Humans hearings and appearance and appeal hearings as well. Last category is the rules around unit replacement and Relocation Assistance in the event of existing units being removed as part of the developing projects. In general, any type of unit, if you have a project that proposes removing these units regardless who is living there, the project would have to produce the same or more units then the project being removed. There is also a definition of protected units in the bill which includes units that are housing household on section eight, housing choice it develop meant, belowmarket rate units, restricted affordable units, rentcontrolled units, units that were vacated by ellis active actions, in any unit that is occupied by a low income household in the past five years that is also a change from what you had in your case report and at that time it was only units that were rented at affordable households. It is regardless of what the rent or rent restriction is. The question is, is there a household that is below that income level which is 80 of area median income. For those protected units, the city would only be able to approve the removal of those units as part of a Development Project that did all of the following conditions. First there has to be replacement units of comparable size and affordability in the new project, in addition to that , there has to be relocation benefits provided to the existing tenants and a right of first refusal to the tenants to return to a comparable unit in the new project. Additionally, the residents would be allowed to remain in those buildings were up to six months before construction begins. It should be noted that these replacement units, according to the bill, would count towards the inclusionary requirement, however, for the new project. That would be significant in San Francisco. Speaking of San Francisco, what are some of the potential impacts . I highlighted some of these, but to quickly go through, one area of concern for the Planning Department has been the requirement for the objective Design Standards. We do have Design Standards, as you all know, that were adopted after generally first of 2018 and they do include the urban Design Guidelines which are generally not meeting the standard of an objective standard. There would be, we would have to look at the way we apply these under the bill. Things like central soma, and the hub have Design Guidelines that are generally leveraging off. The bill could also impact rezoning actions in San Francisco, generally, were not down zoning for housing in San Francisco, however there are times where we might be zoning nonresidential uses like p. D. R. , which does not allow for housing for various planning reasons. We would need to ensure that those actions are balanced in a way that provides for no net loss in residential capacity through that action. The provision about projects thing subject to the law of the day in terms of the zoning regulations of the time the application comes in would be a change in the way we do business in San Francisco. This would obviously provide a greater level of predictability for projects going in and generally speaking, some of the specific grants and sometimes are in rezoning actions may not be applicable to all projects depending on when they got their application in. Again, the project would lose this kind of a vesting if the project grows by more than 20 in size. That includes someone coming in for density bonus application. It would also not apply if the project hasnt gotten under construction within three years. Building code standards are not affected by this. I mentioned the Historic Resource determination. We will have to make that termination within the first 30 days of the Development Application that comes in. That is only for the unknown properties. The limit of five public hearings would obviously be a change in the way we do business in San Francisco, but as i said, this will not apply to a lot of the projects that you all see at the Planning Commission. It would apply to as of right, ministerial, administratively provable projects, conditional use projects, in general state density projects as well. Continuance and appeals would count for the limit. Finally, how would the requirements around replacement units and tenant protection take place in San Francisco . The overall requirement about projects only being approved if they are providing at least as many units as are being lost is not really a changing practice. Through our demolition conditional use authorization, that is generally something we require anyway as some of the findings. So that would be strengthened. Additionally, there would be a number of types of units and cases of unit removal that would now require Relocation Assistance and replacement units that are not currently require locally, however, we do have some controls here in San Francisco around just because and ellis active eviction. The bill is specific. If the locality has stricter requirements or higher payments, for example, that locality roll would still prevail. This would be added to San Francisco tenant protections and we would keep it under we would keep what other local controls that we have. Additionally, when we do have those demolition conditional use hearings, you know, if we do approve the removal of the unit, they would not just be requirements, all these conditions have to be met. With that, commissioners, i am here for any questions, and we look forward to discussing this further with you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . I have one speaker card. Anyone else want to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. Good afternoon, commissioners i have a letter from the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. They oppose s. B. 330 for the reasons outlined here. Im turning the text over to the secretary for inclusion into the minutes and i will not take anymore of your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, my name is ed, im here on behalf of the california renters legal advocacy and education fund. We noticed a small error or maybe just because of the new amendments that were submitted the day after the staff report was prepared, the replacement requirements do count toward inclusionary requirements, but we dont believe it would result in a reduction of new inclusionary units. The other thing to make clear is that the staff board is not super clear on the fact that Relocation Assistance fees dont count towards inclusionary requirements in the bill. Those were previously sort of in the same part of the bill, but now have been completely separated. You can replace a unit, and that can count, but you cant count to relocation relocation systems towards your inclusionary fee. In general, we think that the tenant protection demolition controls in this bill are really fantastic and would be a huge improvement on what San Francisco has currently. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, my name is lorraine. District five Affordable Housing advocate and tenant advocate. I believe the commissioners should speak out very forcefully against s. B. 330 and also urge the supervisors to do the same. I believe it is an unconstitutional attack, even with these new amendments, attendance, small property owners, local planning, and local government selfdetermination. To me, the most onerous and egregious of s. B. 330s provisions is the proposed ban on initiatives and referendum, and also moratoriums. The electorate would be excluded from any redress and from any voice. This bill must be changed along with s. B. 50, and s. B. 592. They are all aimed at delivering San Francisco and indeed, the entire state into the hands of wall street profiteers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am with no Neighborhood Council coalition. I would like to echo the same comment as the previous speaker. I am not a tenant, i am a homeowner, however, i am speaking for real renters, not the fake ones presented by california whatever. The provisions in this bill are absolutely atrocious for tenants these are the same things that we had last year that is noteworthy to remember that even senator weiner had to go back and revise his 827 with socalled protection that looks at tenancy and tenancy status of the building, and goes back seven years. Because he realized that this business of relocation and relocation payment, and the right of refusal is just not working. Lets not kid ourselves. And anybody who stands before you and tells you that they are speaking for the tenants and they are considering this a huge improvement, they are delusional and they are not respecting this body and they are not respecting themselves for coming with such outlandish lies. So i just want to bring that to your attention that these are draconian measures and we, as residents of San Francisco and california, we deserve better. We cannot submit to a bill that is going to render us and our exercise moot, and this body, frankly, maybe, you know, it is all these bills and a couple years we wont even have a Planning Commission. We will be missing you guys. That is its. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners Peter Papadopoulos with the Mission Economic development agency. I appreciate having this informational today. I think it is important and i also do want to say that i think , you know, i havent seen these new amendments that just came out, but i think, overall, we have a bit of a different take on what some of these elements are. Starting with the overall framework again that, you know, when we see bills like this coming forward that to make the bold claim at the opening that one of the principal goals is to reverse historic discrimination, and then turn around and say we have a onesizefitsall market rate marketbased solution that doesnt provide equitable identification of vulnerable communities, that doesnt make sense as a framework, it just doesnt. It does appear to spot zone, but it puts the spot zoning seemingly in a fake way in the hands of the developer. This is the governance and finance committees consultant at the state level quote s. B. 330 provides that a project isnt inconsistent, therefore is consistent with local zoning. If it meets the objective standards for density and other metrics. The thought that this misunderstands a general plans and zoning ordinances are applied. So i believe, at the state level , they are mirroring our reading of the bill, so it asked the department to go back and take another look at that. It is very worrisome. I would also note that is not typically what you base your decisions on. In fact, we have a robust debate sometimes of the general plan is in fact, not the place to look for whether or not you approve a project. They are saying dont worry about the zoning, worry only about the general plan. This bill, by doing a number of things to speed up the process, including limiting the total number of hearings and item can have, removing some items off the table entirely, but you have no voice, no discretion, and it really systematically limits and silences the Community Voice on a lot of important matters, places where equity has really been found over and over again, including in places where we are putting in a see you, we are putting in urban Design Guidelines on mission street. These are things we have all done with you and said, this is the way we are going to make equitable outcomes. And this says, no, none of those things matter. We just go right past those things. I do hope that that is distressing to you, that if we are going to say we have these goals of building x amount more housing, there are ways to reach those goals without any of these items in their, with protecting neighborhoods like the mission, which is already building thousands of units, it is not like it is not building. If those are the real goals, i would say to the authors, lets make those calls happen. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Looking at the amendment about the number of hearings, i want to raise a potential realworld issue, if i may have the overhead. I did mention this last week. The project you approved back in december, it was a second threebedroom unit in the house directly across the street from me where they had the d. R. I wanted the facade preserved because it is a mediterranean revival. That didnt happen. It did not happen at the board of appeals, either. What did happen when we were at the board of appeals was it was discovered by staff that what you thought was going to be a said a threebedroom unit below the garage, did not have proper egress for the two bedrooms. It basically turned into a one bedroom with three studies below the garage. The other thing that the board of appeals was interesting, one commissioner wanted to know whether it will be rented or put into a condo, and the project sponsor could not answer. The second thing was, the board board did say, you have to leave at least two bedrooms, and the commissioner wanted to have another hearing, but they didnt do that. Back to the point about this approval thing, this was approved for ceqa by the staff. This had two rda meetings, it had the d. R. Before you, if the d. R. Had been continued, because if something happened to me or the project sponsor, that would have counted. If i had not saw the appeal, this never would have been uncovered. If it it was not uncovered until we found the appeal. Everyone was very concerned about the fact that you had approved a threebedroom unit, even if it is below the garage, a threebedroom unit and a remodel. So my question, or my point im trying to make is things are things going to slip through like this . When you thank you are densifying, youre just creating square footage. I dont understand a thing about the bedrooms that commissioner richards mentioned, but i think that limitation on the number of hearings seems very arbitrary, and we will see what happens, but that was a threebedroom unit that you approved and it was going to be just a bunch of square footage. One bedroom with three studies. We dont know what the tenure of it is. That is it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im here on behalf of of the housing coalition. S. P. 330 started off as a tenyear bill, it would be in the set for ten years, now it is in effect for five years. So at the end of the day, its goal is to basically say that the rules that are in place when a project is are the rules, that is its main purpose that you cant change the rules, and this , once again, these are setting things in place for five years. It was originally a tenyear bill. It is trying something, so if anything people think its absolutely crazy, and five years , it is gone. I also think it is really important to understand senator skinner and her history of being a strong, Strong Tenant advocate she was one of the strongest supporters of prop ten, so these accusations that somehow she is in the pockets of business, like , look at her history and the work that she has done to do tenant protections, so i think that that is important, you know , i also have to say that every time i come to Planning Commission and i hear people from not my neighborhood who are say the family homeowners, stand up and whack their fingers at young people who are renters, and say that i, as a singlefamily homeowner, i represent renters, not these young people who are actually renters. When that person abuses legalizing apartment buildings in the valley, it is a joke. It makes me it turns my stomach. If we want to be supportive of renters, lets legalize apartment buildings throughout the city. I say lets legalize them on my block right next door to me. Lets build an apartment building, that is how i would support renters. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Recall, cultural action network. I was up in sacramento for the Housing Committee hearing and i was with a group of people that had done a thorough analysis of 330, and if you watch that hearing, you know, basically nancys and Nancy Skinner and several others on the legislature, you know, basically discredited us wrongly. She said, theres the bill. Look, this isnt about backs owning, it is just about helping the city his speed things up. Those were lies. In this next round when we go back to sacramento, we will have backup for our points. Peter papadopoulos mentioned a few things, you know, i frankly find, so far, the plan the Planning Department report here to be, i will call it, understated, you know, basically what is happening is there are several legislators that are incrementing us by making little changes here and there to the housing accountability act. 827 got solved, 50 got stalled, and this little cabal of three legislators, you know, basically are, you know, they have 330 up there, and then all of a sudden, 592 to get and amend pops in right at the same time. 330 and 592, watch how we are being implemented by these people towards statewide by right. That is the objective to make all of our landuse planning go away and it is going to affect all the cities, so i would encourage you to dig a little deeper, look at some perspective at what is going on and do some pushback from a city level. I think is important. They have already written a wonderful opposed letter on 592. I am used to you guys, San Francisco, being a head in analyses. So maybe read that one or planners can start with that one we have to get ahead, not behind and we have to be deeply critical of what is going on, not just, oh, yeah, it is not going to affect us very much. Thank you and can i please have the supervisors have a hearing to oppose 330 just like we did for s. P. 50, and i say goodbye to that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am speaking speaking on legislation was very difficult because it doesnt allow comments to be written up and given to you. I have a couple things. One, the Planning Department staff doesnt know a lot about housing because they [indiscernible] your information depends on people who know the rent control ordinance and it is not the Planning Department. Number 2, the standards for the language has been in the planning code for an awful long time and it requires the wave of standards and the impacts on the neighborhood that is next to it and they apply the planning code , they apply the general plan. The standards will be ripped out of this as far as i understand. The people that have been presenting and asking questions about this legislature here, i know them. We are the same people that are fighting for tenants and fighting for density in our neighborhoods. That is us. That is me. We are the people who have dealt with the area plans and the area plan uniformly have increased density for housing. I dont think there is one that hasnt increased it. Everyone that i am aware of, definitely is going in that direction, and so when people are doing aerial plans and are working for the community and balancing, where is the right place, where is the density, it is going to be less impactful on existing residents at a low dose on the low income residents. We do that, and so that is a balancing act that occurs every day on the area plan. The second thing that i think is true is we are heading to the planning code and the board of appeals, formerly the board of permit appeals because that is your responsibility and the board of appeals responsibility is to look at the code, and look at the project. Sure there is a bunch of nimbys somewhere in the city, they dont control this Planning Commission, they absolutely dont control the board of appeals. I am aware because they Pay Attention to these things. Theres a lot of manipulation of submitting applications for a permit, saying, everyone is on vacation, so now lets go file the application and the first two weeks and there will be no one around, and so right now, applications, i am aware of them our time our timed by the developers lawyers enter architect to take advantage of the code. We dont need to give them anything more. They have enough to do to deal with already. Thank you. Thank you. Any more members of the public who wish to comment on this item seeing non, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Question for staff. Recently we acted upon the oceanview legislation and then we heard the proposed legislation on demolition. Both arguably have down zoning elements. How does this bill impact the implementation of those two . Thank you. A key thing to keep in mind is that the limitations on down zoning referred to the density of residential units that are permitted. My understanding, i believe you are referring to the demolition ordinance, you know, it has a number of provisions around expansions and modifications to existing units. They would only be an overlap to the extent that there was a project that was also seeking to , you know, if that ordinance was seeking to actually down zoning terms of the number of units that can be provided, that would not be able to take place under the bill, but i dont understand that the ordinance does that in large part. Things like conditional use hearings with demolition are still allowed under the bill. Those are procedural types of things that we do to consider whether that will expand or not. It is all about whether there is zoning action to reduce the density of housing, and of course, there is the important provision in the bill that if you want to reduce the zone capacity for housing on any one particular site, as long as that is in balance for of zoning elsewhere for housing, such as an area plan, that is good to go commissioner richards . Is that it . Interestingly enough, one of the issues that i have here is this is the greek. Syndrome. We are talking about s. P. 30. We go to grab it, we think we understand it, and 592 comes, and s. P. 50 has been amended, then we have a density bonus over here. All of this stuff clapboard it together is like the new state planning code to me. If you look at 592, it directly goes against what you just said, it defines the Housing Project as an expansion, adding a bedroom, you know, if the housing accountability act you say we had demolition have demolition approval and all that , we really dont right now, it even if we are in r. H. One, if someone adds nad you, and we have the City Attorney on record saying i can go back on the real and i can tell you the day and the time of the minutes that she said it, if i go into in r. H. One neighborhood and i want to demolish a house, lets say the 1200 squarefoot house, i will build a 5,000 squarefoot house and add a 400 square foot a. D. U. You cant stop me. We cant, under any discretion, stop me from doing that. I told you, i will buy a house and do the same thing and film it so everybody can see this is the case, now we are down to demolition, we defined it as adding 10 or whatever, and now we are down to the addition of a bedroom, so who knows what a bedroom can be. I mean if it passes. I want to have a hearing on 592, but i can claim anything is a bedroom. I can put a bed in my dog room and it is a dog bed, you know, i can lay in it and to get a nap in it. This is getting ridiculous. It really is. So we heard about, at the time of the application, we need certainty. I watched senator skinner. I watch the whole hearing. First of all, this wasnt just a certain tbill. It had slum law provisions, it had take the electorate out of the bill, it had all kinds of things. Or eight amendments that the committee recommended. I called steve she took eight amendments out. I wouldnt call allowing willing code violation properties to go on for seven years a certainty bill. It is a certainty bill for the slumlord, not for producing any kind of housing. It is a safety issue. Here is my question. I completely agree. If i apply for a permit and i will go to nancy and i will architecture off something, i dont want him, you know, in six months, to change it. That is not fair. I get the intent of the fairness piece. But lets be true here. However, taking it retroactive back to january 1st, 2018, if i apply for something today and it is different from january 1 st, 2018, what is the point of that . Where is the date of january . What is the mystery around that date . It was a great day. There is a misconception going on here, which please, let me clarify. There is, in terms of legislative action to do down zoning and these other standards , there is a line of reference drawn as what the standards were in 2018. That was the density. We can go below that under the bill. The provision about having certainty during the application comes in. It doesnt have anything to do with 2018. The question i have for you is, i dont have any issue with that, i think it is fair. But why the 2018 thing . I think the law should say, hey, when you apply for your project, we cant change the zoning on it since, you know, you got your project complete, i think that is great. Has there been situations around the state where communities have said we dont want any more population, we are down zoning . What is the impetus behind this and why would it apply to us . It is our understanding that it is a statewide bill, we are not just looking at San Francisco. There are communities that seek to down zone how housing out right. That has occurred here in San Francisco as well. The bill does a number of things it is difficult to keep them all separated, with the provisions around 2018 are saying if the city wants to go somewhere and say we are going to zone for less housing or no housing, they are drawing a line at 2018. We would have to ask the sponsors, but that is not the case for projects coming in. They are subject to the rules when they come in and they are deemed accepted. It makes sense. The other one is the definition of a Housing Project. It is to theres residential can i drop a Housing Project down in st. Francis would where im going to propose nad you . Is that legal under this bill . It does not change our underlying zone underlying zoning in anyways. It still wouldnt be committed. Would not make my project feasible. Can i use that defence . The other one that is residential would be completely nil in void. It has to be 100 residential. Typically that is all you can do okay. I just want to make sure. Does that mean we can open up an Architect Office in the basement or Something Like that . The other one is, the Design Guidelines. I get the whole area plan issue where if we downs on down so long enough and we of zone, all good. In central soma, we have i think we adopted it before we completed the central soma plan. We have the down zoning and up zoning, but we cant apply the Design Standards that we all agree on before we passed the law. Does that make any sense . It doesnt make sense to me. I think that needs to be changed if it came as part of a package and as part of the up zoning and down zoning, lets allow it to be at. That is the standard we have been working on and we are still working on. I go around the state and the people say to me blah blah blah and they say what is your zoning capacity . And i say i dont know. We mentioned zoning capacity on not reducing it or allowing it to shift around, but is there a list of zoning capacity in this state by jurisdiction that the Housing Development corporation can come and say, cupertino, you have 60,000 available now. How will they deal with this . That list doesnt exist to my knowledge, but it does not rely on that kind of list existing. It is pretty easy to determine based on what zoning is now. If you want to do Something Like that, you have to concurrently up zone somewhere. It does not rely on some kind of master analysis. Great. Lets say i have a vacant lot somewhere and i am really generous and i say i will donate it to a Community Garden or park there is nothing on it. Can i do that . Absolutely. If the person who owns a property or has control over the property wants to not develop, nothing changes. You could go into the city and make a p. For park. If we were going to change the zoning, in that case, they would have to be balanced with an up zoning someplace else to make up the difference, or you dont necessarily have to do Something Like that. It can just simply be some other agreement with the city. It would depend on the case. Great. Another question is, on the tenant issues are they going to come back . Number 2, they decided to come back, what rate did they come back at . The existing rate they were paying or some new b. M. R. Concoction . We have had this issue with the Affordable HousingDensity Bonus Program where youre creating units in neighborhoods where people maybe on a fixed income, social security, whatever, and now you create a new b. M. R. Unit that 80 of a. M. I. Or 50 of a. M. I. People still cant afford it. How do you guarantee that right of first refusal . A number of things. If you look back at the provision, that was one of the things that got admitted yesterday. I agree with him that it is difficult to keep up with. With that is how it rolls. It is a fiveyear look back. The question will be for planning. Were there any tenants in the property in the past five years . You have to look at that under the bill. The ellis act is another tenure look back. All those units have to be replaced, and then that goes along with the foot right of first refusal. The way that the state law assigns the affordability is it is affordable to the house sold at the current income where they dont pay more than 30 of their income, that is very widely applicable that is also in state law. I completely understand. The question would be, im asking if it is 95 and i make 1200 amonth, will it be 30 of my 1200 . Do i get to come back at my rate i dont think that is how state law is written. But my read of what the state law says it is based on the income of the people that are reentering the unit. Okay. Great. A couple of the questions on how we actually implement this, this 30 day thing. First of all, the Historic Resources and the need to beat the drum on the need to have a survey. Can we require an h. R. E. As part of the packet so we can deem it complete . Do we put the onus on the developer like we do today to survey everything to say, look, you put us as part of the packet and we will determine whether it is an a or c. Can that be part of the packet . If someone wants to do work on the property, we do require that today. The only difference is we will have to prioritize working off of that document to do it within the same time frame that the application is being complete, which is generally 30 days. If there are other things that incomplete about the application , we issue them a letter and the 30 day clock strikes over. It will be 32 some number of days depending on how difficult the project is. There are some requirements about what constitutes a preliminary application. And have to list any Historic Resources that are known. You say no, there are no known resources. We would then look at the property and say we have to have the Historic Resource evaluation it was a vacant parcel than. The question i would have, do we have the staffing to actually determine all of this within the time period that they will his prescribe us . Were we are doing a lot of Housing Projects already. A couple other questions. A lot of times we hear from the director of ms. Rogers mr. Rogers and staff. Most of the time in the period were people say, oh, my god, planning has spent four years doing this. Half of the time we are waiting for a developer to get back to you. You say wait a minute, is in 30 days, what you took up 20 you took up to 20. How do you measure that . Do you have a clock on your desk like an attorney . Is back and forth. How do you do that . How does this actually get put in place . We do have our project on hold in our tracking system, but it depends what you were talking about. Is not about the on hold time, it is about how long do we have for when we do the approval, and if the time frame that we are aiming for. Those are obviously standards. The stream lining act is about how do you approve the project after the environmental work is done. It doesnt matter how much time it was with the developer versus not. The bill does have this provision that you would have a preliminary application that comes in which is like our regular Development Application, and that is when they get their vesting. They have six months to switch from that time. If theres anything missing, they do have a clock, or else the sort of vesting point would start over. We would say no, we would hold you to the rules of today because you did not put in the Development Application and six months. That would be helpful. In terms of starting Building Construction, is that like what we do where you have to pull aside permits . Is that what Building Construction actually means under this law . It is not terribly specific. We will have to see how we define that. The other thing is, we have two situations here today where there are tenants and buildings that will be demolished, which speaks to saying, well, these things are happening. And whether there are tenants in their because we had a tenant registry as part of the protected piece. It didnt pass, so i guess all jurisdictions will have to pass tenant registry. I think we are looking working on one here. It wouldve been nice if the state passed that. I think lastly, in terms of the timeline, does this include building and planning, or planning gets 30 days, then it goes to building and they get 30 days, is this permits in general , or specific permits . The housing accountability act is about the entitlement. If it is a project that doesnt meet the standards, or if it is a project that needs conditional use, that is your purview. The bill is not about the post entitlement timeframe. It is about getting the project to approval. That makes sense. Lastly, objective Design Standards, i think we have talked about that. It is so much easier. Some of the Community Housing we develop it. They kind of go away. I kind of look at this and say, we can develop all the Design Standards we want, we have a project that was going to waive five of them. It is understanding that the Design Standards dont make any sense if you can just waive them away. The waivers come into play when he of a stand estate density project. Under the housing accountability act and others, the question is, are the standards objective . If they are, there is no real discussion. We are not compliant with the planning code, here you go. The question is, how do we make sure that the Design Guidelines have objectivity to them which we will be able to implement . If there is something that is written down on paper that anyone can understand what it means, the only time it is getting waived is when they come to the Planning Commission for some sort of condition. One last question. Can i start a pacific petition at the Farmers Market where all my neighbors ask about down zoning . The bill only talks about down zoning for housing. If there is a local initiative or an ordinance at the board of supervisors that would down zoning particular piece of property, that would not be allowed for five years. Any type of other action that the voters want to undertake, there is no change in that. It is just legislative action, whether by the voters or by the board that would actually limit the residential capacity on a particular site or multiple sites. Just what i thought. The coastal zone, coastal act, a lot of it is local, not state. Does is override the local portion of the coastal act that we have . My understanding is we have these local programs and it is a locality adopting that program and they have to get that approved by the coastal commission. It is basically delegating their state authority to the locality. The coastal act is not touched. One last one. I keep saying this. We ups owned the port property we ups owned the port property. Do we have laws in place that they have to be done by the voters . Is that something we have . We have this anywhere in the city as a requirement if they dont approve it because it already exists, they dont have to open stone they dont have to up zone it . When did the requirement of voter approval come into play . That is one thing. It would also be an interesting question we will have to test when we get to that point as to whether or not something that requires voters to take action in order to initiate the Development Count as a down zoning or not. It is night not entirely clear. We will find out. Anyways, it has been incredibly helpful. Thank you. Acting Zoning Administrator . Emily rogers. I just want to take a second to first of all commend staff for a brilliant presentation and an amazing amount of specific answers to the questions here. Jacob has a great grasp of our existing procedures and policies and requirements and it was exceptionally well explained. Also, state law is something that is outside of our ability to clearly interpret. That power lies with the state attorney general. Theres some degree of uncertainty in our current best guess of how it would apply in San Francisco. You have done an exceptional job trying to do that, but many things could change, including the way that the law is interpreted in that it doesnt change the way it is drafted. I would like to put that out there. The one thing i want to say is, up until this week, we were the only jurisdiction in the states that did Something Like this people understood what it was. I commend you and staff for providing the resources to do that. We actually know what we are getting into. Thank you very much. You nailed everything. Thank you. Commissioner hillis . Thank you. I think it was a good presentation and explanation of the bill. We did have questions. Again, i sometimes look at these through the lens of other jurisdictions. Cupertino is not happy with this it is generally a good sign. If we have zoning and we are requiring a third level, we should comply with it and allow people to work on that level. There are two things that concerned me or i have questions does this distinguish between maximum minimum density . If i have an r. H. Rhd zoning district, does it have a preference for a three unit building on a lot more is a Single Family home equivalent to that three unit building and what our powers are over that . We obviously encourage maximum density instead of just building somewhere within that density. Right. The housing accountability act is telling you what you cant do in terms of disapproval. As long as the project gets proposed within the density that is allowed, then there is no grounds for disapproving the project. This is where the other state comes into play currently. We implemented based on multifamily projects. The Single Family projects come housing accountability act and it would be a change in our practice in that area, but what ultimately the commission has to look at, is you have to approve it something that is below the density so we couldnt push for higher density project under this . The bill doesnt say you have to, but correct me if im wrong, but if you are in our h3 in the proposal is for two units, then what you are looking at is two units. You can say you have to build three. Right. At times we have encouraged, and i think staff has, too, encouraged project sponsors to maximize the density. Absolutely. We have added language into our Public Service announcements. [please stand by] mo mierins commissioner moor. Commissioner moore that good planning should allow us to have, to defend for and fight for. I believe the onesizefitsall law coming down from sacramento is not good planning. San francisco has led the state for decades in planning and the nation. I would i could strongly believe, particularly for San Francisco, that it limits its sound in Community Voice, and i want to comment on this very general level. I commend staff. Preserve your strength and voices for other things, if you can. Vice president koppel commissioner richards . Commissioner richards so i have a different take, commissioner moore. When these things come up, these guys know what theyre doing. They can call up Nancy Skinner. In the reasoning of transparency, they know what theyre doing. We require a developer to put a rent controlled unit back in addition to the b. M. R. Units. So it is accurate that the replacement unit requirement thats state law would come out of the inclusionary policy for the requirement. However, the way that the bills structured, it says if youre going to do the replacement units, it needs to be affordable. The lowincome unit would be affordable. Its very complicated. I dont have a definitive answer, but i think what the state law is saying you would provide a unit thats affordable as well as the right of first refusal. If you were in a protected unit for one of the separate reasons, you would get the right of first refusal for the unit. Commissioner richards two things. I think were getting less, so its a step backwards. Two, as these things are coming forward with the right of first refusal, can we take a look at whats happening as they come through . Vice president koppel commissioner hillis . Commissioner hillis just to follow up on that. That was a little different answer than i thought you gave me. States got that requirement. Theyve got tenant protections. Ours sometimes are better or more, you know, favorable to the existing tenant. Can we continue on to do that . Yeah. I think the phrase is stronger or more stringent in state law. I think thats us to figure out if a market rate is more beneficial to the tenant than a unit that meets the definition under state law. Commissioner hillis we can go beyond where theres an issue where theres a c. U. For demolition of a particular building, we can continue to do the things that weve done in the past for the conservatory and music building. Right. It specifically carves out the ability of the city to pass further types of restrictions with respect to other units, so thats something we can continue to legislate on in the future. Vice president koppel commissioner richards . Commissioner richards thats a great thing, but i