so, as other people have asked for, please upzone anywhere. the planning department has an idea that they can change the plan to be 15,000 jobs and 10,000 houses. that's okay. that gets you a better ratio. or, there could be a plan to actually build those 18,000 houses that we need. we can aim high. let's build more. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm jane martin. i'm with the union that represents security off service and commercial properties as well as property service workers in residential buildings. so i'm sort of hearing a lot of this being framed as jobs versus housing. i would like to say that instead we should be talking about what kind of jobs and what kind of housing? in our industry, there's going to be a lot of jobs in our industry created by this, subcontracting creates a race to the bottom. and working conditions vary widely between responsible union contractors and irresponsible contractors, which are responsible for wage theft and low-income jobs. we've been able to raise wages

so that's where the "upzoning" came from. the limit on residential units was removed, so no change to the height. so the we have the full envelope that could be filled with as many units as the project would want to move forward with. we have the study with the help of a consultant and i would like to introduce ted egan with the controller's office to present the findings of the study and i'm here to answer any questions that you might have. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ted egan with the controller's office. as jacob said, our office, planning department, with the assistance of the office of economic work force development and outside consultants have been working on this study for the past few months. we issued a report on it last week. i would like to walk you through some of the details. jacob has reiterated the reason for the report. what we're attempting to do is try and understand what is the value of the upzoning, going from the mcd to the mct and how does that value translate to

so we're going to upzone the city to a magnitude of what we currently have available on parcels. do we have to do an eir? >> so the -- the bill doesn't affect ceqa, per se. it implements the rezoning by state fiat, but individual buildings would not necessarily be exempt from ceqa. i don't know if the city attorney wants to opine further, but one thing to think about in terms of this bill versus sb-35, 35 dealts wit wi processes, and this bill affects zoning but doesn't change the prosper say. >> vice president richards: we did plan eir -- >> when we do upzonings as a city, that is subject to ceqa. >> vice president richards: would it make sense to recommend to the board, for the board to recommend to the state that they should follow the ceqa law here? >> not sure. >> vice president richards: just like the legislature has to follow some of the rules that everybody else has to follow. okay. single-family house, 25 by 100-foot lot. currently, the buildable envelope is, by right to 55% of the lot? 75 with a variance, right? oh, on a single-family house, single-family. so the number

district 6 is already upzoned. we build 60% of the housing in the last ten years.e have to spread that housing growth all over the city. it's a matter of equity. so, please upzone the west side. this is a place where we can build a lot more housing. thank you. i'm a renter in district 11. i would like to speak for people who couldn't make it. my wife is watching my son and our house maids kelsi, june, anton, zella, all at work. between us, we managed to make enough to rent in san francisco. we don't manage to put away any savings. because there isn't enough housing in san francisco and so the market rates just keep going up and up. in particular, we would love to be able to live in places where we could commute to our jobs. my house mate has to drive down to the south, instead of being able to take cal train. the kind of housing that would allow us to do that is not getting built. and we want that to happen. thank you. >> overhead, please. i'm a tenderloin resident and community organizer and volunteer for campaign. everybody knows -- >> madame chair, i'm going to

another process change that includes can grandparenting for projects benefiting from the upzoning. the concept is that that project should not simultaneously benefit from old requirement benefits while relying on the new plan to make the projects possible. this change affects sections 169z, 411a and 415, which our transportation demand transportation, the sustainability fund and our new sustainability housing requirements. 171.1 allows projects that aren't subzoned and part of our pipeline based on the existing zoning to be grandparented in any new controls in central soma, and not benefiting from the upzoning. as part of the special use district, we're proposing to remove the plan at prop x getting a conditional yaou.z it would slow down hundreds of projects and require the commission to find them necessary and desirable and we hope that the pattern of these projects is necessary and desirable and it does not result in a meaningful outcome since the replacement of p.d.r. itself is not in question. and we recognize this amendment that the prop x will require a simple majority to pa

on strategy, one person after another stood up to tell the commission about their concerns about upzoning's not just the mission street corridor, but [bell ringing] >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jim. i'm 43 -- i've been a resident of san francisco for 43 years. i see there is really quite a housing crisis here, but still i'm opposed to 827 for several reasons. here's one. the bill does nothing to curb the rampant speculation that is fueling the housing crisis. part of the problem here is that the large amount of real estate investment by overseas investors. seriously driving up the real estate prices. so i'm saying why not follow the example of vancouver, canada, which is tackling the same problem with taxing on nonresident owned property and rental income. other than that, the bill looks to be a great deal for developers and does little to solve the housing crisis. >> i'm going to call more names here. peter, lorraine. chelsea. anastasia, denise and bradley. >> i'm president of the lone mountain civic association, we represent 500 homes surrounding us

we should have across california, as commissioner johnson pointed out, the desegregatory value of upzoning in value places that were single-family homes is something that i actually agree with. but where the logic of this falls apart for me is the value recapture mechanism as mr. welch very pointedly put in his comments is really important. that there has to be a direct specific mitigation to pass wrongs, and i just don't see that in this bill. i think that there is a great value that is developed, made for landowners, but there is no specific mitigation for the potential development. and that, i think, doubling down of wrongs, in that we will have a new segregation that creates wealth for some while doing nothing for redistributing that value or the occupancy of that land. and so i think that, you know, half of this is an idea i can support in terms of increasing density which is still, you know, commissioner richards pointed out, it doesn't even quite do that. i support that. but the other half, the redistributory mechanism is not there at all, and i don't think i can support anything li

get it approved and immediately start looking at an upzoning in the central soma to an overlay of the residential units there. the residential buildings. there's no reason. that's a good option. it doesn't slow anything down. everything can move forward, just like it was said, we should be looking at gary boulevard. we have to be looking on the west side. we have to be looking everywhere to add housing. i would not say that we cannot add additional housing into this location. we absolutely can. also, i want to say that i know right now we're planning for 7,000 units of housing. a couple of locations have been easily identified. we could add that easily. we're talking about 8,200 units of housing, which is nothing to sneeze at. it's a nice amount of housing, given the amount of jobs that are being created there and the opportunity to do more housing there, i really hope that this is something that you will consider and instruct planning department to start looking at doing another overlay in that area. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. wel

committee and predecessors to that committee approve area plans, and neighborhoods plans, that include upzoningthat when the city or a public agency confers benefit on a landowner, we have obligation, a responsibility to recapture that value for the good of the public. what does that mean? well, that means investment in public transit. that means investment in affordable housing. that means investment in complete neighborhoods. and whether it's central soma plan which actually attempts to do that and to derive that value recapture for a host of public benefits, what senate bill 827 does not do, what home sf actually did do, is recapture that value. if we are going to use major transit hubs, then we are going to continue to burden our public transit infrastructure. then if we are taking a building that right now can be zoned up to 55 feet and we almost double that zoning capacity, this is not a giveaway to developers, this is conferring massive value on property owners and we must recapture that value. i want to hear from the public today. i understand that there are opponents and proponents of

department to be looking forward and for you to ask the planning department to be making plans, to be upzoning the westside. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. 95 additional general public comment? seeing none, commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: a comment on one of the members of the public that surprised me with that d.b.i. issued a demo notice and that the department said no demo was needed. that's backwards from what the narrative has been. i'm surprised it happened twice. it could be happening for a good reason. i don't know. can't wait until we have demolition with strong enforcement, but i would love the department to look in and verify that that was the case. completely agree with the basket of costs, mr. david. i didn't want to misrepresent your position and you stated it very well. one of the things, and i think, too, the building trades council, all this stuff goes into why isn't housing getting built? and part of it is, safe housing. so if the building code needs to be changed or we can find a cheaper way to do it, doesn't meet code, we have to figure that out.