Senator Diane Feinstein so important in the chambers and to our history. With that, mr. Clerk, you have announcements . The board and committees are convening hybrid meetings. The board recognizes that equitable ablg ses is essential and will take Public Comment as follows, hear Public Comment first from those attending the meeting in person. If you have comments on any items you can line up along the right hand side of the room and well hear remote comment from folks. Dial 4156550001. Enter meeting id. Press pound symbol twice and you will hear the meeting discussions but your line will be in listening mode only. When your item comes up and Public Comment is called dial star 3 to add to the speaker line. You may submit Public Comment in writing in either of infollowing ways, email comments to myself, the Land Use Transportation Committee clerk and email address is john. Carroll sfgov. Org. Your send to our office in city hall, 1 dr. Carlton b goodlett place, room 244, San Francisco california 94102. Madam chair, items are expecting to appear on the thank you so much mr. Clerk. One more announcement. That is that many folks are waiting to provide Public Comment for item number 4. I am going to limit the comment to 1 minute for item number 4. We already heard it and we probably will hear it again. You may remember that we heard this item last week and folks were preparing amendments, which by our law means that some of them are substantive and have to sit for a week and we will be voting on that at some time later where folks will also have time to giveread the amendments and give Public Comment. With that, mr. Clerk, please lets go to item 1. Item 1 is ordinance tew mending the park code to restrict private veekzs from a portion of John F Shelley drive between Upper Reservoir parking lot and mansell street in mclaren park. Thank you so much. We have brian stigal here. With rec and park. Thank you. Good afternoon chair, supervisors, clerk, the item before you is the John F Shelley drive road closure in mclaren park. My name is brian stokeal, planner with rec and park department. The ordinance amend the park code to restrict private vehicles from a 2100 portion of shelley drive between the epier reservoir parking lot and mansell street in john mclaren park. We are here today ask the board to approve removal of vehicle access to a portion of john shelley drive to create a slower and more walkable park street thats also safer for more accessible and improves mobility and equity. The photos show people using and enjoying the current temporary promenade on shelley west. John mclaren park is San Francisco second largest park located in the southeast part of the city surrounded by Environmental Justice communities. Nearby to the bayview and ocean side neighborhood. Shelley drive forms a 1. 3 mile loop in the northern half of the park. Let me share with you the different segments of shelley drive for better orientation. First, we have shelley west that connects from mansell to the Upper Reservoir parking lot passing seal of dogs. Then shelley north continuing from the reservoir parking lot and water tower past the new playground and on to cambridge street and finally, shelley east from cambridge to mansell. This street goes past the amphitheater and acts as a conductor street between the portila and visitation valley. The mclaren park vision plan adopted by the rec and Park Commission in november 2017 and published april 2018. Consider ways to prove safety and connectivity. Regarding roadways, it also called out for exploring trial roadway treatment such as closing a portion of shelley drive to calm the road and open up the closed segment to non vehicular uses. Called out to address speeding vehicles, the lack of sidewalks and consider residents sense of safety. When the pandemic began, shelley north and shelley west were transformed into a one mile promenade back in april 2020. The same time when jfk promenade was initially created temporarily. The promenade proved popular with local residents. In 2021, with the reopening of the improved group picnic and opening of the new Redwood Grove playground, rec and park responded by returning vehicular access to shelley north, shortening the promenade to the current half mile lechblth cars can drive to the sites and Upper Reservoir parking lot while also maintaining a promenade in a portion of the park. The Rec Park Commission approved a resolution on june 15, 2023 supporting the shelley promenade. The Commission Resolution recommended that the board of supervisors legislate restricting vehicular acseon john shelley drive west permanently. For little more description of the promenade, it is mostly flat even though this is quite a hilly park. It provides excellent views of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco bay. The new promenade would also complement the existing mansell promenade and add additional length to the Trail Network and enhance overall connectivity in mclaren park. Car access and parking is still maintained at key park sites including a playground, picnic area and jerry garcia amphitheater. Would not have neighborhood impact based on sfmta analysis. For little more detail on how we propose to treat each end of the promenade, the department proposes at the north end to maintain Upper Reservoir parking lot marked in yellow to access the water tower, nearby picnic areas, also to install accessible parking space marked in blue on shelley drive to connect the promenade to this new parking spot. On the south end, the proposal calls for restoring Street Parking at the field of dogs used by many dog walkers and a clear request by the community. We also proposed to pave a existing dirt path to connect the mansell and shelley promenades at the flattest point marked in red and orange on the map. The new paved path would create an accessible pedestrian connection from the nearest muni bus stop and in addition at both ends, we install a series of ballards and barriers and gate to protect park users at each end of the promenade. Currently we are working to identify specific funding for these treatments, but very confident well find them. Rec park conducted three Community Meetings between 2022 and 23 that covered shelley drive, but over all for the park. There was one meeting specifically about shelley drive. We rved very strong support, actually unanimous during the meeting for the promenade proposed today. In addition, based on site counts, the pedestrian and bike usage surpasses previous vehicular use prior to the pandemic. The proposed legislation is supported by multiple city policies including rec park strategic plan, which called out reimaging public rights of way. Planning Department Open space element and sfmta transit first policy. We consulted with the sfmta and Fire Department on the proposal. The mta found the promenade if permanent would have no significant adverse impacts on the local vehicle and transit circulation and would promote walking and biking in the park. We at rec and park are excited to be able to promote equitable access for walking biking and other active uses in mclaren park as we do in other parks throughout the city. We recommend passage of the proposed ordinance to amend the park code cosponsored by the mayor and supervisor walton and supported by the following Community Organizations the mclaren collaborative, walk sf, Bike Coalition, sf urban riders, kids safe San Francisco, the friends of great highway park and as mentioned received a letter of support from the sfmta. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the presentation. This is great and amazing and i think it will vastly improve the park. I spend a lot of time there. It is closer to my house then Golden Gate Park, so thank you so much. It is overdue. Thank you. Any questions or comments . Okay. I would like to be added as a cosponsor and lets take Public Comment please. Thank you madsm chair. Do we have Public Comment on item 1 number joining in the Board Chamber . Please line up along the right hand side of the room and come forward to lectern for two minutes. If remotely, dial star 3 to add you to the queue. Good afternoon supervisors. Jack lipten in full support. Fortunately this isnt jfk because and to get back to work and none have 9 hours for everyone to line up and give their say. This is a really small narrowly tailored plan that provides the south eastern neighborhood of the city with desperately needed car free space and only impacting a small portion of shelley drive. Still insures vehicle access to the group picnic area, the playground, parking lot and Everything Else mclaren park has to offer. The promenade is in place several years now and unlike jfk generated only positive feedback, near unanimous voret and a lot of support from the dog walkers use the nearby field of dogs and support from supervisor walton. This is important project because our commitments to equity and vision zero say we really need to spread these kinds of spaces throughout the city. Glad to see the new accessible connections plan for shelley, to make the promenade more useful and hope we take the first step and build on doing more programming and joy we see in Golden Gate Park to the gem that is mclaren park. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon supervisors. Linda and speaking in favor of the proposal today. Very proud to be a 20 year advocate for mclaren park and as we discovered the beauty of mclaren park and wanted to enhance them, one thing was critical, mclaren was not a pedestrian friendly park unfortunately. It was built in the 1930 when cars were considered to be much more a asis asset park. Now, with the addition of this promenade, which considerably slowed down over all traffic in the area, and has allowed for the use of a area that had been basically unused accept for cars and occasional vehicles parked along during the day, you see families, children, kids out on their bikes learning to ride. As mentioned it is a flat area and otherwise hilly neighborhood, but the views are spectacular and best viewed on foot. This is nice area we feel is a fine enhancement to this. I attended all the meetings. People are excited about this and think you will find unanimous support for this. Thank you. Thank you for bringing your comments to the committee. Next speaker, please. Hi, chair melgar, vice chair preston, member peskin, luke. I urge to support the ordinance to restrict private vehicle access on shelley drive and mclaren park known as shelley promenade and send to the full board with positive recommendation. Similar to car free jfk and great highway park, the car free portion of shelley drive is a refuge to gather, bikes scooter and skate boards for children seniors and people with disabilities. The creation and preservation thof space has been psilver lining of the covid pandemic. Inenhanced our city and approval of permanent space and make the city more sustainable and livable for all ages and abilities, especially who cannot or do not use a car including children and many seniors People Living with disabilities and low income individuals. We face a safety crisis, Climate Crisis and Public Health crisis and car free spaces help the city make progress addressing the crisis. Supporting the ordinance will make us help us take action addressing the crisis and you are in a position to make it a permanent space for people. Please take the opportunity to lead for the people, city and planet. Thank you to supervisors melgar and walton and mayor breed for sponsoring this ordinance and rec and park staff, notably brian stogeal who worked tirelessly to create the public space, engage the public and make improvements previous and proposed to already great space. I urge you to support the ordinance and send to full board with positive recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Amy representing [indiscernible] speaking in support of this ordinance. We partnered communities and Public Agency to create sustain and advocate for parks and spaces that welcome and belong to everyone. We believe activating public space [indiscernible] keeping public spaces dynamic. [indiscernible] shelley drive west is valued space for walkers and cyclists and excited to expansion of open space insuring access to public space. [indiscernible] to the dog park, Upper Reservoir and Redwood Grove playground. We like to thank [indiscernible] designing and piloting this program as well as Public Outreach work insuring Community Involvement and planning for this public space. Thank you. My name is scott, Mission District resident and asking you to support the ordinance. During the pandemic this location was a beloved refuge for me, it is a beautiful space and beautiful place to watch the sunset and wonderful to have these car free spaces and think brian and his colleagues have done a great job on this plan so i ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Jake price, want to echo all the comments made previously and more car free spaces, advancing our mission zero goals is vital and a strong step in the right direction so thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who has Public Comment on this item in the room . Seeing none, well turn our attention to three callers who want to speak on this item. Can we be connected to the first of them, please . Hi. My name is Joseph Nelson here representing or calling in representing the San Francisco Bike Coalition. Want to echo support of this shelley promenade proposal to basically turn shelley west into a permanent car free space. Mclaren park is an incredible open space and San Francisco second largest park. Yet it often does not get the recognition i think it really deserves. Also surrounded by equity priority communities as well as neighborhoods that are home to many [indiscernible] [difficult to hear speaker due to audio quality] used to describe the 13 percent of the city roadways that make up over 75 percent of the city [indiscernible] fatal traffic collisions. Keeping shelley promenade closed to cars is a great step forward in creating more spaces for people to walk, ride, [indiscernible] and to get somea chance to be outside. I had a pretty good experience on shelley promenade several months ago when i [indiscernible] San Francisco Bike Coalition basically looking to show people around mclaren park and show the wealth of space that is there and available for people to explore and the unanimous voret for shelley promenade has been a great thing to see, especially considering how much it is really needed. I once again want to fully echo our support through the Bike Coalition for this promenade to create a permanent space in mclaren park through the shelley promenade. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors melgar, peskin and preston. My name is [indiscernible] calling on behalf of walk San Francisco to share our fullhearted endorsement of car free space on shelley permanent. Every day average of three people are hit while walking in San Francisco. Parks can and should be a rejuge from vehicle traffic in the city. We need these spaces. Not only is the car free space on shelley drive already popular but as we heard these car free spaces support the city vision zero policy and climate goals. They also make our parks safer and more welcoming for all ages and are abilities inspiring more people to be active, and they are attracting more people to enjoy mclaren park in such a positive Community Building way and that is what our city is all about. With the passage of car free shelley drive, [indiscernible] clean air for everybody in our park. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Great. Good afternoon david pillpel. I dont feel very strongly about this item. Clearly others do, but i do think it could have been brought to prosac for review and comment. Park recreation and open Space Advisory Committee exists to do a number of specific things, and my view also have authority and the ability to review and comment on major changes to parks including park access, good,b bad and otherwise. This did go through the Rec Park Commission, i think in the future proposals like this should be brought by rec park staff to prosac for review and comment as part of Public Outreach. I did see there were three Public Meetings including one specifically on access here, thats great, but i just think prosac could be used more, including in a case like this. Thanks for listening. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. This is kate [indiscernible] a resident of district 10 and just calling in because my son and i road our bikes in this open space a few weeks ago and we loved it. There is a point you are riding your bike along and you can only see trees. It is just gorgeous so very strongly support this proposal, and i would also like to see sfmta work on better routes to get there, because it was a little bit harrowing to get to the open space to the car free space but it is really lovely and wonderful space and i think we need that on our side of the city as well as car free jfk in Golden Gate Park. Thanks so much. Thank you for sharing comments with the committee. Madam chair, i understand we have no further callers in the queue. Are thank you mr. Clerk. Public comment of the item is closed. Supervisor preston. Thank you chair melger. Mr. Clerk, please add we as a copsponsor. Would you like to make a motion . Yes. Move to forward to full board with recommendation. Motion is offered by vice chair preston to forward this ordinance to board of supervisors with recommendation of the land use and Transportation Committee. On that motion, preston, aye. Peskin, aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, no opposition. Thank you. The motion passes. Lets go to item 2 please mr. Clerk. Item number 2 is ordinance amending the administrative code to delegate board of supervisorser Approval Authority under chapter sex 9. 118 and administrative code, section 23. 30 to the Real Estate Division and the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development amend certain existing leases regarding residual rent payments and lender profections for 100 Affordable Housing projects. I had in my notes shealy was going to make the presentation. Good afternoon chair melgar, vice chair preston and supervisor peskin. Im jackyhere today with sheila to present a legislation that would delegate authority for certain groundlease amendments to the department of real estate and mocd director. Earlier this year we came before the Land Use Committee to present the original version of this proposed ordinance and we have since incorporated your comments into a amendment to the legislation, which i will summarize in the following slides. To recap from the prior presentation, manages and monitor ground lease for Affordable Housing on city owned sites. Many of our older ground leases are ones we inherited from the former Redevelopment Agency and mocd recent history, as we develop new Affordable Housing we use the ground lease Ownership Structure to insure longterm affordability and advance the city Affordable Housing goals. Terms of ground leases are generally 75 years with option to extend for 24 years and with these older ground leases what we see is that many have a cap to the amount of residual receipts a owner may retain, and any amendments to these ground leases must be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to our city charter and admin code. Next slide, please. So, capped residual receipts are less favorable to owners, it is also inconsistent with mohcd current receipts policy. As you are aware, over the last several years as Affordable Housing providers dealt with the pandemic, higher operational cost, loss of rental revenue and also steep increases to inflation, Many Properties and even their organization as a whole really struggled. However, during these very challenging times, there were Still Properties that were able to generate residual receipts. Largely because they enjoyed project based subsidies or rental subsidies. In about 2019, 2020, recognizing mohcd could assist the Affordable Housing providers, keep more residual receipts to the projects that generated them, we invited them to submit applications to amend their ground leases and loan agreements, which were inconsistent with the current residual receipts policy. Next slide. So, how have our Affordable Housing providers been using the residual receipts they do have access to now . What we found is that they have been consistently reinvesting back into their propertiess in isf. We learned from Mission Housing, mercy housing, they generate residual receipts from properties able to generate them, had been used to Fund Replacement reserves and cash poor properties. This is really significant because replacement reserves is a primary source of funding that projects access to fund ongoing Capital Repair needs. Residual receipts have also been used to support actual Capital Repair costs. Here in the photos you see that we have before and after notes photos of carpet replacement, remodel of a room and exterior painting and these are meaningful to tenants who live in the properties and staff who work there and they are just create very positive environments. Next slide, please. So, this slide just recaps the legislation that you saw earlier in april. These criteria have not changed, and i want to reiterate procedurally delegated authority would be provided to the drether director of property. Director in consultation with the City Attorney would be responsible for making the determination that all these criteria have been met. Next slide. What has changed in the proposed ordinance is that the list of projects that have submitted an application to amound the ground leases has been incorporated. You see in the chart 12 ground leases, they would be under the proposed legislation. Be able to take advantage of the streamlined process of delegated authority to amend their ground leases to make a consistent with mohcd residual receipts policy. I do want to note we did strike out two properties. Sierra madre. They only v a amendment to a loun agreement, they dont have a loan lease. Turk and eddie, their ground lease amendment was approved by the board of supervisors in 2020 already so those two do not need to be on the list. So, in closing, this is a technical implementation related legislation that really speaks to streamlined process. It applies to a very specific type of amendment to 12 ground leases, and would make the residual receipts allocation consistent with current mohcd policy. Any other amendments made to these 12 ground leases in terms of their term, their annual rent or any other portion of the ground lease they would still have to come back to the board of supervisors under the standard process for those type of amendments, and this would not change any other amendments made to any ground leases that are not listed in the proposed ordinance, and of course any new ground leases would come forward to the board of supervisors for approval. So, with that, happy to take any questions. Thank you. I see president peskin has a question. Im a little confused. Where in the legislation does it refer to the 12 i just want tothere was a late addition, so there was an email sent out, i forget what time this afternoon, this morning what time did you send that . Im pretty current. Have i missed something this morning . Maybe around noon. Around noon. One moment. I see something from 1209 from thats the one. We apologize for that late submission. So just to clarify, so these are amendments to the legislation . Correct. Okay. Thats what we added is a list of 12 specific ground leases. We named them. So, it is under section 2b and then we itemized 112. So, beginning the bottom of page 3 . Thats right. Okay. I guess this is question through the chair to deputy City Attorney pierson, do we need to make changes in section 2okay. You cross reference 2b of this ordinance. I havent laid eyes on it until just this second, so like to go through it thoroughly, but it sounds like it does what you just represented and are think that is where we left you in may, which was we shared which is now the 12. Thats right. Which i am fine with these changes. There is also language in here i thought was a little weird and maybe we can clean it up depending what the City Attorney says and maybe it is just a term of art, but now trying to find it in the new version. This would be onas amended page 2, line let me find it. 12. It says the authority to enter into and amend. I dont like the words enter into, because it feels it is something new. I realize it is constrained by the balance of that sentence, but i would sleep ease consider if we took out the words enter into. And have it be amend. Deputy City Attorney ann pierson. I think that is fine i want to read the whole thing. Just to make sure the change makes sense in context, but think that is fine. I want to point out a change here, previously the ordinance would have been codifiedbuse because it was establishing general rule, this is now uncodified ordinance that applies to the new general contracts. Thank you so much. Thank you for doing what we asked you to do and make it narrow and targeted, and i imagine we will have Public Comment about this item because i do see sam moss here. Maybe in the mean time we can read it and make sure that the wording is okay. So, if there is no other questions colleagues, lets go to Public Comment mr. Carroll. Hear Public Comment on item 2. In the chamber line up before the lectern to come before for two minutes of comments and remotely and wish to speak, dial star 3 to add you to the queue. Well hear from you after inperson comments. My name is sam moss, the executive director of Mission Housing Development Corporation a non profit on the list. Ours is [indiscernible] first Affordable Housing housing built in mission bay and legacy of former redevelopment. Non profit affordal Housing Developers especially now, especially when the need for what we do is so much greater then the resources that any Government Agency whether be San Francisco, state of california and certainly hud are able to provide. We need the resources to be able to be responsive to the needs of our tenants and the needs of our buildings and are these residual receipts provide that. Unfortunately real estate doesnt xair when the next board of supervisors meeting is. The roof will come down. We are having once generation floods and fires three times a year the last 5 year jz that is effecting our buildings as much as anyone else. When we take on sites we do so knowing that we the non profit affordable developer have made a legal agreement that if something bad happens at our buildings and the building doesnt have the resources it needs we pay that bill. Not going to call mayor office of housing if we have anything close to remote to funds needed for that and those funds come from residual receipts. We are not as jackyithink the mayor office of housing for all the great work they have done. They heard the non Profit Housing provider partners and i just want to point out that residual receipts are result of a building a lot of times being run well. They are residual, the reserves are funded. The repair needs are taken care of, so we can take those funds and move to a building that doesnt have enough money and every non profit affordable developer listed on the legislation jacky and mayor office of housing so greatly redelivered today, we all have 50 plus years in history. Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your comments. Can we hear from the next speaker, please . Good afternoon chair melgar and Committee Members. Chris comings the director of Housing Development at the tenderloin naerbd Development Corporation. Here to speak in support of this proposal since tndc would benefit from these changes. Just like a lot of other owners, tndc relies on these residual receipts to directly support tenants and property operations. Similar what was mentioned we are able to take resedual receipts from our cash Generating Properties and help offset some serious deficits we have at other properties disproportionately impacted by inflationary environment and non payment of rent especially given impacts of the pandemic. Also able to take receipts and directly invest back into the properties in the form of Capital Improvements to keep our properties safe, healthy and quality. Thank you for your time and urge you to support this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber who has comments on item number 2 . Seeing none, lets please be connected to the first of i understand four speakers in line for this item remotely. Hello land use and Transportation Committee members. Im [indiscernible] Vice President of Asset Management with mercy housing and are here to support the request to delegate board of supervisors authority on the ground lease amendments directly to mohcd. The passage of the ordinance would reduce complexity, save valuable staff time for Affordable Housing providers, and city staff and improve our ability to provide high quality Affordable Housing. Mercy housing and our peers in the non profit Affordable Housing sector are still recovering from the Financial Impact of the covid19 pandemic. Mercy housing has millions in outstanding tenants receivables with 2. 3 million in San Francisco alone. Postcovid, we dont know what the new normal is and what Sustainable Operations look like. We are all feeling the fragility of the non Profit Housing sector. Mercy house used the residual receipts to reinvest back into the Affordable Housing properties. [indiscernible] and security measures and improving the quality of life of the residents. Allowing amendments to ground leases would help us recover some of our crucial operating budget not only insuring high Quality Living environment for residents, but also supporting our staff and delivering our mission. Thank you for your support. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Whitney jones china town cdc calling in support of the measure, chinatown cdc has benefited significantly from the ability to use residual reseelts receipts in a different way especially with impact of covid. Our portfolio has a set of struggles mostly related that this will provide assistance and addressing as we have benefited from it in the past, so i urge you support this measure. Thank you. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Great. David pillpel. I spoke on this item in april and may. I dont have a issue with mohcd or Affordable Housing or lease amendments but i think charter section 9. 118 and 9. 118c, powers that lie with the board of supervisors cannot be delegated in this way. 9. 118c says unless provided for in this charter any lease of Real Property for period of 10 or more years including optionsthe modification amendment or termination of any lease shall first be approved by resolution of the board of supervisors and there is a carveout for maritime leases under the port commission. I said before and say again, i think if someone wants a carveout for mohcd or lease amendments someone can propose a Charter Amendment to effect wait that, but otherwise, i think it is not a good idea nor do i think it is particularly cool under the charter to delegate Authority Like this. Im sure the puc Real Estate Division all city departments would love not to have to bring leases or in particular lease amendments to the board whether to this committee, budget and finance or elsewhere and love to have this delegated authority, but dont think it is good Public Policy and i just think that if they got lease amendments to bring, they should bring them to the board for approval by resolution as the charter requires. Thanks very much for listening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon board. My name is [indiscernible] jackson, newly appointed ceo of home rise. Im in full support of this amendment to delegate authority to mohcd. The challenges brought forth by covid19 [indiscernible] impact due to significant losses due to high vacancy rates, very slow to no referrals at times, and 2 million rent loss income of our tenants. These challenges [indiscernible] demonstrating strength [indiscernible] 93 percent resident retention rate. Significantly outpacing industry average of 85 percent. Meanwhile other properties are not cash [indiscernible] thanks to factors. Rca apartments and richardson apartments [indiscernible] capability to provide the [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] should the amendment pass and tap the receipts accounts for capital improvalment it will help operationally. Delegated Authority Legislation which legalize residual rents and distributions to help other low performing properties with capital needs. This is one of many tools that we need to have. This isnt just policy,b it is a lifeline. A catalyst for positive change and really for us affordable housers, this is beacon of hope to help us do business well and support san franciscans so this understanding im urging your support on the pivotal amendment. This is really important to bolster our San Francisco and make us stronger and champion [indiscernible] housing first. I think this legislation is really important so thank you so much for your time. Thank you for sharing your comments. Madam chair, i understand we have no further calls in the queue. Thank you so much. First, i like to say thank you to jacky for taking this on. I know that the policy of the residual receipts have been a point of contention in the past and so thank you for engaging with the Non Profit Community and having something that works for your portfolio, but also for them. Much appreciated. Okay, i doi will let you ask your question or make your comment president peskin, but i did want deputy City Attorney to answer the question posed by one of the callers about the charter section that was read. Deputy City Attorney ann pierson. The charter certainly requires the board to engage in many duties, but many of them particularly those that dont require discretionary acts are dellingable. What is delegated here is limited number of approvals described in great detail, so only those things may be done. There st. No delegation of real discretion here. As to the amendment supervisor peskin wanted to make, that is fine and happy to prepare that now if the committee would like to move it. President peskin. Thank you chair melgar. I would like to delete the enter into andso it says the authority to amend existing leases, and then in subsection 5 or maybe subsection 6, i just want toi realize this implies this, but could say it even more clearly, which is to use the boiler plate language that says that in no way shall it change any material terms relative to the length of a lease and the like. Theres one word in subsection 5 that says, solely, but it would be just nice to have a very clear sentence that makes it abundantly clear so nobody gets confused going forward, and i think back in may had we limited to the 14had mohcd said in may 4 months ago today would probably have approved it then and have to state respectfully that if thats the way it will have been for 4 months it would have been niceed to receive these friday or saturday or sunday and not a hour before the hearing. I read it and comfortable with it. I will close Public Comment because i failed to do that. Public comment is closed. So, i am unclear as to what you were asking for. Is it a amendment . I would accept the amendment proposed by the Mayors Office of housing and i would move to strike atlet mei dont have a hard copy of thelet me see ifit would now be at page number 2 line 12, the words, to entersorry, enter into and. Just reads the authority to amend and then i was suggesting and maybe we can empower deputy City Attorney pierson to just have a sentence maybe at subsection 6, create a subsection d that just make it clear it doesnt otherwise materially change terms. I would like to confirm with the department and their drafting attorney that none of the amendments that are contemplated here could fall into that description. If you want to come back to the item and can do that now or if thats a amendment you like to make at full board, that is another option as well. Okay with colleagues, we can circle back after the next item. Okay. That means we wont vote until the end of the meeting. It will be a long one. I dont know if you want to hang out, but thats what we are going to do. With that, lets move on to item number 3 please. Item 3 is ordinance to amending the planning code to change the zoning controls in the castro street neighborhood commercial district to allow nighttime intertainlment with conditional use authorization on second floor jufirming the Planning Department determination under ceqa and make findings of consistency with the general plan, the 8 priority policies and planning code and section 101. 1 and findings and public necessity convenience and welfare under planning code section 302. We are joined by supervisor mandelman. Thank you, i like to make the meter shorter. We learned last week there was amendment recommended by the Planning Commission that had not been prepared and we just got that amendment we would appreciate two weeks to be continued on this item. Well continue the item till october 16 because next week is Indigenous People day so not meeting. But we still have to take Public Comment because it is agendized. Mr. Clerk, lets go to Public Comment. Thank you. Anyone here in the Board Chamber who has Public Comment on item number 3 . Please come forward to the lectern. It appears we have none, and reaching out now to give a opportunity to our remotely connected callers to indicate they want to speak on the item and i dont see we have speakers. Okay, great. I like to make a motion we continue this item untilclose Public Comment. We continue this item until monday october 16. On the motion to continue to october 16 offered by the chair, vice chair preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. Madam chair, no opposition. Okay. Great. Item 4. One moment. Item 4 is ordinance amending the planning code to encourage Housing Production by exempting under certain conditions specified hoizing project from the notices and review procedures of section 311 and conditional use requirement of section 317 in areas outside of priority equity geographies which identified in the Housing Element as areas or neighborhoodss with high density of vulnerable population ares. Second, remubling the conditional use requirement for several types of housing projecktds including Housing Developments on large lots, projects to build to allowable height limit, projects that build Additional Units in lower density zoning and Senior Housing projects that seek to obtain double density. Third, amending rear yard front setback lot frontage minimum lot size and residential open space requirements and specified district. Allowing additional uses on the ground floor and residential buildsings homeless shelters and Group Housing in residential districts and administrative review of reasonable accommodations. 5, expanding the eligibility for the housing opportunities mean equitySan Francisco home sf program and density exemptions in residential districts. 6, exempting certain Affordable Housing projeths from certain development fees. 7, authderize the planning director to approve state density bonus project subject to delegation from the Planning Commission. 8, making conforming amendments to other sections of the planning code amending the zoning map to create the priority equity geography special use district, affirming the Planning Department ceqa determination and make findings of public convenience and necessity and well far under section 302 and consistent with the general plan. Thank you so much mr. Clerk. We have been joined by supervisor matt dorsey from district 6 and before we start i wanted to make a few announcements and couple comments. So, for starters, at the last meeting i failed to introduce amendments because i was really really sick and it was a long meeting, and i want to apologize to mr. Star, because we told him he wouldnt have to be here today to read the amendments into the record again, but i asked him to do it again despite earlier assurances because nothingbecause i failed to move them, nothing got into the record. There was no place for the public could get on the database and look at all the amendments and so, im afraid that i must ask you to read them again just so that folks who may have tuned into this item for the first time can hear what we are talking about, so i apologize and i am human too and was really sick and just tired. I wanted to say that. The second thing i wanted to say is there was a lot of chatter and oped and press around the continuance of this item to today. What i wanted to say about that is that we are a very old city. Old built environment. Our buildings have been around for more then hundreds of years in some cases. We are also very diverse city with lots of neighborhoods with very different needs, different constituency and history and different cultural expectations, and i think that something as groundbreaking as this will take some time. Our continuing of this very large and complicated piece of legislation should be viewed as our attempt to meet the needs of our constituents in the very different diverse agendas there are in our city in a attempt to make sure that it passes and so, i just wanted to put that out there before folks start thinking that we are doing something nefarious. I think we doing our job ares. This is what we have been elected to do and it legislate and come up with things that make sense for our city and negotiate with another, because our district all are very different. So, in the third thing that i would like to say about all this is i will limit Public Comment to 1 minute so if you have prepared comments, please adjust them. We had robust Public Comment at last time. I believe that we will have robust Public Comment again after this week, so this is not your last opportunity. And last but not least, i want to give a profound thank you to our City Attorney office. I think we have the best Land Use Team deputy City Attorney in the nation and particularly want to thank Barbara Nelson for being the rockstar she is and supporting my office with all the amendments, but in general, everything land use related. With that, i will turn it overyou want to say a few words before the presentation supervisor mandelman . Okay. Lets have mr. Star come up and read it again. Thank you. Sure. So, the amendments are to bring the Planning Commission recommended modifications to remove theput back the cu for Large Lot Developments and expand the priority equity geography to sud to include the cultural district. Those are the main points of it. Ill go over it. On page 1, lines 910 we are adding language in areas outside the priority equity geography sud. Then on page 4, we are adding language that acknowledges the 46. 598 affordable units are extremely low, very low and low moderate income house units that need to be added per or rhna goals. Page 5, just some clerical stuff. Line 15 adding new sections, 121. 1 and 121. 3. Then on page 10, starting on line 22, we are putting in section 121. 1 again. That is development of large lots and neighborhood commercial dist rths located within the special use district and following is a chart that basically mimics the old chart, but neighborhood commercial districts where the Large Lot Development controls no longer apply are not in that chart. That continues on all the way to line 20 page 12. Then again on page 13, line 16 putting back in the development of large lots in the chinatown mixed use district since it basically just reintroducing it without any changes. And that continues to page 14, line 10. Starting again on page 14, line 19, we are puttingback in rto controls or controls for the rto district where it restricts lot mergers of 5,000 square feet or more, but only within the priority equity geography sud. And then again on page 14, line 23, just renumbering there. The renumbering continues all the way on page 15 to line 12. Next amendment on page 17, line 9. This language adds the Planning Commission recommended modifications to preserve the 15 foot setback where there is predominant pattern so language on line 9 reads accept in cases where more then 75 percent of the properties have a setback of [indiscernible] both adjacent to the parcel property have a front setback of 15 feet or greater in which case the maximum shall be 15 feet. Then i believe we skip ahead a few pages. To page 30. Lines 15 and lines 23. Just clerical adding to 2 back into the sentence. Inadvertently dropped out. And skipping ahead to page 50 line 2, another 2 dropped out, putting to expedite the processing. Then on page 51, line 1213, striking out a reference to section being deleted. Line 15 just ordering or putting e instead of f since the numbering changed. Then page 53, line 1 regarding fees just saying we may charge time and material fees or cost incurred to recover our costs and that is for the reasonable accommodation changes to the code, and then on page 53 line 5, changing section 352e to section 350j. And on page 57, this language page 57 lines 2425 adding in bio language to the criteria to be exempt from section 317. That continues to page 58. And then on page 58, line 4, spelling out more what it means to be a rent controlled building so that it is exempt from 317 you cant remove more then two units that is subject to rent control and gets more specific on the code sections it refers to. And then page 58 line 22, certificate the project sponsor has to sign under penalty of perjury that the tenants to be demolished are not occupied and dont have history of nofault evictions or bye outs and that language continues on to page 59, all the way to line 13. On page 59 line 4, it just talks about the preapplication meeting we are adding into it to be exempt from section 317, which is i believe identical to the language supervisor melgar added into her ordinance and then also on line 11, it refers to the 3 units in front and one unit in back under supervisor melgars ordinance. Then on page 62, line 2124, we are just putting back in the Large Lot Development requirements, but only if you are within the priority equity geography sud, so there [indiscernible] refers to that provision. Same type of amendment, page 63, lines 1519, that is our nc2 zoning so Large Lot Development only applies within the priority equity geography sud and lines 2223, the footnote is added similar to nc1. Then on page 66, lines 56, similar amendment to the previous ones. This one is for north beach, which is inside and outside the priority geography sud so adding a footnote saying it only applies if in the sud. Similar change to the polk street neighborhood commercial district, 66, lines 2122, again crossing out the language there and adding a footnote similar to the other ones,b which is on page 67 lines 1 and 2. Then on lines 1415 on page 52, a similar amendment saying that Large Lot Developments are permitted but with footnote saying you need a conditional use if you are within the priority equity geography sud and that footnote starts on line 18 through about 19. On page 69, lines 23, they are adding back the requirement in chinatown sud for lots over 5,000 square feet and conditional use authorization. Same for the chinatown visitor retail district, page 69, lines 1617. And then page 70, lines 1011 for the chinatown district. On page 71, lines 69 about, it is just correcting the Zoning Districts that this amendment applies to so we are removing sections 712, 720, 741, 744, 751, 752 through 757, adding an and crossing out 759, 760, 761, 762 and 764. Page 71, line 24 and 25, adding more language. This all refers to the Large Lot Development controls, so just correcting those and adding the zoning sections to that. That correction continues on until line 5 on page 72, and then on page 72, lines 12 and 13 is an example of the change that would be made and those Zoning Districts so a template for all the Zoning Districts listed and sample footnote page 1516. Then, same page line 1925 are all the Zoning Districts where this change would happen and are then just calling out the footnote number that those tables would have. Then on page 73 line 2 changing section number from 6 to 7. On page 73, line 14, changing road to drive. Page 75 line 1720 is striking out harrison street to 23, 23 to highway 1 following 101 to cesar chavez street. Then page 76, line 9 just correction of drum street adding extra m. Same on line 10. Line 12 changing pacific street to pacific avenue twice. And then on page 77 line 13 adding avenue after columbus. Line 18 changing street to avenue for columbus and again line 19 changing avenue. Line 24 changing section number from 8 to 9. Finally just clerical language that usually goes in most ordinances on page 78 line 58 adding a section 10 clarifications about existing law. I believe those are all the amendments. Thank you very much mr. Star for doing that for us again. So, i just have a few comments and then turn it over to my colleague, supervisor mandelman who i know has [indiscernible] we went to Great Lengths to pass the Family Housing opportunity special use district last month in a thoughtful manner that balance the needs for tenant protections while removing barriers folks have adding up to 4 units on lots. The legislation before us today if passed the way it is would override many of the provisions and the incentives that are within that sud. As such, im proposing amendments today that would restore the following existing planning codes standards and rh districts within the sud. The Family Housing opportunity sud. The first to add back subdivisions and lot splits in section 121b minimum lot width in section 121d, minimum lot area, section 121e, conditional use process to create smaller lots in non rh1d district in section 121f. Front setback averages in section 132a. Alternative method of front setback averaging in section 132b. Maximum front setback requirements in section 132e. Basic rear yard requirements in section 134c accept as provided in incentives. Reduction of basic rear yard requirements in section 134e. Private open minimum space dimensions in section 131f. Dwelling unit exposure for open areas or innercourts in section 140a2, accept as provided by Development Incentives in the Family Housing sud. Large project review for projects exceeding 40 feet in section 153. And residential Group Housing density limits in section 209. 1 accept as other would provided by Development Incentive in the Family Housing opportunity sud. I circulated all these amendments. I have also proposing amendments that restore the requirement of section 311 notice for projects districts in the Family Housing sud unless otherwise provided in other terms within the sud. In restore thg requirements of section 317, conditional use authorization for projects in rh districts unless other provided by the terms of that sud. I also propose conforming the condominium conversion process for city wide 4 plex programs so the conversion within the process of the Family Housing opportunity sud. And conforming the definition of historic buildsings for section 317 streamlining eligibility to the definition of Family Housing opportunity sud. So, i think that we are capable of meeting the mandates to constraints to housing while also preserving the limited rent control Housing Stock we have and that is consistent with our Housing Element. Protecting tenants is the first objective of the Housing Element. The main issue with my sud and with this legislation with tenant groups was removal of the cu and discretionary review with demolishing rent controlled units because now it is the only thing we have and when i was on the Planning Commission we constantly had this issue. If we had a better system for catching these, if we had a database or department that was in charge of it, things might be more palatable to folks but the system now doesnt catch these. I would like to point out the language of the Housing Element being used. The Housing Element which we all voted for unanimously makes suggestions about streamlining in the planning process to make things go faster. For example, establishing non discretionary ministerial approval of housing applications that net 2 or more Housing Units within well resourced neighborhoods and that is what we did. The neighborhoods my Family Housing opportunity covered,b the Housing Element section 8. 4. 2 specifically states, it could be ministerial for two or more units if does not demolish existing rent controlled units. If we could catch which units are rent controlled from the getgo, without having to go through a big process, then that would be palatable. Now we dont have that. So, perhaps we could look into all of these. I also want to note that my office spent a lot of time and effort and negotiating with people talking to people listening to their concerns and i do think that it is possible to streamline and remove challenges while also protecting tenants in rent controlled unit which we are losing. We can also add units to our Housing Stock with this effort. We face similar challenges when we were negotiating the sud and i do believe we can come up with stronger tenant protections. So, thank you colleagues for listening and i will turn it over now to my colleague from district 8. Thank you chair melgar and thank you for the work you and your staff have done both on your sud and now on this legislation and i think you are make tg a better piece of legislation. I want to be clear, i want to support this legislation. I believe that we committed to trying to clean up our approval processes and that for those projects where we are saying, yes this is the development we want to have processes that actually allow those kinds of project to move forered with in a more expedited way. But i also want to note as you noted this is a huge piece of legislation that is doing a trillion Different Things and trillion different places and in many ways unraveling decades of work various boards of supervisors and Planning Commissions are done and too sure muchsure lots of that work is due for a refresh or removal or Spring Cleaning or whatever you want to call it, but i want to make sure that we are saving as many babies in the bath water as we can. I mentioned the last time i was here i would be looking at a few of those items in particular and we have been going back and forth with Planning Department and City Attorneys office on some amendments. We still need to do more work on those. Ill tell where i am on the central neighborhood sud,ic which is my for anyone who care s a very district 8 kind of concern. Supervisor wiener before me had created a one sud in my district for relatively small portion of it. I created another sud and it was addressing a longterm problem many district 8 supervisors have worked on and we had come up with what i thought was a pretty good solution, which was to require or put a cap on the size of any particular unit, but relatively high cap, 4,000 square feet per unit, not a cap on the size of buildings. If you want to build a number of 4,000 square foot homes you might be able to do that, but require a conditional use above 3,000 square feet. I wanted to try to preserve that in the legislation. We got the amendment to do that but as we were doing it i realized that sb423 will probably make that cu go away the end of next year anyway. So, i do think that in salvaging some monster home controls for district 8 we need to do some additional work in this legislation. The trouble is, im told doing that will require this legislation to be referred back to Planning Commission. I am also told that referral can all go pretty quickly, but just to let the folks at home who may be watching know, there may be changes that get proposed here at the board of supervisors in considering this legislation that have to require a trip back to the Planning Commission that can be done in less then a month, but this is i think important, worth taking the time to get it right. We will have that amendment next time this comes up which think will be in two weeks. Secondly, i know chair melgar you have built in moved some of the protections for Historic Buildings from your sud into the mayor legislation. Grateful for those. We are looking at those and may want to do more in that regard and i mentioned last time that i feel that we should bethere are places in San Francisco where the state density bonus may be useful getting significantly more units. Not sure that is all of San Francisco and so we have had conversations with Planning Department and City Attorney office about possibly focusing those statedoing whatever we can to focus those state density bonus projects in particular areas and that legislation isnt quite ready but hoping it will beor amendment isnt quite ready and hope it will be in two weeks. Additional things that have been brought to my attention over the last few weeks as i heard from folks about this and some is issues supervisor melgar you addressed in your sud, but the concern about notification and about the demolition of rent controlled housing and i know you have made some amendments to try to address those in rh districts but i think we may want to make sureim not interested requiring full 311 notification for everything, but i do think that there may be some notification that would not be so burdensome it gives folks interested an email or some other way of knowing there is project in your neighborhood and whey want to know about it and can let Planning Department staff know if you think they are missing something and you think it is rent controlled housing or something else. And then i know i heard a great deal of concern from tenant groups about the concern about the demolition of rent controlled units. You addressed that in your sud, but we are looking if we can create some additional protections for those rent controlled units in this legislation and the last cu that i am concerned about and maybe the solution isnt another cu but think we need to address it, this board has done work to discourage the loss, the hemorrhaging of a board and care buildings. We have lost hundreds and hundreds. It is exacerbating the crisis on the streets and i think that this legislation may get rid of the cu fori just want to make sure that we arei dont see why that cu would survive but you will explain to me why it would. I want to make sure we are not expediting the loss of board and care. I dont promise i will not find other stuff in here im concerned about. Again, i think i can get there, i think this will be a piece of legislation when we made these changes address the issues that come up. I will be supportive of in general supportive of the concept but think there is a lot of details to work out. Thank you very much supervisor mandelman. Supervisor dorsey. Thank you chair melgar and thank you colleagues for your work on this. I know i expressed before my view that we are in a new and many ways unique time in housing policy in San Francisco in which we need to focus more on complying with state law and making good on commitments we unanimously adopted into our Housing Element earlier this year. The legislation proposed endeavors to dot thain my view. I worry a lot about amendments that needlessly water down or backtrackhow is that . The legislation proposed endeavors to do that in my view and i say i worry about amendments that needlessly water down or backtrack from the housing commitments. Not saying the amendments today do that but mostly wanted to just express my concerns generally. I think city hall no longer has the luxury of debating competing wishlists on housing projects as it has in years past. Those days are over, state laws changed. The state legislature and governor made abendantly clear california is solving its Affordable Housing crisis with or without local governments. We have hcd that could scarcely be more clear how closely it is watching San Francisco. A state attorney general fully commitmented being a tough top cop on housing. What we dont have is a reason to believe we can backtrack from promises and get away with it. I represent a district hurt the most if we lose state funding and lose local control all together everyone will be hurt. These are the stakes we face today on housing. They are different, they are more serious, they are more consequential then years past in my view. Hoping we can pass legislation in a way, i understand it likely has amendments, but in a way that does not substantially backtrack from the Housing Element promises mpt i do have a few questions i like to ask planning if i might. We heard a lot of Community Members and organizations who have concerns about rent control which i strongly support and like to see expanded. Im a renter myself. I wanted to ask, can you explain how the legislation effects rent control or rent stabilization in San Francisco as written and amended . It doesnt impact rent control in San Francisco. It does allow for the demolition of two rent controlled units as long as not occupied within the last 5 years, and thats the only provision that allows for loss of rent controlled unit. Those two rent controlled units have to be built back and put under rent control again. We dont have to worry about tenant displacement because no tenant could be in that unit for the last 5 years. Will the legislation in your view impact the rent controlled or rent stabilized Housing Stock . No, not in my opinion i dont think it will because any rent controlled unit lost through demolition has to be put back. Okay. I think that is good. I appreciate the response and i also appreciate the feedback we have gotten from organizations and renters and others who voice concerns about demolition and rent control and tenant protections. Again, as a tenant myself, i strongly support rent control. I worked with president peskin on expanding rent control as a affordsability option in the home sf program and hope we can find other ways to do that under the constraints of hawken because i think rent stabilization leads to stable communities. With that, i appreciate the opportunity to weigh in and thanks again for allowing me to take part. Thank you. President peskin. Thank you chair melgar and thank you to supervisor mandelman for his comments. Particularly as it relates to some of the unintended and i can think of other conditional uses the board adopted over time that as matters of Public Policy are important and i think need to figure out how to maintain. For instance, as we found out from the Public Utility Commission laund lands romats many are treated a about a third primarily on the east side of the city, primarily in dense neighborhoods, many lower income ranging from the tenderloin to chinatown and mission so we created a temporary measure where you need a conditional use to go outthere is number of things and think supervisor mandelman put his finger on that and think we have to be very intentional not throughing the baby out with the bath water. I like supervisor mandelman Spring Cleaning analogy, which is the planning code is decades of layered on initiatives, some of them initiated by the Planning Department through planning processes. I was around for the eastern neighborhood rezoning that was primarily a Planning Department initiated rezoning, but many of them initiated by decades of supervisors and think it makes sense to go through and figure whether or not that can of peas is outdated, needs to be throun out but you have to look at each and every can and determine if it has a shelf life and edible and still has utility. I think thats a high level admonition when you come along with whole section of code that you got to think about those things. The other thing i say is, as i was reviewing this over the weekday and this is just by way of being candid, i think if anybody elsewe are all in receipt of many letters from the rep and from the antidisplacement coalition and a host of organizations that are held in high esteem, chinatown Community Development center and others and i can say this after 20 years, if any of my colleagues brought a piece of legislation that had that kind of opposition i think the committee would say to them, you got work to do with the community, we are not sitting here doing your work, go out and figure those things out with the community and get it into a place and amend it to where we can have a confined reasonable discussion, but with all due respect to the mayor it is like, you are making this committee do the work you havent done with the community and i would respectfully strongly suggest and i appreciate the fact this meeting as compared to the last meeting there is a representative of the Mayors Office here. You directly engage those organizations and interests around the issues that they are raising. I had ai dont know if director hillis enjoyed it, i enjoyed it, we had a nice meeting last friday and one thing i found myself saying in a high Level Analysis of the legislation is that this does not have sticks or carrots to produce the kind of housing that we want to produce and that we are obligated to produce. There arei think i called it small ball in our meeting the other day, which is we are not saying hey, if you want to demolish things and you want to get rid of constraints around demolition, this is the kind of density that we want. I said for 23 years since first elected and come from the densest district, i have never been scared of density. I had issues around height and urban form and what have you, but never been scared of density, and so there is nothingthis goes back to supervisor mandelmans comments which is, there is nothing that prevents monster homes. You can demolish one rent controlled unit and build a monster home and add a unit. That is small ball. Will that get 82,000 new units and 46,000 affordable units . I dont think so. I think this thing can be structured in a way that reduces constraints if it produces what we are trying to produce and im not interested in having the kind of row we had w wh i got here 23 years ago when the boogie man was live work housing which was not dense, not affordable and it was driving neighborhoods crazy for all the right reasons and by the way, that was a law passed with all best intentions and it was exploited in a way actually not good for Housing Production in San Francisco and was not efficient. It was lucrative for some developers, but it did not produce the kind of houses that we needed or seeking. I think it is through that lens that i would like to continue to have this conversation, which i as evidenced in the meetings with mr. Hillis and others and more then happy to continue to have. Thank you chair melgar and just i had a couple questions. I want to talk about the demolition issue and letter received from the antidisplacement coalition and my read of this. Particularly with the concern around use of the [indiscernible] potentially. And i just wanted to start and make sure we are all on the same page that the scenario described is a scenario that we as a policy dont want to allow. Before we get into wlaut what the law actually does, but hope we are on the same page and the scenario described in the first part of the adc letter i think on point and say this as someone who battled ellis act evictions a long time before becoming supervisor. The scenario is where a purchase the property, say a 2 unit rent controlled building, invokes the ellis act to evict everyone from that property, or threatens the ellis act and secures informal and in many cases unrecorded bye out agreements upon threat of the ellis act. Empties the building out and then seeks to use this law to demolish and rebuild without any neighborhood notification or conditional use that would ordinarily be required and as chair melgar pointed out, would ordinarily come out in thethrough that notification would come out at a Planning Commission hearing. Without for a minute without focusing on potential preempson issues and the rangeare we all in agreement to the greatest extent possible we do notwe want as a matter of policy to not allow that scenario to occur . Curious to hear from both from the Mayors Office and from planning just make sure we are on the same page on the goal here. On that issue. Mayor liaison to the board. With respect supervisor, im not the most wellversed. More then happy to take your question back to staff to get a definitive answer. I think mr. Hillis can answer this question. Yes, you are correct. We would like to avoid that. It is a policy in the Housing Element, so i think, yes. So, then we get to the question of, does the ordinance as currently written allow the scenario that i just described . Right. I think it does, but i want i thinki think there is one change you could make so it doesnt do that, which is what chair melgar said, aligned with her sud. It doesnt allow for demolition of two units. Limit to one unit. You get out of that scenarioi would caution your scenario, cant dem o Historic Building, it is threat of ellis and buy out and 5 years since the buy out to convert it. You have to replace those units at rent control or lower income tenants. Deed restricted affordable, so there a lot more into it. I think what we were trying to get at in this was the two units Single Family with unlawful dwelling. I think we are amenable to the change if you want to align this with chair melgars sud, which basically says, it isnt two units, lower that to one. Thank you. I think that might make sense here, because i do think it isi appreciate your pointing out the buy out restriction that is in there, but i think also we all know for the buy outs that get recorded there are plenty that dont and that is very hard to enforce those restrictions. Thank you. Onand i would through the chair, i think it would be great to if just to make sure after you had a chance to review it the mayor office concurs with that goal ofi guess the question would bei dont know whether the mayor office is supportive of lowering the threshold to one unit or not. Which would make my question mute on the two units rent controlled demolition. Just to be clear, we are talking whether you need a cu. You can still demo two unit building. You need a cu under 317, which i can happily report we dont see many from my 8 years on the Planning Commission to 3 years as director, we dont see a lot of those, because there is this process. Right. I think we concur with that. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, we dont see a lot of those i submit in part because it has been the policy of mayor and the board of supervisor and Planning Commission regardless who appoints them and so forth, we have a very strict policy against demolishing rent controlled units. I think the concern from the antidisplacement coalition which i share is whether we are changing that and incent vising what has historically not been a huge issue and dont want it to become one. The other question i had and this is absolutely fine if there isnt a answer today. As i was reviewing chair melgar your amendments,b i am trying to figure out in my district where that leaves us because wemy district includes big part of it, probably a third of it that is within the Family Housing opportunity special use district and then 2 3 and that is rough, but it is not and so what i would hope and sounds like this isnt the last time we are talking about this, so maybe between now and the next hearing would love to get more clarity from planning around what that means in terms of particularly the different of rights of neighbors around demolitions and receiving 311 notices and so forth. Somethingmy First Impression and dont know if it is the right read. It doesnt seem right if resident of the fillmore do not have the right to weigh in on certain ways, where residents of the richmond to sunset and haight and others within the Family Housing opportunity sud may. Just playing out what the difference would be were these amendments to be adopted in terms of what could be developed and what neighborhood notification and cu would be required. I dponet know foyou can address that on the fly. We did put a map together showing supervisor melgars and priority equity geography sud. I dont have it, but will snd to your office. If it is within the sud, then the cu is maintained for demolition, 311 is maintained. All the same controls maintained, including the Large Lot Development and i believe that supervisor melgar sud there isnt overlap, but im like 99. 9 percent sure. Well send you the map and can follow up with you. Great. Yes, that would be helpful because it is two different maps and then they have a overlap and i want to make surewe have the line between those in my district. They are pretty close, but ill send that. Okay. Great. And last point i just want to make, we received the letter from hcd. I am concerned with our state Housing Department pushing for adoption of something that potentially allows for demolition and loss oferant controlled units without controlled. I want to say to the extent hcd is going to weigh in on local legislation primarily geared towards intentvising or streamlining market rate development, i think they have a obligation as part of their and our obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and to comply with the Housing Element to actually be engaging on some of these details, not just leading the streamlining provisions, but looking atshouldnt be the antidisplacement coalition that has to flag for supervisors the danger of real estate speculators using ellis act to demolish rent controlled units and actually undermine the Housing Element goals, so i dont know if hcd will weigh in. Maybe it makes sense for them to directly communicate more comprehensively with us about some of these risks, and as we move forward there are always welcome also to come and be present for some of the discussions. Thank you. Thank you supervisor preston. I will make a couple comments and then we can go to Public Comment. First, just to my colleagues, i think that i have prepared the amendments i prepared and continue to work with groups because i think we can do this better. I was a prooponent of the Housing Element and made sure it got through this committee and through the board with a unanimous vote. None of that is watering down. I think it is the process of negotiating legislation between all of us in the 7 by 7 square miles we all share and think that is a good thing. I will again read from the Housing Element that we passed and was approved by hcd which says in section 8. 4. 2 that process could be ministerial for 2 or more units if does not demolish existing rent controlled units so everything we talked about today is consistent with the Housing Element which we passed and also got approved by hcd. I know there are folks who want to move it further, want to move us further, and god bless them. Advocates will do what advocates do, but dont think it is helpful if there is threatening or dont move fast enough or do our due diligence. I will say to colleagues, im a mom of three and sometimes at home i get resentful because where have to do the dishes and laundry and dont get the thanks, but in this case, i think that i did a lot of the work that is necessary for this ordinance in my sud. We solved for a lot of these problems, we negotiated with the groups and i just did the amendments to protect my sud. You are welcome to take those ideas and that language when you compare your maps with your own districts, but im not doing it for you. With that, supervisor mandelman. Thank you chair melgar. The last little thing that occurs to me to say partly in response to planning staff response to supervisor dorseys question about whether folks with rent control should have concern about this legislation. There is guiding premise in this legislation in a lot of our efforts that we have allowed a level of process to develop over time that is impeding our ability to deliver important Public Policy goals like more housing. I think thats true, but i got to spend a couple years on board of appeals thanks to board president and served tive years on this body and seen work that happens at the Planning Commission and too shurb there are many hearings of various levels of merit in the claims being brought, but those hearings turned up merger that were illegal, turned up unlawful evictions that had not otherwise been caught, turned up the deprivation of services for tenants that were guaranteed to them under law, and the only thing that caught them and potentially created a consequence for the bad actors who were going to do something with the properties after have broken the law in a number of ways was a hearing where parties got to bring these issue s up. So we are getting rid of those hearings. We lost thei mean, Assembly Member haney solved the board of appeals problem for us and hearings on housing are not going to go to board of appeals as far as i understand. That is one hearing down and level of processbad action that might have been caught at board of appeals will not be. There is a savings in terms of process so thats achieving some of our goals and there is a risk and we are getting rid of a bunch of hearings and will get rid of a bunch of hearings through this legislation. The concern how to catch the bad action and how do we make sure there is a consequence and these projects dont go forward and how do we make sure there isnt a tsunami of speculative evictions that have been held in check all these decades by this process, thats the concern the people are raising and it is a valid concern. Squeal. So, i think we can get there, i think we can come up with something that works but think we have to address that concern because even with all that process, we have been bleeding rent controlled units for a long long time and many in my district and i think there is a certainly a fear of losing more, so thats the part of what im hoping we can address as we refine this. President peskin. Thank you. I was going to Say Something not dissimilar what supervisor mandelman said. A lot of this comes from theeralty that sometimes the process is abused. There are people who abuse the courts and there are people who have abused the planning process. No question about it. It is also an avenue to seek redress when the city is making a mistake and we do make mistakes. These things sometimes land in our laps as supervisors and we look at it and say, mr. Zoning administrator or director hillis or head of dbi, it looks like you missed something and made a mistake, and when the process is working well they say thank you supervisor, we did and well fix it. When the process is not working well and somebody isnt listening or somebody is in denial or people are too busy or occasionally unscrupulous or bad actors we have seen that happen in corrupt city employees, guess what then they need a place to bring this to some kind of impartial quasijudicial body,b which is some cases what the Planning Commission serves as and some cases what the board of appeals serves as. In all this, i have to look and say are you the judge, jury and executioner and do it right and you will be overwhelmed. All of these things and by the way, there is also unscupulous developers, hello. I mean, i cant tell you the number ofjust the stuff supervisor mandelman is talking about. Yeah, it happens. There are people who make money by evicting people or i had a case around the corner from my house where a guy brought a project to the Planning Department and the neighborhood pointed out that he said he was doing something to three unit building and it was a 5 unit building. There were two other units in the building. High he knew that and the Planning Department is like couldnt be that way, says on the r3 report and the planner came down and said this guy is basically kicking out two families from a 5 unit building. I cant tell youthere was a case on [indiscernible] my neighborhood the chinatown Community Development center appealed as a dr case where the developer said that there had been no eviction and until the folks showed up with the pictures of the mono lingual cantonese family did the commission believe it, because there wasif we were serious about that and build those protections in at the front end, i dont think you would be seeing any opposition, but we also know there is a history where the city talks out of both sides of its mouth and again go back to what supervisor mandelman said we were screaming at board of supervisor, my then colleague jake [indiscernible] about mergers and we were losing housing and by the way, i think the mayor at that time and think the planning at the time was none too happy when supervisor [indiscernible] and earlier iteration of this board said, you needed a conditional use in order to merge units. Before that it was like the Planning Department had discretion and if you were hooked up and in the whatever and had the right lobbyist and bob mccarthy god rest hill soul called, director ill call him out, green would be like yeah, we can let you merge your units and it was all staff initiated dr at the time and so then we went conditional use. The board of supervisors was actually stopping monster homes recollect preserving the most Affordable Housing there is, which is housing that we have. The nimbys didnt exist at the time and not saying go board of supervisors trying to maintain housing, but that is what we did. I want to make sure we dont wake up and in 5 or 10 years and go wow, we made a bunch of monster homes that sold for 1200 a square foot and we ended up getting rid of best of the best. That i thinkthats what i want to communicate to the mayor office, which is lets havethe rep letter said that, lets have real incentives here for more density at more affordable rates without the loss of the most Affordable Housing we have which is existing rent controlled Housing Stock. Ill say one last thing based on your comments president peskin which is, the other side of that coin is, i wonder these smaller rent controlled units that would be demolished to make way for more density, how much of that is that really . If we protected those units, in the cost benefit analysis, what is the number of those 82 thousand units would be will be in the way of and i think probably not that much. Because most of this is geared towards larger development. Development on the corridors. Development in large lots. Thats where the big money is goor big numbers come from in terms of the overall Housing Element. We are arguing and having big battles over a handful of units we want to preserve. Everybody agrees in our Housing Element as an objective and really small potatoes in terms of the rest what is in the legislation which is big numbers. I just wanted to make that comment. Did you want to Say Something further president peskin . Yeah. I have the same question last friday when i was speaking to director hillis, and that is why i called it small ball. I mean, look, the reason this board of supervisors voted 101 to change the inclusionary rates was because of evidence that we had that this was going to unleash some projects that were like 500 units in size. That is where the action is at. Is thisyou are asking the right question which is, is this going to get us from 79 thousand to 82 thousand . Is that where the action is at and at what price . Okay. So, i think we now go to Public Comment mr. Clerk and any action or motions will come after. Thank you. Very good. Thank you madam chair. Well take Public Comment on item 4. Just to mention again, the chair has indicated we are limiting comment on this to 1 minute per speaker and connected remotely and wish to speak dial star 3 and that adds to the queue to speak. First speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. Eric brooks [indiscernible] San Francisco [indiscernible] so, real quickly, just on one key point, we changed our alert we have been sending out to change some of the numbers, so you will start seeing comments from the public that say instead of 150 thousand to 190 thousand of the Affordable Housing in the legislation is most of that Affordable Housing now we just simplified it because the Family Income did go up to 175 recently, so simplifying to say in the entire legislation, probably between 70 percent and 88 percent of the housing is going to be 230 thousand or more above the marginal income, which means about 88 percent of this housing is going to be stuff we already got 50 percent. 230 thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Sfgovtv i believe the speaker has visual on the projector coming up. Going to start your time. If you want to zoom out, there is zoom on top of the hood at the very top. I think labeled zoom. Ill be there in a moment. Just back that out and move your page up a little bit. There you go. Ill start your time. Please begin. Sorry about that. Good afternoon chair melgar, president peskin and fellow supervisors. San francisco land use coalition. Here today to expose the fallacy of the narrative that Community Engagement and Community Process that is blocking the production of housing. To do that, im actually brought the Planning Department data. As you can see on the overhead, this is what we asked the Planning Department to produce in the past 10 years, all the permits along with cu and dr and low behold as you can see, the cu and dr only make up 15 to 20percent of all permits. Now, this is far different narrative then what we are hearing and in fact in the three year period starting from 2018 to 2020 well over 82 percent of projects move through with no cu or dr and when you exclude those madam chair, if i could just ask because i saw it online but like to see it on the screen, if you can show the remaining slides. We had limited to 1 minute for Public Comment. Perhaps after Public Comment if you want to ask a specific question from an advocate we can do that. Thank you. While we are preparing for the next speaker, ill also mention i have received that set of slides and they are added to the file and available for folks to view online as well. Thank you mr. Clerk. I have a question. This is you have to move to the next speaker. Please knbegin. Good afternoon. [indiscernible] Upper Chinatown Neighborhood Association rchl we ask you reject the proposed ordinance amending the planning code for the following resins. First, as you see from the upper chinatown map, 80 percent of the neighborhood has alley ways that reduce the midblock open space. Second, selfevidence that displacement and expansion is breaking apart the family system. Our family need open space to build harmonious relationships. They need court yard space. Just like the residents of the sro need to [indiscernible] as their court yard. Therefore to strengthen the family system we respectfully ask for a cultural analysis of land use of upper chinatown. Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. Can we have the next speaker, please . As with the previous speaker, we also already have digital copies of the presentation slides in the file. Hi. Gary gregerson a commercial tenant in the mission and member of united save the mission and also a residential tenant district 6 and tenderloin, and im member of local 1021 and come into the meeting and was going to say legislation should be rejected. Hopefully the issues of the demolition and the lack of consequences for bad actors hopefully that will be resolved. Seems there are a lot of moving parts. I would like to see those concerns addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors. Molly goldberg, director of the San Francisco antidisplacement coalition. Thank you for the thorough discussion of the concerns raised in the letter today. I wont take up your time repeating them but i want to add a couple of clarifications. We do respectfully disagree with director hillis, this should not be a concern for rent controlled tenant. We are very concerned about displacement impact of the legislation and the demolishing of two units will disproportionately impact low income and immigrant tenant who make up a lot of the tenant who live in adu impacted by this legislation so concerned about that. I also want to share our analysis is that the reported bipolk polk outs are less then half what we think are the actual buy outs on report so relied on selfreported buy from developers thank you your time concluded. Thank you. Can we hear from the next speaker, please . Good afternoon. My name is don, a resident of the Richmond District and member of Richmond District rising. Rdr is part of the rep coalition and here to raise strong opposition to this legislation. The last 8 years have seen the city fall 8,000 units short of Affordable Housing goals and this will put us on the same trajectory. There is no provision for prioritizing Affordable Housing goals and the only guarantee in this bill is that we see more gentrification and more homelessness. While i appreciate the effort to improve the bill, you cannot make a silk purse out of a [indiscernible] kill this bill and start over with a plan that actually serves needs over developers. For god sake, do not start with a plan that begins at the mayor office. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Regina, a renter and the Housing Element legislation must commit the city to strategies for buying land and existing apartment buildings to provide new Affordable Housing, not one for one demo one rebuild one and stabilize tenants with longterm affordsability rchlt this is supported by the Housing Element action 1. 2. 2, we must put Affordable Housing first. Thank you for sharing comments. Good afternoon. Serena cal hoon, local architect practicing 2 had 22 years. Here for strong support. Common sense change to a permitting process in which it takes 25 years to build code complying housing and editions to Single Family homes. 311 notification delays projects by years. I had so many clients move outlet of the city because they cant do an addition for their family. Also working on three buildsings with 15 Housing Units, 5 are adu, which are shown to be below market rate units in general. This is a opportunity for the city to build those units in much less then 25 years and hope you kill keep the 3 laevl protection and elimination of the requirements in the legislation. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Chinatown Community Development center. We are concerned with this legislation. [indiscernible] impact tenants and existing neighborhood serving businesses and [indiscernible] the only solution this legislation provides is a [indiscernible] to address historic inequities, however does not provide anything to affirmatively fair housing or Racial Justice agenda. In fact takes away the [indiscernible] in many cases to public [indiscernible] we request you work on this the same way chair melgars legislation and do not pass without significantly [indiscernible] thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is kyle dual speak into the microphone so we can hear you, please. Is this better . Much better. I like to say that to supervisor melgars concern that we are trying to build larger organizational units. That is great but the loop holes as supervisor peskin pointed out are other people not doing that will take advantage of the loop holes. That is the way the city is. We come up with ideas and people find ways around them. Above and beyond that, there are lots of units in process. I want to go on record saying cutting the time in half with no advance notice makes us very tough. The vacancy tax that got passed meets units turn over faster and back on the market. There is other legislation pending to turn office space into residential units and what we need here are Affordable Housing where the definition of Affordable Housing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Good afternoon committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is cathy lip scm a member of senior disability action and rep. Rep strongly urges the Land Use Committee to make significant amendments to this streamlining legislation to put Affordable Housing first, protect tenants against displacement and value the voice of historically marginalized communities. If these amendments are not possible, rep request that this Committee Reject this and take up new legislation that meets these objectives. We are mostly concerned that we are not able to reach the goals for low and very low moderate income people. We suggest there be legislation to add a budget supplemental dedicated Revenue Source to commit significant new fund ing for housing. How else will it happen . How long will people have to stray on the streets before this happens . Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is john [indiscernible] you will see a lot of [indiscernible] people Walking Around instead of cars because they are working and not going to be here. They will move to [indiscernible] where they end up. My thing is, provide housing. [indiscernible] over 60 thousand apartments, no reason [indiscernible] thank you. Could we hear from the next speaker, please . Good afternoon. Jake price with the Housing Action coalition. I want to first start by thanking the members of this committee as well as supervisor mandelman and dorsey for a thoughtful conversation that i really appreciated a lot of insights. I want to put this in context with the recent news of sb423. Discretionary review is basically out the window in San Francisco starting next year, so this legislation for at least the next 8 years isnt impacting that. It is impacting Affordable Housing and transit funding. If we fall out of compliance with the Housing Element we lose hundreds of million in state grants for shared priorities. I welcome continued conversation and thoughtful amendments, but just want to put that into context as we acknowledge the realties of our situation. Thank you. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker. Good afternoon. [indiscernible] for those who have been practicing architecture in San Francisco myself over the past 34 years we have seen countless numbers of changes over time that made it so much harder to get a permit to do any type of work in the city and over that same time affordsability plummeted. We cant expect the outcome to be different. I believe that is the definition of crazy. Time is more of the essence then ever before because if we dont act now and knet our house in order the state will penalize by withholding funds for infrastructure and take action to force the changes anyway. We think it is better to get ahead and wait for it to happen. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing comments. Anyone further here in the chamber who has comments on item 4 . Seeing none, we will turn our attention to those who connected to the meeting remotely. I understand there are 29 speakers who wish to address item 4. Can be connected to the first speaker, please. Hi. [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] september 17, the Planning Department was ill prepared to answer questions from the board. Two out of three of the lutc Committee Members did not accept [indiscernible] mayor office. This is San Franciscos most important housing legislation in 8 years. Vote no on this poorly conceived housing ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello members of the Land Use Committee. Christopher roach speak ing on behalf of ai San Francisco Public Policy and advoicacy committee in support thof critical legislation. [indiscernible] i wont repeat the points but wanted to add a few updates and address comments today. Regard to sb423, i agree it may supersede provisions of the legislation and discretionary review, it is important for the city to implement these policies and improve the processes broken for decades to make the process approving [indiscernible] and timely. To meet the obligation under the Housing Element. In regards to the specific comments, high level, we should not use land policy and approval process as a policing function. I think we agree we do not want these bad actors, dont want people turned on the streets thank you for sharing your comments. Sorry to cut you off, we have one minute per speaker. Next speaker. Eileen boken in strong opposition. This is equivalent of urban renewal. It contains wavers of local democracy for Environmental Community and demolition review. Due to changes in the ami levels used to define Affordable Housing it could exacerbate gentrification. This legislation is inconsistent with the revised state department of finance population projections for 20222060. Show decline of 2. 9 percent from 870 thousand in 2020 to 845 thousand inen 2060. The city Controller Office has verified this is consistent with their own projections and rhna cycle 6 and Housing Element have aggressive goals over the next 8 years. Thank you. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Greetings. [indiscernible] San Francisco tenants union. We are member of rep and antidisplacement Coalition Urging you to reject the mayors proposal and take a new legislation that puts Affordable Housing first, protect tenants against displacement and values the voices of historically marginalized communities. The mayor proposes streamline measures for developer to get market rate projects quicker with no guarantee that housing will ever be built. We oppose eliminating notice to tenants or public hearing. Her proposal encourage the destruction of rent control buildings and the permanent displacement of tenants. Where will i go . It contra dicts Housing Element policy which provides any removal of conditional use authorization for Housing Production was not to demolish rent control units. All the amendments we see and future that are not are not a guarantee tenants will not be displaced. Kill the proposal. Everyone is hurt by the housing shortage. I think this legislation will reduce costly process, get us much closer to meeting the rhna goals. Including goals for Affordable Housing production. In conclusion, please let this through, please make this a city to envision a future here. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors peskin and preston. Joseph [indiscernible] west Side Community coalition and race and equity. Rep Coalition Urge the Land Use Committee to reject the legislation and replace with new legislation that puts Affordable Housing first, protect tenant against displacement and value the voice of historically marginalized communities. The legislation is [indiscernible] most significant threat to tenants [indiscernible] should serve as foundation. Appreciate supervisor [indiscernible] improve this legislation. The underlying legislation moves the city in the wrong direction. Look forward working with you on for new legislation on racial and social equity. Hello members of the Land Use Committee. My name is carmen with west side Tenant Association and member of the race equity Planning Commission. We strongly urge the Land Use Committee to make significant amendments to the legislation to put Affordable Housing first, protect tenants against displacement and value marginalized communities. If the amendments are not possible then rep request this Committee Reject intake of the new legislation to make these amendments. We want to specify this legislation describes a peg sud based on outdated 2016 department of Public Health data that was never intended to be used for land use policy or planning and also never coordinated with any organization that work in historically marginalized communities, so we urge you to not use this data to justify the amendments to the legislation. Thank you. Can we have the next speaker, please . Good afternoon supervisors. This is catherine petren speaking on behalf of San Francisco heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. As on september 18, the last time we weighed in on the legislation we wish to go on the record in opposition based on concerns about the impacts on Historic Resources and removal of protections for Properties Listed on the california register for home sf projects. In addition, we align with this Committee Previous comments about the value of public input via dr and cu and we will advocate for citizen participation in the planning process. Thanks again. Thank you. Next speaker, please. [indiscernible] we are getting a lot of wind and background noise. If you can speak into the microphone. I apologize. Sorry. My name is pria with the [indiscernible] Planning Coalition as i said. As written the legislation takes out the opportunity for public input and review when there are ways to shorten the approval process and retain the voices of low income communities of color which include cultural districts. There is no reason to attempt to silence or dissempower communities or undermine democratic processes and supported by the Housing Element action 8. 4. 21. The rep coalition hopes this Committee Reject this legislation and commit to working with marginalized communities to write new legislation to implement the Housing Element in a way that further fair housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. [indiscernible] qul want to say how much i appreciate your discussion today and especially the [indiscernible] and what it has done to our community here in north beach and in many other neighborhoods throughout the city. We need all of the protections in place. We also need to be sure that Senior Housing is not then removing the ability for those seniors to not have access to transit. Unless these changes are made, i cant possibly support this and ask that you kill it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sorry, hello, this is kate bloomburg and live in a rent controlled unit in district 10 and strongly support this legislation. I believe that housing as speculated investment will continue until there is greater supply of housing and we need to remove constraints in order to enable this. Our transit will never be secure until we have more housing and more density. If we try to move our housing costs would be tripled or quadrupled after 22 years in rent control, and thats not attainable situation so lets stop pretending that housing is affordable for anyone in this city aside from a few millionairs and billionairs. San francisco needs more housingism i support this legislation and appreciate chair melgars work to make it work. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for convening and continuing to try and wrestle this unattainable bill that you have in your hands. Couple of simple points, we have about 40 to 75 thousand units that are currently sitting empty in San Francisco. Why not rehab those units and put them back on the market as affordable units or do whatever you want but do something because they are sitting empty. What happened to finding landlords for keeping units empty . And the other thing is, this does fall under urban renewal and potentially redevelopment. All those for gentrification and mass exodus of people of color, minorities and people who make the city the diverse and gorgeous tapestry that it is historically been. Why not table this bill, [indiscernible] remove all the thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon chair melgar, president peskin, supervisor preston [difficulty hearing speaker] sounding like a number of amendments brought forward that will take steps towards the baseline alignment with [indiscernible] want to insure we take further steps including chair melgar housing framework associated tenant protection and retaining the action plan 2020 [indiscernible] two areas required to complete the baseline alignment would be removing state density bonus stream pm line priority equity geographies. Majority of all housing projects built uncommunities of color and are never the understanding this provides some type of blanket override of all [indiscernible] to remove areas vulnerable from displacement from streamlines [indiscernible] thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Scott Brown Mission liberation center. This ordinance must be voted down. [indiscernible] in the high income category, 22 thousand units constructed in the last 7 years, which is over 175 percent of the target in that category. For all other incomes, low, moderate and very low, less then 6 thousand units constructed combined. That is less then 35 percent of the Housing Element target. Chair melgar statement nothing nefarious is going on. The city is sold out to developers. There is 60 thousand unAffordable Housing units vacant in the city now and 15 residents sleeping in the streets or cars because they cant afford market rate housing you interest trying to build more of. The ordinance will exacerbate the housing affordable and amendments cannot fix the disaster. Vote it down. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. [indiscernible] the srf organizing director with Community Action calling in support of the legislation. As emphasize a couple weeks ago, a lot of this is stuff we already agreed to in the Housing Element and i appreciate the work by chair melgar and supervisor mandelman and [indiscernible] introduce amendments,er get it right, we should do that. This is work we said we were going to do. [indiscernible] is something we need to do. You know it is real problem. We know the process takes a long long time. Longer then anywhere in california and thats unacceptable. You can really do better and do more quickly. Please support this today. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. My name is stephanie with [indiscernible] calling in to voice opposition. This is something that will exacerbate the homeless problem in the city and cant understand how people would see the amount of people so unfortunately and rely on Affordable Housing and say we should get rid of it. Thalities we need to think about the people that need housing and you need to refurbish the housing we have. [indiscernible] sitting there and make it so that Affordable Housing so people can live instead of doing what you can to gentrify San Francisco,b which is part of what this is. So, yeah thank you stephanie for sharing your comments with committee. Next speaker, please. This is kim from the San Francisco labor council. This morning my executive board voted against supporting this legislation. We feel this legislation would be devastating to working families in San Francisco and nothing to reassure them of their homes and doesnt do enough for affordability in San Francisco. We urge you to vote this legislation down. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes , renee [indiscernible] and here to say i oppose this and please vote this down. I sent a detailed letter to the committee and board et cetera earlier today regarding this ordinance. I feel everyone keeps talking about affordsability, but this program is not affordable. They need to revamp the program. Also, simple math is, they say we need 82 thousand new units. Half for affordable which isnt affordable but there are 60 thousand vacant units, convert them. There are 142 thousand approximately in the pipeline been built, going to be built. Use that for Affordable Housing. We need housing for all, not just some sum. We need to revamp so it is affordable and works. You cannot fasttrack from the Planning Department and get rid of ceqa. We need to think about that and the thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors peskin and preston. [indiscernible] rep coalition. Rep strongly urge the committee to make significant amendments to focus on equity and if not possible please reject the legislation and work with communities to move forward the implementation actions in the Housing Element approve bide the board earlier this year referenced in the letter rep sent to Committee Last week. Our communities need a affordable and dignified housing. 57 percent of the housing must be affordable to low and moderate income houses. [indiscernible] we cant continue to fall further behind and need commitment to insure we dont. The rep coalition helps the Committee Reject the legislation and commit working with communities on new legislation to influence the Housing Element to further fair housing and center racial and social equity. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello supervisors. [indiscernible] district 9 mission resident calling to reject the very large legislation fraught with loop holes and incentives specifically for Affordable Housing. Been encouraged by the opening of the 100 percent Affordable Development in my neighborhood and know public input and review were key allowing neighbors in the community to advocate and negotiate for them. Please do not streamline process at the expense of most vulnerable residents. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Thank you. My name is skylar here from green action for health and Environmental Justice calling on behalf of myself, our members supporter and constituents across the city. Oppose the Housing Production ordinance as it is attack on the community, environment and Affordable Housing. This ordinance further gentrify San Francisco and push current residents ouf of the city driving middle working and lower middle class san franciscans out of the city or on the streets. San francisco [indiscernible] vast amount of office space that can be converted to thousands apartments. We do not need more housing construction, we need to make the housing affordable. [indiscernible] establish redevelopment zones that allow corporate real estate to build unhealthy housing on toxic and radio active sites. Government agencies claimed are cleaned up. [indiscernible] after the Housing Development [indiscernible] the site was not clean or remediated. Please vote down thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is magic altman from potrero hill. I want to say when we press 3 it says you raised your hand to ask a question which does not respect we are calling into comment. I asked this to be changed over and over again. Also,b the way our structure is, the mayor doesnt have to talk or listen to us at all. We need to change that. Also we give a land use acknowledgment every day. I suggest the first step making that haveactually have oholone representation at the Land Use Committee because they say, not listening to the people. Every comment has shown you the people who live work and care about each other and community and homeless is being disregarded in this ordinance and just for the money over and over again. Reject this. Get advice from people that are in the community and care about each other. Thats what you are hearing over and over again. You know this is wrong. Do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. [indiscernible] senior disability action. Speaking in opposition to the Housing Production plan because it will impact senior disabled people displacement and no affordable right of return. The gentrification by the ordinance push city rents higher driving many senior disabled san franciscans with limit means out of the city or on the streets. This promote building high priced housing that is not affordable. Calls housing mostly for families making over 230 thousand per year affordable. We have 50 percent [indiscernible] for those income levels. This plan build housing for the wealthy, displacing people with disabilities and give away to corporate real estate. Please oppose this corporate attack on San Francisco seniors and disability community. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon Committee Members. [indiscernible] please reject this legislation. This legislation [indiscernible] [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is christine hanson. Thank you supervisors for your efforts to curb unexpected consequences in advance of the passage of this ordinance. Supervisor mandelmans comments about potential danger to board and care home is a great example for the need to protect important elements unique to our city and our neighborhoods. The community is your best partner in this. We are your eyes on the ground. But this ordinance will pull the rug out from under Community Efforts to do just that by closing the community out of the process. The need to keep our voice present in the process is crucial and we are your best ally towards building truly Affordable Housing. Please remember that. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please; hello. Howard wong, San Francisco tomorrow opposing the legislation. I think we need amendments to guide our city towards Affordable Housing, and better design and planning of affordable and low Income Housing and homeless housing. As a member of port advisory bodies i worked on pier 70, mission rock, which had 30 and 40 percent Affordable Housing. I ink the we also have to look at architectural invasion around the world like the work of [indiscernible] of france. [indiscernible] of japan. We have to look at concepts of house. What is housing . Social housing, [indiscernible] micro housing. I think the professional Architectural Community and Planning Community should be able to weigh in to provide those guidelines and how we can be better use existing space. Existing thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. Calling on behalf of cap street. Neighbors in the Mission District and are particular speaking on behalf of dozen of Senior Citizens many with hearing and mobility and do not have a luxury of affordable or accessible internet or calls so speaking on their behalf. I like for the legislation to be rejected. I do not know if it can be amended. It does not have rightsgets rid of Affordable Housing rights. Does not protect tenants and most importantly silences the voices of our most in need in our community. I have been to dozens of Planning Commission and the [indiscernible] well healed developers with the most financial Legal Resources who usually try to get around special rules and usually fall back on playing dumb or better [indiscernible] then ask for permission. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Rudey gonzalez, San Francisco building trades. Stands in opposition along the San Francisco labor council. Associate with mr. Peskins comments. This feels like small ball. If it was a legitimate aproseal the mayor office would have approached this with care. [indiscernible] inclusion era zoning based on evidence and supply conversation. [indiscernible] thats the big win is go for Major Projects with important density connected to transit squu fordability. This is a attempt to fight with the board and pit you all [indiscernible] scrap it, start over and do something real. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is lori leaderman, district 7. Urge you to oppose this legislation. It is invitation to demolish homes and businesses while providing [indiscernible] eliminate appealing project where evictions are manipulated. [indiscernible] fails to protect small neighborhood serving business vulnerable to demolition. Recipe for displacement. While providing much needed exemption for so called priority equity geography fails to recognize vulnerability that prolifiate in well resource neighborhoods. If this was a rational plan it would recognize San Francisco lost population, 10s of thousands approved Housing Units yet to be built due to not so called constraints but to high interest rates. Please oppose or dramatically amend the legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. [indiscernible] Affordable Housing alliance and also work with San Francisco antidisplacement coalition and rep coalition and want to associate with a statement that you received from them. If there isnt any notice or fact finding hearing, we need to find another way to protect rent control housing otherwise we just rely on the say so of developers who all too often like asking the fox, were there any hens in the hen house. That is just an adequate way to protect rent controlled housing. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. [indiscernible] calling on behalf of support of the legislation. Think it is important to [indiscernible] housing in San Francisco. Couple comments made about the number of vacancy. I think that is a inaccurate. Vast majority are things between rental so like, if i rent my unit and somebody rents out a unit, they move out and there is a week between but the next person comes, if they check at that moment it counts as vacant unit. The idea there are 60 thousand units for the plucking is a lie and excuse not to build new housing. The vacancy [indiscernible] 4 thousand units which is great. Lets get those online, but we have to build more housing. The second thing is sb330 protections are key as [indiscernible] said. If you remove rent control housing it is [indiscernible] doesnt allow people thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors preston and president peskin. This is [indiscernible] calling on behalf oub [indiscernible] who is a member of the race equity all Planning Coalition. We strongly urge you to reject this legislation. The more i hear the commenting, the woman who spoke about incomes that is very real and the base we work with and we feel there isnt enough Affordable Housing. We need to prioritize Affordable Housing. [indiscernible] all new housing to be [indiscernible] low and moderate income. We need to do work there before we can give any developers any kind of leeway or give away for them to build more market rate housing that sits empty. I want to thank president peskin for reading our letter from the rep coalition. I really appreciate that and actually looking forward to time concluded. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Can you hear me . We can bearically barely hear you. Mostly background noise. [indiscernible] my name is [indiscernible] i support this bill because we need to build more housing and [indiscernible] [difficulty hearing speaker] thank you for share comments. Reminder for those waiting for a opportunity to address the Land Use Committee for item 4, if you please make sure you are in a quite place, turn down the volume on the television or streaming device and that prevents wind or echo. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is robert [indiscernible] a volunteer with San Francisco [indiscernible] i want to remind you that program 8. 4. 5 of the Housing Element says the city will eliminate Commission Hearings on any code compliant project in well resourced neighborhood subject to housing accountability act january 1, 2024. Four months aaway from the deadline yet we are considering the attention of Commission Hearing for housing projects that adhere to the codes. These moments [indiscernible] this board unanimously agreed upon. I dont understand all have good intentions. [indiscernible] for compliance with state law. The clock is ticking and february is fast approaching. If you choose to proceed [indiscernible] thank you for sharing your comments with committee. Please hear from the next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is steve [indiscernible] sunset residents member of [indiscernible] member of the rep coalition. Public investment is badly needed to build Affordable Housing and sf needs to commit funding through legislation for that housing. This is supported by the Housing Element action 1. 1. 2. We cant risk it all on a bond that might or might not pass and 300 million is a drop in the bucket. This legislation needs major changes. If there isnt significant public [indiscernible] our city will keep repeating the same old mistakes and promote the fallacy the market will solve our problems by building more housing which history tells us is unaffordable and what we [indiscernible] we must do the right thing and commit to equity and fairness by significant funding for Affordable Housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Supervisors, lorraine [indiscernible] Affordable Housing advocate for seniors. Analyzing circulated and uncirculated amendments i must still urge you to reject constraints reduction ordinance and replace it with an ordinance focused on streamlining only. Affordable housing protection and production and antidisplacement. Such a bill compliant with the Housing Element and build the housing that we need. The constraints reduction [indiscernible] all needed high profit condo building removing existing Affordable Housing, removing the public from Decision Making and remove the regulation that protect the public from unscupulous developers amending would be like slapping a thousand band aids on a terminally ill patient and announcing them cured. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Georgia shootish. I really cannot get rid of neighborhood notification to groups or nearby Property Owners. I have a question. Why is this legislation needed at all . We have all the other things that the city put forward, the state put forward. We have chair melgars legislation, her sud that seems that should be efficient to get us going between now and next 10 years under the current rhna goals which are questionable. Thank you, take care, good bye. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Can you hear me . Yes, please begin. Hi, my name is Nancy Hernandez the manager of excelsior resource hub calling to voice support for staffing this entire streamlining process and prioritizing putting effort into making the Housing Element realty. To me this reads by a manifesto from the board in star trek. Outside of our door we have empty condos, vacant commercial units and families sleeping in cars. If this legislation would have been in place 10 years ago, we would have not had any of the recent wins in Affordable Housing we celebrated. Because it was a Public Comment process that transformed the monster in the mishz from 25 percent [indiscernible] to hundred percent offered in the future. It was a Public Comment process that transformed the balboa upper yard to what is now [indiscernible] Public Comment process that transformed 3840 mission from funeral home to what is all most ready to be home for our neighbors. It was the Public Comment process transformed the parking on [indiscernible] it was the people who transformed thank you. Next speaker. Can we please be connected . Stanley, counselor with San Francisco tenants union. Removing transparency in Governmental Affairs is never a good idea. Tenants should have the right to Public Comment where the true history of the building is revealed. We cannot rely on the information submitted to and coming from the Planning Department. This legislation offers a strong incentive for landlords to displace tenants by intimitation which generates no records, to reward landlords who do not file at the rent board, encourage misrepresentation of permit application. After all, there will be no public hearing, no one contesting and no penalty for lying on the declaration. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. This is sue hester. Imal district 9 resident. I have been dealing with this issue in the Planning Commission for a long time. Decades. There is recent people i want to commend mandelman, melgar, peskin and preston for raising thoughtful questions to try to get the core issues about how we serve the people of the city. Everyone of the supervisors that has really conscious of who they represent and a lot of people they represent are low income people. Should be commended. The trickle down of housing has been bought into by a bunch of people that have no experience, real experience in building housing. The people that really build Affordable Housing i heard here across the board are having questions about thank you. We have to move to the next speaker. Next speaker, please. Hi. This is adam from d6 and i just wanted to reiterate, we desperately need more homes in San Francisco. There is not enough to meet the demand. We heard a lot about developer, but what we are not talking about all the Property Owner who made millions over the years. In the 70s before downzoning gentrification, the haight was 40 percent black. [indiscernible] pushed forth downzoning across the city. May thaid aload of money for Property Owners in the haight and throughout the city over the years by blocking new housing. We had projects like Trinity Plaza which eliminated some but replaced with more rent controlled housing then there before. If we do nothing the builder remedy is coming. I support the legislation and say, if you want to vote no and let the builder remedy come. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Gilbert Williams with the rep coalition. I just want to remind the board that in the last 8 years we saw 8 thousand units short of the Affordable Housing goals. Increasing homelessness in the city and falling behind will be disastrist for the city. The current Housing Element commitss us to build 57 percent of our new housing as affordable for low and moderate income. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses that. I havent heard any conversation around that and it is really disappointing. We deserve better as a city. I strongly urge the board to reject this and concentrate on what is needed in the city. Affordable housing for very low, low and moderate income. Thank you. They think Gilbert Williams for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. San francisco residents Business Owner and licensed engineered. A lot of issues brought up today but me we spend on the front line of [indiscernible] housing crisis every day. The majority of the clients [indiscernible] living in Old Buildings no longer serving us. Every day come face to face with actual physical condition of San Francisco building and we have to give a grade it is d for desperate. Been two years in a hearing or Something Like that and thousand s of dollars for buildings with no saving value doesnt help with housing or equity issues. This legislation is about improving a process we all know isnt working. We all know we are notorious with bureaucracy which is unaffordable for everyone because time is money. The name is literally constraints reduction. Something we all agree on by rejecting this legislation thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me . Yes, please begin. Thank you. Bridget maily, former president of San Francisco landmark advisory board. This legislation will have grave consequences on our city on multiple levelsism the legislation takes away the ability of neighbors, members of the public, neighborhood associations, tenants and tenants rights advocates to be notified of projects and limit how we engage in the consistersation how we build and what we build in our city. I encourage you to start from scratch. This is not what we need. We need affordal housing. This legislation encourage market rate housing. We dont need more market rate housing, there are thousand Units Available and many vacant units. I also have serious concerns about the impact of this legislation on the neighborhood character and parks we all appreciate in our city and bring millions of tourist dollars to our community. Why is this legislation needed . We have already thank you for sharing comments. Sorry to cut you off, we have to move to the next speaker. Can we please be connected now . Good afternoon. [indiscernible] with united to save the mission, the rep coalition and the Latino Task Force asking you reject this legislation. The peg sud and this legislation exclude many critdical communities and provides nor protections against displacement refusing to [indiscernible] displacement acceleration while simultaneously incentivizeing the production of market rate housing through deregulation is a path to increase homelessness and demand for deeply Affordable Housing when we currently have all most insurmountable deficit. [indiscernible] opened late 2020, 9010 houses applied for 115 units. Since then the need has grown expotentially. Homelessness in the Latinx Community increased by 55 percent. Our rent controlled units hold 1217 people per unit. Each unit lost is not inconsequential. We need to see creation of housing legislation thank you. Could we hear from the next speaker, please . Good afternoon chair melgar, supervisor preston, president peskin. Francisco [indiscernible] cultural foundation, united save the mission and Latino Task Force. Please reject the proposal which is irresponsible legislation and unresponsive to the needs of families earning 2050 thousand a year. It is violation of furthering the fair housing, which is detailed in the present Housing Element. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Have we found unattended line . Perhaps we come back around. Sorry, i unmuted. I have a comment how home owners made millions. There are plenty that have not made millions. Some of these laws will effect the[indiscernible] so it is not just home owners, it is things they are not considering with the financial thing saying if they sell their house and get into one of the units they are better off. They wont be better off. They have to pay capital gains, they wont have as much Financial Freedom or did not have a mortgage and low property taxes because they worked hard for it or bought it when they thought they couldnt afford anything decades ago. They will lose a lot of the Financial Freedom and power and be in a worse situation and may be a poor soul on the streets we are all concerned about. All making millions from their own home, sorry that is just not always the case. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is amy binard, i spent many years developing Affordable Housing with Community Based non profit and participating with the race equity Planning Coalition. I urge you to reject this unnecessary and potentially devastating legislation. Experience in the previous rhna cycle when housing were on steady crimes developers flooded the market with units far beyond the reach of most san franciscanss. Not hindered by process not at all. [indiscernible] Affordable Housing Development Needs money and sites. This legislation is hodgepodge of code changes instead of enabling 50 thousand units of Affordable Housing we desperately need. A gift to developers and diversion from the Housing Element goals you recently adopted and urge you to reject this now and redirect your attention to the real work needed allocating funding for Affordable Housing and identifying and acquiring sites across the city. Thank you for hearing my comments today. Thank you for sharing comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. [indiscernible] Green Belt Alliance and strong supporter of [indiscernible] needs to remove barriers to spur Housing Development. There is need and demand for new housing in the bay area all income levels and question isnt whether [indiscernible] but where. Vast majority of housing built is Single Family sprawl in the Central Valley to shift the paradigm we need big city [indiscernible] like San Francisco to start changing policy making easier to build the housing we need where we need it. Environmentally sustainable in climate resilient ways. The ordinance will do just that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Jonathan [indiscernible] resident of district 2 and a lead northern neighbors Neighborhood Group here. I urge you to support this legislation. It is absolutely critical to attack our housing crisis headon and this is only a small piece of it, but necessary piece in a city where processes are unpredictable and add up to real cost prohibiting the kind of Infill Development we desperately need to fight climate change. Besides all that, it is just very clear that if you do not pass this legislation, hcd will have to step in and do something if the city is un[indiscernible] tackling the housing shortage and so you absolutely have to have this legislation to make good on the Housing Element promises you already made and make sure we tackle our extremely dire housing shortage. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair, we have no further callers in the queue. Alright. Thank you so much mr. Clerk. Public comment on this item is now closed. I understand that president peskin wanted to ask a few questions of one of the commenters who had presented some data that we didnt quite finish, and go ahead. If i in my Unlimited Power of inquiry could ask mrs. Rom to present the balance of her slides. I know they are in the record but it would be etifying to see them. Thank you so much president peskin, chair melgar for allowing to finish going through these numbers. So, i believe i reached this slide where i was showing a deep dive on a three year page starting from 2018 reveal the vast majority of the cu were business change of use and when it came to dr majority involves Single Family homes. Looking at dr filed in 2018 against project with Single Family homes, reveal the great majoritysorry, overhead is not showing this. So, looking closely at the numbers for 2018 where dr were filed for Single Family homes, we find out that 26 of them were for expansions with no added units. As the green section of the pie chart shows, only 7 projects dr were proposals to add one or more units. The rest that are shown in the shades of gray were expansions alterations or legalizing unpermitted work. This is problem supervisor mandelmans monster home tackled. Expanding and tearing down small homes do not add units. Moving on to showing the pattern forim sorry. Just making sure that i [indiscernible] sorry about that. So, moving on to do a deep dive for conditional use authorization for 2018, the highest number was as you see for non residential, and the second one comes down to Single Family homes. As i said before, the vast majority of non residential cu were for change of use. Now lets look at cu for Single Family homes in the same year. As the green section of the pie chart shows there were more proposals for Single Family homes that added units. But, when you look at the ones that did not add units, while obviously this is something that chair melgar your legislation actually took care of, so there is no problem. Right now we will not have conditional use authorization for Single Family home s and the ones that generated units as you see on the pie chart in the green section of the pie chart, that is great. Something actually happened, demolition happened that actually brought more units. But the oneit isnt insignificant if you look at the merger units and those in the red, these were getting rid of units. One other thing that i would like to actually point out and that is the dr for multiunit buildings. That is also of value to cover, because there was a discussion about rent controlled homes, multiunits that basically demolition is going to be protected against demolition because sp330 will come to the rescue or maybe this particular proposal is going to be amended to out law demolition of tenant occupied housing. I just wanted to show this slide that actually shows that even with respect to existing multiunits buildings, we do have quite a bit that were expanded with no added units. Now, that brings me to the point i would like to make and i wish this was somewhat covered in this discussion, that it isnt just demolition. You know there is a concept called rent eviction where tenants get moved out and bought out because the building is going to be expanded and as you know, our demolition law and what the threshold that is described for what is constitutes demolition in this city is very very lax. So, often times what comes across as demolition, what is truly demolition comes across as renovation and goes through. So, not giving notice, be it demolition or alteration to tenant occupied housing does not serve the tenants who happen to make up 64 percent of the city, the majority of residents. I urge you as you think about amendments, think about how we could protect the unprotected properties in this town. Thank you so much for allowing me to go through this. Sorry it was a little out of sync. I really appreciate you doing all the data crunches. That is good work. Thank you. President peskin. Thank you chair melgar and thank you mrs. Rom. Going back to supervisor mandelman baby with bath water, if what we are after is Additional Units, Additional Units, that seems to be what we are after director hillis is nodding in the affirmative, then why dont we just focus maybe a question to the mayor representative, why dont we just focus this on constraints reductions for those things . So, when you are dealing with dr for expansions and happens to be eviction, why do we care about constraints there because thats a opportunity for somebody to say there were in the midst of rent eviction. But, if the mission and objective is and think we all agree we want this, more units, then how about we reduce constraints there and then 317 and 311 and dr still apply in these other areas where you are not getting Additional Units . Why not . Thank you for the question. Happy to take that feedback back to colleagues and set up conversation for that conversation to happen. Can we have mr. Hillis . To answer your question, a lot of thisi think currently 317, you can expand the Single Family home. You can expand a Single Family home to 4,000 square feet as long as it fits in the envelope of the planning code. You cant tear down that home and build three 1200 square foot units. I think some of this is trying to get at that, like allowing that to happen. I dont think we are saying we encourage demolition of Single Family homes everywhere, but right now the incentive is to expand the Single Family home. It is economically probably more valuable and the process is easier. I think we are trying to say, level that Playing Field and if not demoing Historic Building that had tenants, allow for the opportunity to convert that into a three unit building where the underlying zoning and your legislation allows for that. I think in a lot of cases this does that. Allow for a large lot in rh2 districts to have four units if it is greater then 25 by hundred foot lot. 50 by a hundred, allow it to have 4 units. That is what the under lying zoning is getting at. Now you need a cu to do that. I think this is getting at some of that. Does all the do it . We can argue about it but think a lot of the legislation is trying to do that. Im arguer for playing bigger ball which is like the legislation i did on a temperary basis that the Planning Commission heard to make permanent the outcome before the committee before too much longer, which is if you want to expandmonster home, we are saying that path is much more difficult. If you want to build three units that path is going to be a lot smoother. Im not thats not the case now. In your legislationyou spent a lot of time rezoning to allow for four units, six units on the e corner. The approval now is much more difficult to build the 3 our 4 units then to expand the Single Family home. Can i ask a question while you are still up there . The question that you are nodding in the negative while supervisor mandelman was talking about the board and care homes. This doesnt get rid of that, nor the land romat cu. It calls out a couple cu that it does eliminate [multiple speakers] laundry facility. I didnt think so. Did you have something to say . I would like to make a motion that we approve the amendments read into the record by mr. Star that were requested by the Mayors Office. Lets vote on that and then ill make a motion to adopt my amendments. Motion offered by chair melgar to accept the amendments read into the record by the Planning Department. On the motion vice chair preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. Madam chair, no opposition. Thank you. I like to make another second motion to approve the amendments that i read into the record. Did you want to Say Something supervisor peskin . Go ahead. I assume that all of these will end up in one new file and if through the chair to deputy City Attorney nelson, you can show them in two different colors to track which were the melgar amendments and which were the mayor Planning Department amendments . That would be helpful for everybody i think. Thank you. Thank you. Motion on the floor offered by the chair to accept the amendments tha she prepared for the committee. On that motion, vice chair preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. Madam chair, once again no opposition. Thank you. I to make a motion to continue this item to our meeting on october 16. On the motion to continue the ordinance as amended to date certain of october 16 in this committee, preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. No opposition madam chair. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, lets go back to item number 2. Item 2 is still called but i will mention once again it is ordinance amending the code to delegate board of supervisor approval and admin code 2330 to Real Estate Division and mayor office of housing and Community Development to amend existing leases regarding residual rent payment and lender protection for 100 percent affordsal housing project. Madam chair, we did hear and close public comon comment on this item. President peskin. Thank you chair melgar. As i indicated earlier, i would like to make two amendments on page 2, line 12 to delete the words, enter into and so that reads the authority to amend and then thank you to deputy City Attorney ann pierson for adding our changing subsection 6 to read other then modify the lease as authorized under subsection a5 of section 2 this ordinance of this ordinance, the amendment does not a, materially increase the liability or obligations of the city under the lease or b, change the duration of the lease or c, impose any other new obligations on the city or d, materially decrease the benefits to the city with respect to the property under the lease and my understanding is that language is acceptable to counsel from the mayor office of housing. You want to make a motion . I like to make those amendments to item number 2. For clarity for this through the chair to member peskin, just those two amendments or as well the amendment and the amendments introduced at the last minute, yes. The textual amendments provided by the department and the spot amendments in committee today. On the motion, vice chair preston aye. Peskin, aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, no opposition. Okay. Do you want to make a motion we i send this to the clerk or you send to the clerkyou got it. I would like to move to send the item as three times amended to full board with positive recommendation. On the motion the ordinance be sent to board of supervisors as amended with recommendation of Land Use Committee, vice chair preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. There is no opposition madam chair. Thank you so much. Mr. Clerk, do we have any other items on the agenda . No further business. Okay, we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned] [music] maintaining fire safety is everyones responsibility. For your safety, if you see an active fire or fire safety hazzard, report it immediately. Here are tips on reporting fire safety hazards in San Francisco. Depending you may call 911 or 311 the city 24 7 Customer Service center. When to call 911. Call 911 when you see a fire or open flame source in public. Call 911 if you bench a person using open flame device you believe will result in injury or property damage. Call 911 if you bench an open flame in public location including situations involving Flammable Materials like wood, paper and cardboard or liquid fuel propane or gasoline used for cooking recreation or other purposes. Call 911 if you see smoke inside or outside a building. Call 911 if your Smoke Detector sounds here hear a fire alarm. Be sure to provide the location where this is happening. Fire safety concerns that dont involve an active or immediate threat to life or property it is best to contact 311, submitting a request on sf3 lon or the sf upon 311 mobile app. Reported built up of trash blocking a sidewalk or a structure. 311 to report encampments that dont have criminal activities associated with them. Contact 311 to report a fire safety hazzard, concern that does not involve an open flame. 311 to report lost or blocked exits paths out of a building. Contact 3 thrown report a malfunctioning or out of service fire alarm in your building. And contact 311 to report fire safety concern or complaint that does not involve an immediate threat to life or upon prosecute. Remember, your reporting can save lives you can report unanimously. If you need to ask a fire inspection question call the San Francisco Fire Department 415five 583300. To finds outer more about the San Francisco Fire Department visit our website. And learn more about the 311 Customer Service okay. Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday, september 28th, 2023, to enable public participation. Sf govtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment for discussion and action items on todays agenda. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. We will take Public Comment from persons in city hall first and then open up the Remote Access lines for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. You need to call area. Code
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.