addressing our housing crisis. >> this proposal is about making the law work better for san franciscans. >> we appreciate the planning department's efforts to refine these protections and look forward to working together and having more of these conversations to strengthen them. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is richard carrillo. full disclosure i'm a city employee with the city and county of san francisco. i managed the legacy business program for the office of small business. but i'm speaking to you today as a resident of san francisco . >> i'm on the tail end of my lunch hour. a few weeks ago i had a one on one conversation with the planning department staff person. i asked him why planning is up zoning entire neighborhoods. he responded we are only up zoning the western neighborhoods number one.

that comment clearly shows that planning doesn't care about the sunset in the richmond neighborhoods we're just up zoning them. and number two that comment is not true. planning is up zoning haight-ashbury, the lower haight, ocean avenue, the castro and every single parcel and the post triangle and much more. >> i live in an edwardian building from the 1880s and most triangle why would that parcel be up zone unless the planning department is inviting developers to demolish the building, build a tower in its place? the planning staff person that said the planning department does not have staff and capabilities to go parcel by parcel with regard to zoning or intend to set up zone everything and elevate the historic status of selected buildings. that comment does not make any sense. number one elevating historic status buildings is much more labor intensive than just leaving parcels out of zoning plan to begin with. number two just because a building is designated as historic doesn't mean the building is protected from nimby developers and billionaires. the historic mccloskey building

at 1687 market street is slated for demolition by developer randall klein and billionaire mary minor. and number three it's really easy and not all time consuming to go parcel by parcel with regard to zoning updates. so i am offering to volunteer my time to work with community groups and business groups citywide to do this for the planning department. as a resident on my personal time at no charge to the city. so if you're interested in that offer then please let me know. you know how to reach me. >> thank you so much. hi, my name is ocean blue house, formerly known as knoxville rama. i'm a senior in disability action community organizer. i want to underline the fear and complexity that exists for seniors and disabled people whether they've been served notices or not. there are real psychological impacts of the fear and unknown of losing home community instability that is exacerbated

by aging and disability needs. i want to underline the support systems like neighbors, grocery stores and medical care that suzanne laid out earlier that are integral to survival for seniors and disabled people. just the fear of taking that away could have negative health and quality of life impacts displacement as a harm for profit and tenant's rights and benefits like right to return rent control protections, compensation and communications are only partial reparations to that harm. we need to increase tenant and small business protections and have the city look out for tenants, not just developers. we need better rules and new city staff to help tenants and businesses prevent and survive displacement. the most important interventions to prevent evictions and other forms of displacement are for the planning commission to enforce accountability for developers to protect tenants and create a new division of staff to proactively guide people through every stage of relocation. people facing displacement trauma need proper support

rights and guarantees so that they are protected and are able to remain members of our communities. we strongly demand the planning commission work with the community stakeholders to ensure seniors and people with disabilities are protected from the harms of displacement. thank you. can you all hear me okay? oh great. good afternoon labor and time with rep s.f. as you heard in the presentation earlier and through the public comments already shared. our plan ensures that tenants are able to stay and afford to live in san francisco. >> as someone born, raised and still hanging on to the wheels fall off to be able to stay in the city. i can't count the number of friends, family and community members who've already been displaced. we know these displacement pressures are only going to get worse as the city moves forward with up zoning without implementing the policy solutions to fill in much needed gaps and loopholes and strengthen enforcement and

accountability to protect tenants, tenants need affordability and stability and that's not happening with the city's current priorities. >> for our communities to stay in san francisco. one thing we need the city to do is secure land for affordable housing now using land banking strategies such as buying land in existing buildings. this needs to happen before up zoning and land values skyrocket. >> most importantly, communities must lead the process of identi fying sites and community needs at those sites where the planning commission to support the demands and solutions outlined in our community presentation and letter and we're ready to move these solutions forward together as soon as possible. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is catherine petrusma. i'm a resident of district seven. please remember more streamlining deregulation and that zoning always favors profit driven market rate development and it leads to

massive inequality and disparities due to a lack of affordable housing. we are seeing it right now at this moment of zoning and density changes will do little alleviate the affordable housing crisis and instead threatens tenants and small businesses on commercial corridors. rep s.f. has identified equity based actions for implementation. i stand with reps of coalition and asking that the city prioritize real solutions for real housing needs and focus on the actions that embrace racial, social and economic equality. thank you. hi georgia soonish. >> san francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing. there is a high ratio of rental to ownership tenure among the city's residents. the general plan recognizes that existing housing is the

greatest stock of rental and financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of protection. that was written in 2008. those are the findings for section 317 there in your code . >> i think that gets to the heart of tenant protections. regulate adding and preventing demolitions. therefore it's very puzzling to me that the planning commission is ceding to dubai regarding the definition of demolition. since the building code has no definition of demolition and the planning code does in fact if you look at section 103 which is really about violations it refers to section 317 at section 103.8.31. please do not allow another allow another loophole like the one that happened on de street a few weeks ago. >> please look at the emails that i sent on february 21st, 23rd and 25th. i tried to lay out all the issues that i felt were at the

heart of this matter. >> section 317 does define demolition and dba only has forms. the commission has the legislative authority to adjust the demographics protecting tenants, preserving existing housing for existing and future tense with rent control or at lower aims. >> protect protect flats and udas. the commission has the knowledge and the skill to appropriate and accurately apply section 317 and i really think there needs to be an answer as to what debris is supposedly doing. as is mentioned on page eight and nine of the staff report that didn't come up today and i sent a letter to the staff asking about that and here's my 150 words for the minutes and i guess that's it. >> thanks.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm anna christina rana, a member of the race and in all planning coalition. >> today the reps of coalition delivered our petition to city and state officials to demand that san francisco put affordability, equity and the protection of tenants and small businesses first. the petition highlights the over 100 equity based actions in the housing element that the city is currently ignoring in violation of its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. >> we are calling on the state to enforce all of the equity actions of the san francisco housing element instead of ignoring these urgently needed actions in favor of developer giveaways. the city must implement equity based policies for truly affordable housing, tenant and small business protections and community planning. several hundred san francisco residents signed our petition to join us in demanding solutions for people and not for profit. >> we urge the planning commission to support the

demands outlined in our community presentation and letter and to adopt our community solutions to ensure that residents are able to stay and afford to live in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners bridget maley district two. i urge you to consider all the san franciscan voices you've heard today. >> up zoning promotes speculative development. let me say that again. up zoning promotes speculative development speculative development will result in tenant and small business displacement across our city. >> i would like to encourage you to consider a more thoughtful approach to housing production instead of blanket up zoning. >> let's actually use the collective urban planning experience of the city's planning department, its affiliated commissions as well as residents and volunteers to actually plan for housing.

let's look at opportunity sites. let's negotiate development. development agreements. let's push back against unfunded state mandates and actually plan actually plan for housing for our city. the plan you're shepherding forward is no longer mayor breeds up zoning plan. if you adopt an up zoning plan in the coming months it will be mayor lurie's zoning plan. we would like for you to invite mayor lurie to participate in the community outreach. you will be engaging in over the coming months. we'd like to hear directly from mayor lurie about his plan for housing production in the city. >> how will he protect tenants and businesses? >> we want mayor lori to know he does not have to just carry on with mayor breed and scott weiner's unpopular blanket up zoning plan that will impact our neighborhoods and that will not solve our affordability crisis. per mr. avallone his comment earlier. we want mayor lori to understand who he is up zoning

for. to that end, we would like to ask that he participate in up in upcoming hearings in upcoming conversations about solving our housing affordability crisis. thank you for high commissioners. my name is polly marshall. i'm with the affordable housing alliance and which is a member of both rep and the anti displacement displacement coalition. >> i'm here today because i spent 35 years on the san francisco rent board. as a tenant commissioner from 1984 to 2019. think of those years. i've had lots of experience trying to prevent tenant displacement from rent increases and from evictions

while i was on the rent board we had a shorthand for what we were doing during certain periods of time. >> we called it spitting into the wind. that's what our efforts felt like in the face of vast economic forces at work in the city and in the country. the dot com bust the mortgage crisis cycles of unemployment. >> well, i believe that the same economic forces are emerging again now in san francisco with the combination of the state housing law and the impending rezoning. these laws will incentivized demolitions and displacement of low income tenants. >> planning may not think demolitions will be a problem but i guarantee they are about to be. >> i would have been so grateful to have the tools being proposed in the community

plan when i was on the rent board dealing with case by case by case of displacement. >> you have a great opportunity to adopt a set of very important tools. i hope i plea that you will take it. thank you all. >> afternoon, commissioners. excuse me. courtney kroger. i'm here on behalf of neighbors neighborhoods united san francisco and in support of rep s.f. the rep s.f. coalition. >> i can't conceive of how up zoning and density control and the scale and manner in which it is being considered will support the retention and creation of affordable housing and including a statement in the staff report that the department quote the department anticipates demolition of multifamily housing will remain

rare following the rezoning. strikes me as irresponsible. if you permit demolition by virtue of up zoning you'd better be prepared to see it happen. it may not happen all at once but it has been enabled on a grand scale. >> rep is correct that market rate developers have been given many tools including density bonuses, fee reductions, permit streamlining reductions and affordable housing requirements . a concerted effort to use our existing tools and opportunities such as the office to housing conversion assisting projects already in the pipeline 4 to 6 plex conversion. creation of ada use. pursuing soft sites around the city. targeted up zoning while working to protect existing residents. >> makes more sense. thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners and planning staff and department head. my name is laurie brook. i'm the president of the cow hollow association. i'm also a co-founder of neighborhoods united s.f., which represents about 60 different neighborhood associations focused on the zoning situation. >> we share a deep concern about the tenant displacement caused by speculative up zoning. >> the approach is counter productive. why destroy the very homes that are currently affordable in the name of creating more? instead mary lori and the board of supervisors should focus on ways to help developers finance the over 72,000 community backed housing units that are already approved and waiting to be built. >> they should also push for state recognition of the housing capacity unlocked by four plex's six plex 80 use and the recent office to housing conversions. >> our city has already taken significant steps and we need to see how those measures work before considering major zoning

overhauls that risk handing our neighborhoods over to unfettered development. >> additionally, approximately 52,000 homes the number is debatable in san francisco or unoccupied especially in the new luxury condo high rises. instead of encouraging new development that exasperates vacancy rates, shouldn't we understand and address the reasons behind these vacancies that could provide more immediate and sustainable solutions to our housing challenges? moreover, the existing state density bonus law already paves the way for dramatic up zoning . developers are using the law to propose 26 stories on a current eight story lot. this practice is already worsening displacement and overbuilt ing and blanket up zoning will only supercharge these issues. >> i urge planning to implement and optimize our existing measures rather than pursuing additional app zoning that fuels speculative luxury developments that demolish rent control units and displace cherished neighborhood

businesses eroding our community's identity and affordability. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is diana ruiz and i'm here on behalf of the wraps off coalition. >> we welcome this opportunity to work with the planning department and planning commission on solutions that will help protect tenants given the increased speculation and displacement that will be coming because of the proposed up zoning laws and are currently taking place with the sb 330 zoning. >> i also want to lift up the stories of tenants who couldn't be here many times during evictions and buyouts and harassment tenants are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and other ways that their stories cannot come out. it can be difficult to share those stories because of that

reason but i definitely want to lift up the the fact that this happens every day and that there are tenants who are not able to share their experiences with displacement especially in the situations of demolitions. >> our solutions ensure that residents are able to stay in afford to live in san francisco. it's based on our on the ground community expertise and it shows our love for our neighborhoods and is a critical next step for the city's development. our plan shows how we can have better neighborhoods with the same neighbors and achieve goals that both the our coalitions and the planning department share. >> our solutions closed loopholes the developers are getting away with break down the city's bureaucracy so tenants don't fall through the cracks and guide tenants through the development process just like the city already does with developers. >> our solutions also enforce accountability to developers. >> we need the city to work for

its residents and not just developers. we need the city to make sure that we're able to stay and affordability and stability are the priorities when it comes to implementing the housing element. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so grateful you're here. thank you for listening to all of us. i hope you notice how many there are of us on this issue. >> when i hear that story of the the lady earlier who talked about her community that just broke my heart that she could possibly have to be displaced and put into another neighborhood for the people upstairs for me have been i'm sorry. i'm claire mills. nice to meet you. sorry. this is only my second time to come present to you so i'm shaking. but neighbors upstairs from me have been trying to just change their bathrooms for two years. it's almost three years now. they haven't been able to they finally get their floors in. >> the bathrooms are almost done. i can't imagine how long she would have to be put out of her

house right during one of those displacements. all right. so the last time i spoke here i asked if if you all were familiar with the state updated population projections that the department of finance had produced, have any of you had a chance to go look at those? no. so san francisco by 2030 is considered to be a flat growth essentially no growth and we're being forced to build 82,000 units. let me get back to my writing or i'll run out of time so but the city won't update their renew mandates and how is this sensible? it's forcing the city to consider things like the blanket zoning and density decontrol. we all know that from the vancouver example mentioned earlier in patrick condon's book that up zoning causes speculation because you know the cost of land will go up. it works against protecting san francisco residents, creating just this displacement issues. now leaders of other cities this is where i want to get to my point. leaders of other cities have been standing up and fighting

back against the six cycle arena numbers. no one in san francisco has gone to scott wiener to the to the governor to say excuse me, these numbers need to be redone. the state came out with population projections. they've been redone. but then scott wiener wrote legislation will not allow the cd to readjust those numbers. you wouldn't have to worry about all these displacements that could possibly come if you fight against the zoning. you all have a chance to stop this before it happens and reconsider the zoning plan. >> thank you love. >> i would love to see some have you be the nail that sticks its head up and go fight for the city. >> please watch the sandag thing from last march. >> they stood at desert time. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is mark norton. i lived in the city for about 50 years, raised two sons here . >> the first apartment my partner and i moved into in 1976. we were of course evicted from because the owner wanted to

remodel everything and you know, raise the rents. that's life in san francisco. and so of course i support all of the tenant protections that the community is presenting to you personally i was lucky enough in 1984 my wife and i were able to buy a home. >> we bought a home if you can believe it a single family home, $450,000 to live in in the past, right. the house right next door to me just a couple of months ago sold for 3.5 million. >> that's insanity. >> but that's the city you know the basic problem the way i see it is that we don't build housing for people. we build housing for profit. let me repeat that. we don't create housing for people. we create housing for profit and that's why we're facing the crisis that we're facing now a

lot of folks i've heard, you know, refer to paris as an example of the kind of place where up zoning and big buildings and all that stuff makes sense and san francisco should follow in their wake. but one thing that people don't say and a lot of people don't seem to know about paris is that about a quarter of the housing units in paris are relatively affordable publicly owned housing if we want to solve our problems, that's the direction we need to go. i know that's not on the agenda today but that's where we need to go. thank you. >> other members mike mccarthy i was actually coming for speak on behalf of gus's but i guess i'm very late for that so here go gus but i do want to mention a couple of good things. one we built mission bay mission bay is a great success so we as a city can build good things. i mean it's a good lot of mixed income. >> i know a lot of tennessee

has housing there but i would like this commission to look inward, look at the city in 2020 14 at least started housing land for housing public land for housing. >> it's nowhere. i mean i was sitting here thinking myself the cities always had this idea of surplus housing surplus property. >> we've done nothing with that stuff. i mean if you go to the asset planning website a couple of the links go nowhere and nothing's been accomplished as far as i can tell for your as a planning initiative once again you know, yes we want developers to build more affordable housing. >> that's all true and the city you people in your team need to start looking inward and working better with the tools you've been given and with the mandate you've been given. you know, i don't know why we don't have more public housing built on public land city college, the port, the school district. i mean there's so much land and there is land that can be used

and to reduce a primary expensive development that city land you're the city. please be more efficient and practical with that resource. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm mitchell amberg, the director of the san francisco affordable housing alliance and we work with the anti displacement coalition and the wrap coalition as well. >> i've been personally involved in many if not most of the tenant protections that have been legislated in san francisco over the last 40 years. and one thing that's taught me is humility and the limits of every single one of those protections, those things that we've said landlords can't do they still do do or they don't do that they've figured out something else to do. that's why there's so much harassment and buyouts. we've kind of pushed a lot of

people in into that. so i just think you know it's kind of like we have speed limits. it doesn't mean people are really following the speed limit. so those are not absolutes. >> and what i just want to say about demolitions we heard today that there's not very many of them now or maybe we're not counting them correctly. >> that's that sounds right. but if we say that places that have buildings can be forced or is now going to be eight stories because that's how we're going to build more housing, that means demolitions ,right? that's what we're asking for. that's the invitation. that's what the plan is. >> we're not just going to raise height limits and then set back. that's not what this is about. so we're talking about demolitions and we're talking about more of demolitions and in that context we're going to have more problems with the limits of our protections. but i just want to focus very briefly on the need to make it a prerequisite to get a demolition permit to hire a

relocation expert who goes in interviews. the tenants finds out who they all are and oversees them moving someplace else and then coming back and all this wonderful stuff that we are promising because it's just not otherwise going to happen. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i want to thank you for listening. this has been a this has been an incredible experience looking at your faces, hearing these stories, the tenants that we see all the time. >> oh, did i trace the four hundred north beach tenants committee? >> it's a long day but it is we we have been on the streets for decades trying to stop the speculation that was then

forcing tenants out of their homes out of their communities, away from all of their support systems that have been in place are in place. >> we need that to stop. we need protections that are real. >> we do have laws that say we these protections exist but you also now know that they don't exist in the same way, right? things are not recorded at the rent board right? >> you understand that now i didn't hear this in the past from this commission but you know how speculation now works and we're asking you to please support our demands for the tenant protections that will be real and that will help keep people in this city and again only if we also are building truly affordable housing that has to be housing first because where will people go? >> thank you so much.

okay. last call for public comment. there's not any additional public comment in the room. good are reasonable accommodation request or is hester ms. hester you're on muted i don't have anything to say more than what was said by michel referred to so address and all of the other people who spoke thank you very much. thank you kay final last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed and this informational item is now before you commissioners director tanner thank you. >> i just wanted to also offer commissioners as we're here and

you're having deliberations and questioned i want to recognize the collaboration and participation of other agencies who are here so sheila nicole populus and nick all those who are from imo which did want to wave your hands the commissioners can see who you are and then i have joey, kobus and aaron koriyama who are from the rent board who are also there and then we have kate connor who is over our housing implementation. so we've got a suite of folks who hopefully can answer any of your questions and provide insight as needed. >> thank you. thank you. a commissioner imperial thank you again. thank you for everyone for sharing their stories and their insights as well in terms of the rezoning and also the tenant protection case, i really appreciate one particular comment about i think it's the senior lady who's not here anymore and really gave me as well in terms of you know what it means when someone is being relocated or

being displaced what does it mean for that person? what is being taken away and also needs to be provided in that kind of the displacement time so i you know, i really appreciate that that comment and also what we're doing here to do really strengthen the tenant protections and also i think through this hearing and through this work we and you know with previous deliberations we've had hearing in the commission there are issues that we really need to address that i think we have been i think we we were still trying to capture in terms of like how to navigate this with other city agencies and what can be the next steps for that

one thing particular that you know as i'm kind of like trying to digest the comments from the rep itself and also from the planning department recommendations, i notice that there are alignments in those in those actually recommendations and there are needs to have clarifications and i also notice a big one big contention between the planning department and a safe recommendation as well. >> but one thing that also that's very glaring is the definition of demolition that i think we've had here in many of years and i know mr. ish, you have been talking about the damage calculation and you know, i think that is still the still one of the rooted problems when we're talking about the rezoning is a demolition and you know, in the last two hearings there was even like what the planning code definition of demolition and the dbe definition of demolition and it is it will

take some like really alignment of that of that definition in order to in order for us to have a really good day at a what does demolition look like and when we're talking about renovation and rehabilitation and we've seen that here many times in the commission when we're talking about renovation and it's more than you know it's gearing to the to that tantamount demolition. >> but you know but i know that the planning department has made progress over the years in terms of making sure that tenants are also that were not demolition when there are tenants on site and so so this hearing and you know what i appreciate on the planning department's recommendation and it's really codifying in terms of the i think it's a procedure

at this point in terms of having on site staff looking into that into that unit. but this time is really codifying it and i think that also aligns with the rep isaf recommendation as well. there are some clarification actions that i for me that that perhaps this can be read between you know and the conversation with the community as well. but one question that i have in terms of the you do use i know that it's being identified as a protected unit or being proposed as a protected unit. >> but there are it seems like there are also some exceptions that the planning department is thinking what what are we thinking? and i guess the way i think of you do at this point is like usually if during that inhabitable well however our tenants and usually defer i mean i've before i visited some you'd be aware it's definitely uninhabitable but you know

tenants living in there so i guess i'm just trying to align what the concerns of the rep is often when it comes to you do you and you know what are we thinking in terms of exceptions? >> okay, i'll say a few things and then melina or kate may want to jump in more. i think part of one of the the scopes of work that was adjusted recently under supervisor muldaur's legislation is to allow if there's a single family home that wants to get rid of the udc, remove the udu to become just a single family home again allowing that scope of work to take place. but any time that we're looking at a building that has a udu and they have a scope of work that's wanting to increase the density right so they want to you know, build an apartment or do something larger then that's when we're looking at the replacement unit and some of these requirements i don't know mr. lee enough for if you want to add any more to the you do you discussion yeah usually and this is my understanding and

maybe joey can support me on this but my understanding is that if you have a single family home and we discover that there's a you do you if certain conditions are met it's considered rent controlled and under this ordinance it would have to be replaced as such. >> you know, give or take all the other rulings about affordability. but there are cases where that's not always the case. it's not always considered a rent control and that part i joey could probably provide more information about that because he recently told me about this theory to put you on the high commissioners joint committee from the san francisco report. >> i think there's two issues. so first of all you do you is pretty much by definition a rent controlled unit because it's a residential dwelling unit and it doesn't qualify as a newly constructed unit regardless of when it was first rented because it doesn't have a cfc. so it's a you to you so pretty much all you to use i mean if

the landlord actually offered them for rent to the tenant as a residence are going to be a protected unit under this legislation and separately yeah normally you have a single family home most of the time single family homes are exempt from price controls because of state law. however a single family home that also has a udu is treated as a two unit property and both units would be covered by san francisco's record rules unless some other exemption applies. >> what could be the exceptions? that's what i'm trying to understand like what could be an exemption for a you do you not protected? >> are you to you being not protected yeah because if we're is this one two we're talking about a replacement you know or beauty is being considered as protected units because they're rent controlled but they're but that's what i'm trying to understand are do some exceptions because what you're saying right now is that you do use are actually rent controlled and in this situation it will be protected units yeah that's correct i saw you do you and it is rent

controlled in terms of what would be an exception i'm not i can't think of any off the top of my head. you know the city attorney might have some idea i think i think the exception and correct me if i'm to my knowledge would be there might be some unauthorized construction. i think sometimes there can be a question of whether it was actually offered for rent and can we find evidence that is actually offered for rent separate from the primary home in this case if it's a single family home, so can we prove that it was actually a rented unit so it may look like a udu and maybe unauthorized construction but was it actually a dwelling unit separate from that's i think one of the common challenges we have and i see miss connor wanting to further illuminate on my answer this is a team effort take on our planning department staff yes, director you kind of summarized it while you unauthorized dwelling unit to be an unauthorized dwelling unit has to meet kind of two qualifications in terms of the plans and also if it's actually

been rented. so in some cases if there was perhaps some sort of unauthorized dwelling unit that can't be legalized, you know, if i can't meet any sort of building code definition maybe is not occupied by any sort of tenants, i think that would be a potential scenario or an exception where that would be removed if that was the only scope of work that was being proposed as director tanner also said if you are kind of proposing a housing development project you're in the housing business, you're constructing multiple units, that's kind of a whole different thing and at that point then we definitely have to replace them all. >> thank you so much. another question that i have and i think i brought this up with director tanner in terms of the the single family homes that are considered protected units. >> so i think this is something that perhaps the department together with the community have to think about in terms of the single family homes are what are single family homes that are considered protected units and i would you know i

didn't see that part yet in rep us of recommendation in terms of the single family homes and i hope that's something that can be actually be discussed over in terms of like what are this yeah in terms of the i understand that director tanner and and molina if you would like do you know but we kind of had a conversation where you know if single family homes are actually had a you know base on the whether that single family home had a history of tenancy or something like that. >> yeah if you had a history of tenancy and if the last tenant that occupied the unit was a lower income tenant then if that if that single family home is going to be replaced by two or more units then it goes into a protected status and it would come back as an affordable like i did restrict that affordable unit. thank you. yeah. so that was something that i hope that you know that the planning department and that the community can have a

conversation another clarify i think this is more what you know there are some clarification that still needs to be happen in terms of the tenant right to remain in terms of the practice the art in terms of the timeline i think rep us f is proposing for three months. >> yeah we've actually are exploring that and our intention is to go down to three months if we can even if that still satisfies state law . and then how about the the tenant occupant notification the the department is proposing 20 days and it seems like i'm just wondering what is the basis for 22? >> that's usually the type of fitness notification we've had actually in more recent conversations i said you know,

can we at least do 30 days? >> and so that's still in flux. i would say. but it's basically bringing that type of notice where it's like at street level and at any tenant entrance so that they are notified that there's an application and the same information that we would give tenants through mailed notification would be posted on that. so basically their rights contacts to the organization is that can they can they can provide counseling as well as the importance of providing their tenant contact information to us if they can commission for i think part of that as far as that is to align our our noticing date so that there are similar so staff don't have to remember multiple numbers of dates for this project has 20 days this project has 30 this one is 45 and to keep it consistent so we can make sure we're we're following our rules consistently. >> i appreciate like trying to be consistent but i think we're talking about tenants so i would i would recommend to have it 30 days a month worth of notification and of course i, i

also agree with rep s.f. in terms of also being having in different languages where yeah actually which i yeah so so so yeah so that's one thing i mean those are kind of like the glaring clarifications that i have between you know the planning department's recommendation and also rep assaf the one that i, i that i feel like it's maybe something a contention is the the rep itself in terms of the the replacement of rent controlled units i think they have this the sorry and i guess i'll i'll have a i'll ask mr. smoot to come in the podium and in terms of the because there are many

points that you pointed out in the replacement of rent control units and and you added more because the the planning department is actually proposing in terms of rent controlled units being replaced with a condo and there is some i see that that's a glaring contention that the rep itself doesn't support and then there's also other in terms of the the rent control units being replaced needs to be rent control despite the planning department's proposal of considering it back to the former tenants rent or you know or low income so i'm trying to understand in terms of the reason i think i get the idea to keep it rent controlled however when we're talking about implementation that's

where i'm kind of like how is this going to be implemented whether by the planning you know the the rent controlled units that are from the former tenants rents. but if i could maybe clarify if i'm wrong but it doesn't seem like that's the proposal that the rep itself is trying to say it only sets that make it rent controlled so i'm yeah and things commissioner just spoke of the recent equity and all planning coalition so a couple of things i think you noted earlier that there is a lot of alignment between what we proposed and what planning is written and i do want to we can appreciate the process with molina with rachel to get to such a detailed kind of set of proposals. as you said there is a lot of alignment and we were able to kind of get to the complexity we were able to get to because of the collaboration. we do still have some some points of difference but i wouldn't characterize them as being confrontational at this

point. it's just you know, we have a lot of things that we need to work out and it's been several months of kind of getting to this level of detail in terms of single family homes just really quick. that's just something that if you can imagine we have to take conversations that we have with the planning staff and then go back and coordinate through a couple of different coalitions . so the process to come to some kind of consensus or agreement amongst our coalition members can take some time. so the single family home question is one that's kind of outstanding for us in terms of rent control and kind of the the proposal the planning has on the table to in this is all reflected in the l.a. program as well for how to deal with asp or how to implement sb 330 projects is just kind of differentiating between low income moderate income and kind of how to how to make sure that there's ensuring long term

affordable. so i think the goal is similar between what we're looking at and what planning has proposed but a strong kind of recommendation from and a displacement coalition and from from rep coalition is to make sure that we're replacing the rent controlled units with new rent control units. there's not much interest in bmr units. i won't get into all the details of it but in terms of how the units how the new rent controlled units would be priced, this is where you also get into some complexity because tenants once they're displaced they might not move back. it's possible or they might move back so the easier kind of scenario is if the tenant does decide to move back then it's kind of the rent as they're temporarily displaced would be the same as their previous rent and would increase with rent bought increases on an annual basis and then when they move back they would move back with the same rent then with the

escalated the annual escalations when they move back if the tenant decides not to move back when we were hoping is that the rent that that unit would be offered on the market would be the same as the previous tenant's rent plus the annual escalations. >> so i hope that's clear and i don't know if it was clear in the letter as to hard to describe all that stuff in our letter but that was the intent. okay. >> got it. it's just you know as i started talking also think about the sb 330 when we're talking about the replacement of units especially when there are no tenants already in there or trying to find information in a previous side. we tend to i believe maybe miss connor can light us back again but i believe it's like when we're looking at the previous tenant if we don't know the tenants information like the rent and our income we kind of restore back to the like what

is the the low income which is 80% am i is that the practice that the planning department are doing right now? >> so correct for sb 330 what we end up doing is we have to require the tenant income in the last five years now we usually do that. we get an affidavit from the tenant attesting to what their income level was during that five year period. if the project sponsor can't locate the tenant can't find that out and we can't get that affidavit it then it defaults to what's called the char's which is the comprehensive housing affordability strategy and that is information that's put out by the state that basically talks about the ratios of low income and very low income in a given jurisdiction. so at this point right now i think we're at 49% very low income and you'd round up so if you had one replacement unit for an unknown tenant on known

income if we defaulted to the charges and we'd have to have one unit replaced at very low income so be at 5,050% ami and so thank you ms. conner so i, i know this will be more a conversation in the committee level but also i'm also trying to wrap up you know in terms of you know, the wrap up proposal which is you know, to return to a rent controlled unit level and there is that i can see that a little bit of a difference in terms of the sb 330 and how it's going to go back to the rank control. >> so that is kind of like perhaps be more conversation actually perhaps you're right. >> mr.. it may not be more of contention but more like congress sation. and one thing that i you know also you know, i was thinking as well in the process of whether when there are

renovations or rehabilitations ,you know, it's like i'm do does the planning department set up a timeline for for the renovation like let's say someone submitted a permit and then you know, it took a long time for them to do a renovation. is there such enforcement happen here? >> so i think there's a couple layers to think about. >> the first would be in a case of a demolition, right? so when the building is being demolished we require that first is a conditional use authorization from this commission. so you all of the first stop and the bulwark against demolition and then if they are proposing the demolition we do require that the building permit is acquired concurrently. so by the time it comes here first to you for your consideration there's already a building permit so that they're really showing that they are planning to do whatever project is they're going to do and not just demolish the building and then you know, think about it later and then each of those entitlements have their own

time limits and so then you have to file for an extension. you know, if your permit is going to expire. i think what is been referenced in some of the conversation is you know, you can apply for an extension and so maybe it's going to be a year to remodel the building but then it turns into two years and so then someone's like well i'm definitely not moving back. i'm going to move on with my life and you know, then that kind of becomes a challenge. so there's not really a i don't think an enforcement response to force the work to go faster at a construction site other than if the building department, for example, were to not renew the building permit or to extend it. >> but yeah, i mean just you know, i think through the public comment as well like that becomes an issue of displacement when the renovation extends for about a year that you know people may not not and we have seen that here in the planning commission where actually they did renovation or you know where people don't want to come back in the process, you know,

in the process of renovation. >> so so yeah so i mean of course people can make their own decisions whether they want to return to their units but it becomes a point for displacement when we don't have a timeline for renovation again. >> and you know also also we don't have any tools for support for the tenants at this point to say yes. so that's something that i don't know if that will be part of conversation with you can be but that's what i was been thinking as well as you know i've seen this here in the commission as well and also with listening from people comments one thing to us are you have a lot of thoughts that all of a sudden that oh the relocation specialists. i think one thing that strikes me that in order for a decent ordinance to be fully implement

it is to have an enforcement and also to have funding. the funding can also be whether fund for planning staff or whether for the replication specialists that rep s.f. is proposing. but the relocation assistance fund i don't think that's something that we have right now in most c d that is not something that we have. we have the rental assistance which is only if you have back right and forward rent but in terms of the relocation there is nothing like that. i think there might be some funding when you're doing the housing preservation program but maybe that's something to to confer i mean to refer with affordable housing developers during doing rehabilitation for housing preservation because i, i think metta does the kind of like the relocation help in the revocation but i'm not sure about the funding for that but

yeah i mean the one thing that in order to be this to be effective is to really have that funding for relocation and whether having the staff, the planning staff to have that and the relocation specialists you know with committee organization i think i would suggest for this ordinance to commit a fund for relocation. >> those are my comments i have right now. and again there is a there's a lot of alignment which i'm really happy to see and it looks like there's going to be more conversation. >> so thank you, commissioner brown. those are great comments. >> commissioner imperial and that's a tough act to follow. i want to start just by thanking staff i've been working on this and especially thanking the the organizations community organizations that have been collaborating in this process and everyone who came

out today as well to speak so eloquently and passionately about the importance of the tenant protections, you know and i, i it was really heartening to see the level of detail in the letter that was provided with the feedback because i do take that as a positive sign that we're not having some big debate about fundamental issues but actually have managed through through the collaboration or coordination gotten to this point where we are now talking about detail and some additional points to iron out through the ongoing process of collaboration with the community and with the department. so i just really appreciate seeing that in everyone's efforts in this. i also want to thank commissioner imperial for bringing this forward and you know, pushing to have this hearing today. >> um and also just lastly on this point you know the

analysis and feedback that we did get on this on the the points and the tenant protections, it was really great feedback and really shows, you know, the level of specialization and and knowledge and being on the front lines that that's coming through in this. um okay so i have a couple of points here. so you know one thing that that kind of struck me this is more just sort of an inside baseball i like as these items come forward to us kind of request but one thing that stuck that stuck out to me is that we as part of the staff report for this item had a lot of information about the proposal for tenant protection and information about the other existing tenant protections that we have in place already when we have items that relate to tenant protections. i'm actually i'm on board with the idea that it would also be helpful to have updates on the other tenant protection related items that are in the housing element just to kind of see where we're at and their status. and it's been pointed out that

there are some items that potentially have not been moving forward that were supposed to be completed by the end of january and i think i'll just be hopefully as a commissioner to get a little more context about where some of those items currently stand and what the plans are in the future to bring them forward. so just something for future hearings where we're talking about tenant protections. i would appreciate that. >> um and there's another issue that's come up a lot that i'm just trying to get a better understanding of. >> it's the it's the definition of demolition and you know this is really important. this is where we end up with loopholes that might exist and i am also a little i'm trying to figure what's going on with db. i potentially expanding this definition and how it sits in relation to our our planning code definition and i know it's probably a very big topic and i need to have a one on one conversation at some point but in broad strokes kind of what is what is happening right now in the definition of demolition

but it's a great question. >> i think director hillis will answer that more specifically for you. >> yeah, so there will we're clarifying db i we want debbie to clarify what their definition of demo is. they do it there is a definition in the code. it's in their enforcement section or violation section. but i think it would be helpful to a for debate to express that that is their definition of demo because where it comes into conflict with us is on ministerial approvals of projects that use tbis demo of definite definition or the demolition definition instead of hours under 317 so i think there needs to be 32 to be parity with those two and i agree with the commenters that that made that it would cause confusion if we weren't consistent or there wasn't a clear definition in the building code around demolition. >> that's helpful and i mean you know coming from my perspective say in the

commission the first two years i was here i just didn't hear that much about debbie's definition of demolition. >> i think it's come up so well because of streamlining or where it comes in is in ministerial approval. okay so there was a project on south van ness that came here the other day or a while ago. it was just a preliminary for 23 informational hearing but it had two units and so i questioned how it could use for 23 to you in the commission and i still think you know, there's a question about whether it's eligible for 423 but the answer from the project sponsor after the hearing was they were not demoing that building even though there was a new six story building happening there. i think we would all call this a demolition week and we should consider that a demolition that's not eligible for 423 so i think we've got to clean that up to make sure that that doesn't happen and that's not a loophole in the definition but our definition of demo under

317 would still that's what you would opine on. so if someone wanted to demolish a rent controlled building you would still need to give authorization under 317 and the definition of demo under 317 okay. thank you for that context. i really hope we can arrive at a better and sadder standing of the definition of demolition especially because for some of what we're talking about here today it does seem like it would be subject to the tbi definition of demolition if i'm not mistaken. so you know that that might be a part of why. so if your projects come in as demolitions has been pointed out very well by the community, some of these issues and i look forward to the update on kind of how we're trying to resolve that issue because just to chime in the overarching point, i think our policy goal would be you have off you get to opine and it's a discretionary action on whether there was an a demolition of rent controlled units. so i think we have to make sure the codes align so so that is in essence what happens because

i think that's been your policy direction. our policy direction on this you say yes or no on whether you can demolish existing rent control. >> yes. yeah. and we need to be able to see it for that to happen so yeah. okay. thank you for saying some light on that and continue to work on that issue. >> uh i have another question so a lot of the look back at the number of units that are on site um a number of protected units for purposes of no net loss replacement protected units and and for affordable housing protection that that looked like period the maximum number of units on site is based on five years which aligns with sb3 30 but what we're seeing right now with sort of the downturn of development activity is that sites can sit and i realize as these applications come in maybe we have some assurances that you know, through the approval we will end up still recognizing those units that are on site. but um what would is it

possible to extend that further back? i guess that's my first question for that look back to look back and see if there were more like look back further than five years to see the number of units that were on site. yeah we could certainly discuss that with the city attorney. i mean there's certainly areas where we are going further than state law and they've been providing guidance to us along the way as we look at provision. >> so if that's something you're interested in, i'm curious what you would be hoping to find with the longer time frame back. well, maybe this is an issue where i could use a little more context. i mean with the five year period given that the application would come in while those units are on site, i mean is it is it functionally not really relevant to extend that time period further back? i might not be understanding all the nuance of this. >> well, i think part of what it would be trying to capture my understanding of the policy can my colleagues can jump in if they have a different perspective would be you wouldn't want someone piecemealing a project where

they like remove units and then wait and then come back and try to add units but they don't want to do the replacement units. so in this case a single family home like we're going to remove the udu and then wait five years and then we're going to come in and do our development project which seems unlikely because that's i mean that could happen certainly but that's not a great business model for sure. and so i think it's trying to just deter things like that. so if you think a longer look back would deter bad behavior then that could be a reason to to look back further. >> okay. i'm not sure it sounds like it wouldn't move the needle a whole lot but if we can extend that period i would be in favor of it but it might be a legal question with state law to the one of the thing that i noticed in here it's the two more points the the there's one reference to a 2030 sunset date throughout this entire set of policies that are being discussed and that's it's the non housing department projects replacement requirements that would sunset at 2030 in alignment with sb 330 i'm

just curious why that's the only item that we would be adopting locally that would sunset instead of stay in place different provisions of the law center at different times i think. and so but overall the law does sunset and so if you think about it was the housing crisis act idea where in this crisis of 2019 we're going to pass this, it's going to be around for a number of years and then it's going to sunset. we don't know if the state would extend that but certain provisions have different time periods within that law. >> so that's that reference. but it's the only all the other items don't have sunset dates for what we would adopt locally. so that's more what i'm asking kind of why why this one or do the other sunset in 2030 and not realizing that i think what we were thinking with that one and i mean again this is up for discussion is we those provisions that are specifically for commercial developments, right? so we find that sometimes when there's like a commercial there are cases in san francisco where we have commercial spaces that have a unit that has sat empty for ten years.

>> it's not really used. it's really a commercial space and what the law says is like it doesn't matter what your redevelopment and it doesn't matter if that unit has that empty for ten years, it needs to be replaced and it can be replaced onsite or offsite and it isn't necessarily like the best situation because a lot of these commercial developments are happening in bigger lots in areas that are not necessarily residential. >> there are caveats on the law that say that that replacement does not apply for for example, areas that have industrial uses or even now it's nonconforming use to have a residential unit there or for safety reasons, right? >> like you'd be in a toxic area for housing. but i think the idea behind letting it sunset was that where you know you just have this one empty unit that has sat in this commercial lot for a long time and we're when they're doing a commercial and redevelopment we're saying oh, replace this one unit that was inside and it just it's never like ideal and it poses also other sort of barriers, right?

>> because they have to do it offsite. how do you coordinate that? it just kind of gets into i don't know, more complicated issues on how those developments happen but obviously that's up for discussion if we want it to sunset or not. >> but that was the thought behind it basically. okay. i appreciate that. thank you. i mean it sort of sounds like it's something that we're adopting because it's in sb 330 but then there's not a desire to continue that much beyond the sb 330 requirement. >> yeah, i think here is more the question. the question will be like do we want to offer some exemptions? you know like are there any cases of commercial redevelopments where we do want those units to be replaced? but it's more of that you know, operationally it's it's not ideal to just i think those housing units are just going to be hard to bring on board as replacement units but i don't

know yeah it's hard to think of an example off the top of my head but if you can imagine let's say you have some type of you're in a commercial area and there had been a unit there and it's like going to become an office building or some type of again totally commercial development requiring that replacement of that one unit that i think to mr. rares point is like may not actually be have inhabited it could be empty, it could be in kind of an anachronism from a past time requiring that one replacement unit just didn't seem to be the best policy but again it's something we could could continue to incorporate and continue to acquire replacement of that that single unit elsewhere or consider exceptions where that might not apply or where we still do want those replacement units to happen. well just an example examples we've had this before with schools like a school expands and there's a home or there's been a two unit building we've so we've we've encountered that in the past if that's something that we're trying to get at through this i see i but i mean

i would i don't see a reason to have a sunset date for that one item in this i'm open to the idea of maybe revisiting it after 2030 but simply just saying you no longer need to replace the unit after that date and that not really in favor of that for this one. one thing i know it's a small thing but uh it did kind of stick out like a sore thumb as the one thing that actually goes away in 2030. so thank you for the responses. i appreciate that. and then just one last question. >> so the the idea that's been raised here about relocation assistance funding and counseling um, is it well maybe like the department to consider or explore if that's something that could become a sort of fee for service requirement. i don't know if you've explored that but just as we make you know, development applicants pay for our staff time and pay for studies um potentially they

could be required under those circumstances to pay for those those services. so just the thought thank you. thank you. commissioner williams thank you. >> thank you commissioners for your thoughtful input on this. thank you rep s.f. coalition and i want to thank the planning department and it's it's important to acknowledge all the work that that has been done this this work isn't always this collaborative but i think the fact that there's so much on the line you know cause for real collaboration and so thank you um and i just i just want to kind of raise up this you know that the the thought that a senior like like the lady here and i don't mean to

pull on everyone's heartstrings but it just it it just hit me that you know this this is a serious issue and i know we're not going to get through all of it today there was a lot already that that's been talked about and these are these are ongoing conversations. but you know, i just want to highlight that, you know, there this this can have some real adverse effects on our neighbors across the city if in fact this starts to pick up. and so it's really, you know, really important that we get this right and we do everything we can to make sure that no one gets left behind. >> and so, um, you know, i have a lot of questions but i don't want to take up too much time right now because you guys are still talking about it. >> but one of the one of the

things that sticks out to me most is the relocation. you know, the thought you're uprooting a family, having them relocate and having them come back. this this to me is is probably the most problematic thing that i could think of when i'm thinking about how this is going to work only because there's just so much that can happen during that time and then the whole time period that folks can be out of rent controlled stable housing all of a sudden their life gets uprooted and they're having to deal with not only find new housing but move an entire family out. >> i mean it's it's just it's hard to really wrap your head around it and so and so you know, that's one thing that i think that really i hope that you guys drill down on and figure