Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, April 16, 2026. When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime, and I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I will take roll. Commission President Campbell? Here. Commission Vice President Moore? Here. Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Imperial?

Here.

Commissioner McGarry?

Present.

Commissioner So?

Present.

And Commissioner Williams?

Here.

Thank you, commissioners. First on your agendas, consideration of item proposed for continuance, item 1, case number 2023, hyphen 009469DRP at 77 Broad Street. Discretionary review is proposed for indefinite continuance. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar. Only on the matter of continuance. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And we can move on to, oh, excuse me. And your continuance calendar is now before you. Do I hear a motion?

Commissioner Imperial? Yeah. Move to continue item one.

Second.

Thank you. Commissioners, on that motion to continue Item 1 indefinitely, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests. In which event, the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 2, case number 2025-003025, CUA 3001, Mission Street, Conditional Use Authorization. And item 3, case number 2025-011743, CUA 3822, 24th Street, Conditional Use Authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and considered under the regular calendar or at a future hearing. You need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed on your consent calendar. Did you want to come up, ma'am, and ask that one of these items be removed from the consent calendar? You can give that to your planner. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's fine. But if you don't want it heard, then there's nothing else that needs to be done. So last call for public comment on the consent calendar. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to approve items on consent calendar as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners, on that motion to approve Items 2 and 3 on consent. Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us under Commission Matters for Item 4, the Land Acknowledgement.

I have the pleasure to read this today. So the Commission acknowledged that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone had never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities As the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory, as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you. Item 5, consideration of adoption draft minutes for March 19th and March 26th. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their minutes. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Imperio. Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7-0. Item 6, Commission Comments and Questions.

COMMISSIONER IMPERIO?

TODAY I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO END THIS HEARING IN MEMORY OF JOHN ELBERLING, THE FOUNDER OF TENANTS AND OWNERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KNOWN AS TADCO. JOHN ELBERLING HAS PASSED AWAY LAST APRIL 1, 2026. John has shaped numerous city legislations, whether through citizen-initiated or through board or supervisors that we offer or refer here in the Planning Commission and where we have based many of our decisions. He has helped initiated together with other land use activists such as Sue Hester, the 1986 Prop M, the citizen sponsor initiative that created the first annual limit on high-rise development in the country, the 2016 Prop X, the replacement space requirement for development projects requiring new developments to replace PDR, arts, and community space that is converted or demolished, And other city ordinances, such as housing balance ordinance in 2015, requiring the planning department to monitor and report bi-annually between new market rate housing and affordable housing production. Personally, I have come to know John Erbling as a community worker in the South of Market, had an impression of him as direct, action-oriented, and had no patience for nonsense. He is not perfect, but through his actions, he cares deeply about South of Market, Yerba Buena, the mission, and the overall direction of San Francisco landscape. He wanted to make sure that new developments included neighborhood amenities like crosswalks, playgrounds, and community centers and spaces for artists. He believed in complete neighborhood and community empowerment. His work in the city's land use policies will continue to impact the city of San Francisco for generations. I hope we could end this hearing in his name. Thank you.

Commissioner So. I'd like to give people some update on the coming from the meeting of the Arts Commission public hearing. One item that might be interested, relevant to our planning commission is the Villancourt fountain. The Arts Commission voted to support the removal of the fountain in November 3rd of last year, voted 8 to 5. It went through a court proceeding injunction two weeks ago. And the result was actually upholding the removal of the fountain. So it was a unanimous vote from the court. So if any public have any more interest to learn more about that, should reach out to the Arts Commission directly.

Yeah.

Appreciate that.

You're welcome. Vice President Moore?

I'd like to ask a question which arose from a project that was on consent today. And it was not objecting to the consent of that action. However, I am starting to wonder why we continue to require ongoing legalization for all project types. In this particular case, it was a business permit regarding probably interior renovations. But this particular phenomenon tracks through all and everything, illegal demolitions, mergers, and on and on and on. I am wondering as to whether or not the complaint-based system is sufficient. to really create a more stable building and approval environment. As a planning commissioner, I find it difficult to legalize past the fact. I do not know as to whether or not what the enforcements are, what the penalties are when somebody illegally did something for years and years and years. And I'm just trying to throw out a question where I'd like perhaps the department, particularly as we're now considering merging with DBI, create some more comprehensive answers that we all can be more comfortable of how things are happening.

Commissioner Williams.

I just wanted to lend my name to Teresa and John Emberling, the passing of John Emberling. I didn't know John well, but he was a legendary figure in the South of Market and throughout the city. And for me, it's important to honor the work that folks like him have done throughout the decades. He was instrumental in uplifting many communities, not just the communities in the south of Market, but all over this city. And he concentrated on empowering low-income communities of color. And especially right now, I think given where we're at, that he is a symbol that we should all look towards as far as understanding our humanity and what's important. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. ITEM SEVEN, DIRECTOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. GOOD TO SEE YOU TODAY. JUST A COUPLE OF EVENTS COMING UP THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU AND ANYONE WATCHING OR PRESENT IS AWARE OF WITH REGARD TO PLANNING. ONE, OUR SF SURVEY TEAM, WHICH IS MARSHING THROUGH MANY NEIGHBORHOODS, IN PART IN PARTICULAR in part conjoined with our family zoning plan work that we completed last year, but also just so we have a good sense of community's history and cultural assets and importance, is having a meeting at the Divisadero Farmer's Market on April 19th. And I'll just note that I think we are finding that these survey events while incredibly important for our survey work, which I just described and important for our understanding of a community and helping to memorialize what is important about that community moving forward, also have proven to be a really good place to connect with community, often in communities where there's not a lot of development going on and we don't have an opportunity to connect with community or a real reason to on the floor. That one's happening. There'll be more happening. And I think you'll just see planning using those meetings more and more as a way to not just get information out about the survey and to convey information, but to connect with community and understand what their issues are. We also have an ongoing Fillmore Community Action Plan meeting happening next April 21st at the SFPD Northern Station. So we'll be doing that in cooperation with OEWD and talking about community development updates and with our partners at the police station. So that's great as well. And then while I'm up here, I just wanted to acknowledge a couple of the commissioner remarks previously. Commissioner So, thank you for mentioning the Valancourt Fountain work. I just want to note that the legal proceedings that happened there were foundationally related to the work done by our environmental planning team and the EIR, which was upheld. So it just shows the good work that our team does every day when it is held up to scrutiny. And then, Commissioner Moore, we will get back to you, I think, on your thoughts on if a complaint-based system is enough. I do want to note that in talking to my peers at other cities, which I try to do regularly, the two points of knowledge I come to, and we'll get back to you with more, is that almost all cities do operate on a complaint-based system just because it is so hard otherwise on a staffing and resource perspective to do it otherwise. And that one of the things I also find is San Francisco, comparatively to other peer cities, not all of them, but most of them, has an incredibly complex system with a high level of control over how our space is used and how we allow it to be changed. So it also creates many more pinch points where we have that level of either complaint or review that aren't common in other cities. I think those are values that we have upheld in our codes, in our various codes, but it does make proactive upkeep on them that much more complex. But we'll get back to you further. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no questions for the director, we can move on to item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals. However, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica Flores, acting manager of legislative affairs. Last week, there were a host of landmark initiations at the Land Use and Transportation Committee. These were all located within District 8 and identified as part of the family zoning plan. Included in the 14 separate initiations were churches, private homes, and a firehouse, among others. These were forwarded to the full board with positive recommendation. At last week's full board hearing, there was one item related to the 524-526 Vallejo project, which was the CU appeal related to legalizing the unpermitted three-unit merger. Commissioners, you heard this item last December and issued a de facto denial of the project. At the hearing, Supervisor Sautter opened by stating that responsibility lies with the prior developer, not the current owners. And he also questioned whether the property ever legally contained four units. The appellant similarly argued there is insufficient evidence of four legal units and that four units would exceed the RM1 density limits. There were three public commenters supporting the appellants, emphasizing that the current owners are victims and urging approval of the CUA to allow the family to stay in their home and in this neighborhood. Staff presented substantial and consistent evidence that the property is legally a four-unit building, including approved building permit applications showing four units, two official 3R reports also listing four family dwelling, assessor recorder data identifying the property as a four-unit building, and written statements from two long-term tenants confirming decades of the four-unit rent-controlled operation. Staff concluded that the legal status, not the current occupancy, governs merger evaluations and recommended upholding the de facto denial and denying the CEU. Supervisors asked about the property's history, particularly how a permit completed as a four-unit building was recorded as a single-family home two months later. Supervisors Sautter and Sherrill reiterated concerns about past bad actors not punishing the current owners. There were 15 public commenters in opposition to the appeal, citing consistent city records and tenant statements showing the building as legally for units, concern about the loss of rent-controlled housing, and concern that approving the CU would set a precedent for after-the-fact legalization of illegal mergers. After the discussion, Supervisor Sautter moved to deny the CU and directed the clerk to prepare findings, including the desire for a three-unit project and encouraging the Planning Commission to adopt such proposal. The board split this into two motions, and the first motion related to preparing findings, including the three-unit alternative failed 5-5. The subsequent motion to deny the CU passed unanimously. So what does this mean? This means the property can either move forward with the pending four-unit building permit. Planning has already signed off on this permit, and it's sitting with DBI right now. They could also wait a year to apply for the same three-unit merger project. And the last option is to submit a new three-unit project, which is a two-unit merger. And if they were to pursue that, that would return to you for your consideration. Moving on to this week's hearings, the Land Use and Transportation Committee recommended the One Oak Ordinance with positive recommendation. The committee also heard SB 79 and amended the ordinance to correct a typographical error and also update the parcel tables. The committee then amended the file and added a new finding to the duplicate regarding ongoing consultation with HCD. The duplicate was continued as amended to the call of the chair, and the original file was continued as amended to next week. And lastly, at the full board, the 14 landmark designations within District 8 passed on their first read. Thank you for your patience. And that concludes my report. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no questions, again, there is no report from the Board of Appeals, but the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday where they adopted a resolution recommending approval to establish the Pacific Islander Cultural District and then adopted recommendations for approval for a number of small, I shouldn't say small, but legacy businesses, registry applications, the first being the billiard Palisade on Mission Street. Carlos Alcejo Taxes and Bookkeeping Limited on Mission Street. I could have certainly used their assistance yesterday. Frameline on Ninth Street. The Horseshoe Tavern on Chestnut. Los Plains de Renderos on Persia Avenue. only in San Francisco at Pier 39, the Philosophers Club on Ulloa Street, Would You Believe on Gary Boulevard, and the Silver Cloud on Lombard Street. If there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

Commissioners, thank you. My name is Michael Turan. I'm an owner at 2722-2724 Folsom Street. I'm here about PRJ 2024-011657. I have one request. Please direct the commission secretary to calendar my withdrawal request for the merger CUA approval under motion number 21747. On January 28th, I submitted the request under Article IV, Section 6C, and Settlement Agreement Section 5.1. On February 4th, the Commission Secretary confirmed it was forwarded to the Planning Commission for the consideration. On March 4th, he stated he had received no direction to place it on the agenda. Since then, I've submitted a 140-page packet, spoken during public comment on March 26th, and filed a formal record closing notice on April 8th. On April 10th, the Commission Secretary responded that Section 6C does not apply after the Commission has acted. The interpretation is not supported by text. The provision says withdrawal requires the consent of the Commission. It contains no expiration, and this is a question for the Commission to decide, not staff. Settlement agreement section 5.1 obligates the city to process the CUA application for a merger and recommend its approval. The application on file has expanded by staff to include a state ADU that by law cannot go through a CUA hearing. I need to withdraw and refile with the correct scope. My family living in this building, the settlement agreement was designed to let us complete the project and move on after eight years. Ordinance 29124, which the Board of Supervisors adopted unanimously, directs city officials to take all actions necessary to perform the city's obligations in the agreement. Today is day 78 since my request. The federal court overseeing the settlement agreement found that I have acted in good faith throughout this matter. I'd like to resolve this here, through the Commission, rather than through federal enforcement proceedings. Again, please direct the Secretary to calendar the withdrawal or provide a written determination for the commission so my council and I can determine next steps. Thank you. I'm providing documents to the secretary for the commission's consideration, including a letter to the director requesting the secretary be directed to calendar this item. Thank you very much. I apologize for not showing up in a suit.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jessica Newty. I'm one of the union organizers with Local 21 that supports our members within city planning. And I'm sure you all know there have been cuts within the department that have impacted three of our members that are up for a layoff. And we are urging you to engage with the mayor's office and really talk through what the impacts will be with these cuts. And I specifically have a statement from one of the impacted members. He really wanted to be here, but he wasn't able to be here. So I'm just going to read his statement on his behalf. My name is Jonathan. So I currently serve as an 1825 principal analyst in the planning department My position is slated to lay off during due to the department's reported lack of funds I'm writing to express my deep concern about this decision and to ask for your support in preventing it moving forward I have been part of the finance team since 2021, during which time we have faced significant turnover at nearly every position. Despite these challenges, we made important progress this year, hiring two new accountants and promoting our budget grants analysts in a position that has seen four different analysts in just five years. These steps were much needed to stabilize the team. Even with these improvements, we remain understaffed and overextended. For example, our team has not been able to comply with the revenue collection policy requiring deposits twice a week. We requested an exemption from the controller's office to make deposits once a week, but the request was denied because most departments deposit daily. This is just one instance showing how stretched our team is and how we continually make difficult operational decisions to meet policy requirements with limited resources. If my position is eliminated, not only will it be personally devastating, especially as a parent of a two-year-old, it would also represent a major setback for the department. With the recent retirement of Tom DeSanto, we've already lost more than 20 years of institutional knowledge, and my departure would further erode our expertise at a critical time. While the department cites a funding deficit, the data tells a different story. After the third quarter, our permit revenues have already reached 85% of last year's totals, while expenditures are only at 74%. Eliminating positions now would undermine the progress we've made and weaken our ability to serve the public effectively. Layoffs are not the answer. The loss of these three employees would create a lasting hole in our department's capacity and institutional knowledge, And I urge you to reach out to the mayor's office and advocate that these layoffs are withdrawn and are continued to have an effective planning department. Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Diane Livia. I work in the current planning division of the planning department. I'm retired from the city, and I work under Prop F. I was informed that I am being laid off as of May 6, and I will no longer have a job. I retired from the city in 2017, and I have a small pension. Didn't work a lot of years. And I have health care. Although it is not subsidized by the city, I pay it in full. I was invited back in 2018 under Prop F, and I worked until mid-2020 when COVID basically made it impossible for me to work from home. In 2024, I was again invited back under Prop F. Since then, I've been primarily working on implementing the Transportation Demand Management Program, TDM, as per our planning code. This program provides new building owners with many options to reduce the automobile travel that their new buildings would otherwise generate. It's a very successful program. The purpose is to improve air quality, and it enjoys the highest level of implementation. Recently, the environmental division at the planning department was greatly reduced, and I was moved into current planning where I continue my work on the TDM. My small pension, Social Security, and this job are my major personal sources of income. My spouse is still working at the age of 65 and expects to have to work until at least 70 to support us both. Losing this job deprives me of a crucial source of income and strands me on a fixed income. And it puts the implementation of the TDM program at some risk. We manage hundreds of cases, and that burden will be re-spread over fewer people. That means the management must suffer if fewer people are working on this program. As you know, Mayor Lurie has made a concerted effort since he got into office to reduce the size of San Francisco's government. Reduce the size of government. I am part of that reduction effort, and this reduction will hobble the progress that San Francisco has begun to make since COVID and we hope continues to make. At some point, Mayor Lurie will be able to send much of the work now done by city employees to the private sector. In fact, that has already begun. And I believe that this is his full intent in reducing San Francisco's workforce, to privatize government work. It's kind of like our own doge operation here. And that is why, in my opinion, I will no longer have a job as of May 6. And I, too, am reaching out to you and asking you to go to the mayor's office and discuss overturning and stopping these layoffs. Thank you very much.

Can I have the overhead, please? Good afternoon. OK, so I sent two emails about all that stuff and about mergers. And especially after hearing the report on Vallejo, I think it's pertinent. Potential de facto merger of approved second units or ADUs into the larger main unit within a structure is real, but it's very hard to deal with. I recognize that. But given the price of housing, there's no incentive particularly for the speculative projects, to put a second unit on the market. If you look on this thing, this is where the problem happens, right there. This is an approved second unit. Here's the second unit. Here's going upstairs. It's easy to link them. I was in that when it had the open house. This is the one that sold for $5.7 million recently in February. And the thing is, If you even look at the unit size, the first unit is a little smaller at 1,100 square feet. The larger one is 25. So it skirts the SUD, the Central Neighborhood Large Residence SUD. And that's what the staff said. The staff said that. That's what was going on. And I think SB 423 and even the rezoning creates a loophole that needs to be closed. So the other thing that I think is even more important is now that the flat policy has been codified in Section 317, I really urge you that any permit application and plans that have to do with the flats be stamped with the planning code restrictions and requirements regarding flats FLATS is defined in Section 102 now. It's really important. And you do a thing now where if someone has plans are very close to Tanomat demolition, there's a stamp put on there that says if you go over these values, you better contact the building department and the planning department. So I think for flats, any kind of project, and I've seen a lot of projects coming in with flats lately, or flats being sold on the market, I think it would be really worthwhile, maybe it's preemptive enforcement, just to remind people that there are new rules about flats and they should follow them. And I guess that's it. Oh, yeah, my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

OK, last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 9, case number 2026-000957, PCA, updating requirements for institutional master plans. This is a planning code amendment.

OK. Thank you, Commission Secretary. This next item is the updating requirements for institutional master plans. This legislation was introduced by Supervisor Dorsey, and we have Ms. Madison Tam here today to speak on the item.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS MADISON, TAM, HERE REPRESENTING SUPERVISOR DORSEY. SUPERVISOR DORSEY STRONGLY SUPPORTS NEW UNIVERSITIES IN OUR DISTRICT AND CITYWIDE. THIS IS A GOAL WE SHARE WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND MANY OF OUR DISTRICT STAKEHOLDERS. UNIVERSITIES OR POST SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDE IMMENSE BENEFITS LIKE INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC, ECONOMIC VITALITY, ACCESS TO TALENT AND PATHWAYS FOR INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION. This legislation helps us do that by updating requirements that hold back progress and make the process more streamlined for those institutions that are still required to file them. This is a balanced approach that still requires IMPs in residential neighborhoods while supporting PSEIs, or post-secondary educational institutions, in our downtown and mixed-use neighborhoods. IMPs themselves do not grant approvals, and under our current requirements, there's a 90-day hold before the commission can grant a CU or entitlement. THE COMMISSION CAN'T REQUIRE AN INSTITUTION TO CHANGE THEIR PLAN, SO THIS STEP ADDS DELAYS AND IS NOT ENFORCEABLE. AS YOU SAW IN YOUR PACKET, SUPERVISOR DORSEY INTENDS TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION THAT I WILL BRIEFLY EXPLAIN. SO FIRST, WE INTEND TO BETTER ALIGN THE DEFINITION OF SCHOOL WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. SO THAT MEANS BOTH SCHOOLS AND POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DEFINITIONS WILL HAVE THE FOLLOWING UPDATES. If the institution is not currently certified by WASC or an equivalent accreditation agency, the ZA can determine it to be a school if it is diligently pursuing an application for accreditation, which has substantially progressed and is reasonably likely to be granted. And both definitions would no longer include student housing as part of them. In addition, the supervisor plans to include a technical modification to update the Arts and Design Education Special Use District, so it's consistent with this ordinance. The District 6 office has had incredibly positive conversations with residents and community organizations and district stakeholders about welcoming universities and supporting them through this legislation. Thank you for hearing this item. We hope to have your support.

Veronica Flores with staff again. Just to recap, the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to exempt post-secondary educational institutions located outside of a residential district from the institutional master plan or IMP requirements. Post-secondary educational institutions located within a residential district would still be subject to file an IMP. Post-secondary educational institutions would also be required to submit an update if the institution will increase its presence within residential districts by either 10,000 square feet or 25% of the total square footage, whichever is less. The proposed ordinance would revise the definition of post-secondary educational institutions to also consider WASC equivalent accreditation boards and move student housing from the definition. Lastly, the proposed ordinance would remove the three-month hold of hearing a CU application after an IMP has been accepted. As Ms. Tam had just described, there are some anticipated amendments that further support the attend of the proposed ordinance. These anticipated amendments include aligning the definition of school with the proposed amendments for post-secondary educational institutions. This includes amendments related to the WASC equivalent accreditation, including institutions that are in the process of applying for such accreditation. And that last piece regarding those institutions that are in the process of applying would also be incorporated into the definition of post-secondary educational institutions for consistency. There's also a technical modification to update the art and design educational special use district so that it is consistent with this proposed ordinance. The department recommends that the commission adopt a recommendation of approval of the ordinance with these anticipated amendments. The proposed ordinance provides a targeted update to the institutional master plan framework that improves clarity and alignment with current land use conditions. The amendments retain IMP requirements on hospitals, which continue to have the most significant operational impacts, while removing procedural barriers for post-secondary educational institutions located outside of residential districts. The department has also collaborated with the supervisor's office on the anticipated amendments and is in full support of them. This concludes the staff presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter.

My name is Calvin Mulch. I'm a member of the board, the Land Use and Housing Committee member of the board of the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, which joined with three or four other neighborhood groups, developed the concept that became the Institutional Master Plan. It is predicated on the fact that all institutional growth is not benign.

In the city- Excuse me, sir. Could you speak into the mic so we can hear you?

I'm sorry?

Could you speak into the microphone so we can hear you?

Gee, I've never had that problem before. Thank you. I'm usually told, please move away from the microphone.

Not today. Thank you.

It is based on the fact that all institutional growth is not benign as the supervisor seems to believe. There are impacts on traffic, there are impacts more importantly on housing. I understand that this department, that this administration is wedded to the notion that the only way that you increase housing supply is by new construction. That is also a misapprehension. One of the significant ways that you increase housing supply is keeping it from being demolished. And in large measure, institutions in San Francisco, a city that is physically mature, expands by demolishing housing. So the need for an institutional master plan in which a large institution lays out what its current operations are, what its expected operations are, should not be limited only to residential zones. I hate to remind staff and this commission, residential uses exist in commercial zones. And if the object of the housing element is to preserve affordable housing opportunities, as your next item will discuss, one of the ways you do that is making sure that institutions do not demolish them. Let me remind staff whose report seems to have totally forgotten the decades-long struggle against the Academy of Art. The Academy of Art acquired thousands of residential units in commercially zoned areas for the purpose supposedly of student housing. It acquired more housing than it ever had students. It never submitted an institutional master plan. The city used the institutional master plan. to sue the Academy of Arts and replace that housing back to a housing use. So we're asking for a delay. For some reason, the supervisor chose not to discuss the matter with the people who drafted it. We would like to meet with him and try to understand his reasoning for exempting all commercial zones. To do so would DEFINITELY WEAKEN THE ORDINANCE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WEAKEN THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PRESERVE HOUSING IN SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU.

LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NONE PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AND THIS MATTER IS NOW BEFORE YOU COMMISSIONERS.

I'm very carefully listening to Mr. Welch's recall of the purpose of the master plan, including its effectiveness over many, many years. It has been used in the past few years, mostly with the current commission. We have not seen many master plans, and they get only updated every year. eight or ten years. Is that correct? Seven or eight?

I'm not sure the exact timing.

It is a reasonably large amount of time. So it does not happen all the time. That said, I remember previous commissions spending an extraordinary amount of time, so multiple commissions, dealing indeed with the Academy of Art. which was primarily located in the Venice and District 3 territory, where the impacts were devastating not only in terms of transportation. They ran their own very disruptive shuttle system and took students from Bush Street all the way down to Lombard and here and there and everywhere. and it was a nuisance stopping literally all downtown traffic, particularly in District 3. ASIDE FROM THE DETAILS, THE GOAL DETAILS THAT MR. WELSH EXPLAINED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WENT CONTROLLED HOUSING, ALL ACROSS D3 AND THE TENDERLOIN, THE UPPER EDGES OF THE TENDERLOIN, THIS WAS AN ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION, WHICH THIS COMMISSION HAD TO REVIEW AND PARTICIPATE IN COMMENTING ON OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IN THE END, when we, towards the end of action against the Academy of Art, saw their real estate portfolio printed out, your jaw was dropping because they literally owned all and everything you could imagine. That said, I do believe that there is nothing onerous about the institutional master plan as they exist. I believe that they provide reasonable guideposts and operational parameters and disclosure that is of benefit to all and everybody. First, there's the older institutions who have an incredibly legendary formative history in their presence in San Francisco. In addition to the fact that these master plans don't go through reviews and approval, they basically are acknowledged, they're read, and that is it. There's a comment mostly positive supportive comments about how institutions are reporting on their growth, always in parameters of understanding that being a good citizen, being a good neighbor, there is no harm. Indeed, you are enduring yourself to the populace of the city itself, where your own children may go and visit those institutions. I believe there is no need to change what we have. I do not believe that there is any streamlining or any benefits derived from taking it out of G3 consideration. We all know that Vanderbilt University is trying to move in. We all know that. However, I think we're going to stay vigilant and protective about the impacts on South of Market, on Central Soma, and all the districts where student housing may again try to infringe on residential units that are occupied by citizens who are trying to maintain their ability to live in San Francisco. So I am in this particular moment not supportive of The amendments and what's proposed here, but would like to emphasize based on my own experience, the benefit of institutional master plans as a very strong civic framework for how the city operates.

Thank you. Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you, Vice President Moore. I also have concerns about this legislation. Picking back on what Commissioner Moore has mentioned, my concern as well is around the three-month hold COA. I do believe that even though I don't understand why COA is being seen as a barrier for development. CUA, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BIG DEVELOPMENTS OR IN THIS CASE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, SHOULD ACTUALLY BE UP IN THE HEARING AND PRESENT WHAT THEIR PLAN IS ALL ABOUT. JUST LIKE WHAT MR. WELCH HAS MENTIONED, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO RAISE CONCERNS WHETHER ON TRAFFIC, USUALLY WE WOULD HEAR ABOUT THOSE, AND THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS BY THE RESIDENTS. And even though, again, the commercial zones, you know, one thing is the, you know, again, the Academy of Arts, universities, many of those are in the side of market and tenderloin. Those issues have raised because of the hearings as well. And so... I hope that Supervisor Dorsey and I definitely understand in terms of revitalizing the downtown and how Vanderbilt University can be a contribution to the revitalization, however, Um, I think it's still, um, in our, um, due diligence of our government to have these institutions be presented to the public and how it may impact them, whether it's indirectly. Um, so I hope that supervisor Dorsey's office would still talk to the community members, um, and have the, um, and hear about the concerns on these institutional master plan amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

I have first a specific question for maybe for staff. So Commissioner Moore mentioned that the plans are updated every 10 years. Well, from what I read, the plans have to be, a new plan has to be submitted every 10 years. Is that correct, Ms. Flores? No. But then the plans are also updated every two years? Is that correct? Would you mind just walking through what the... how extensive the update is? What's the difference between every two-year update versus the 10-year new plan?

Thank you, Commissioner Braun. The updates every two years, they are much more brief. We are looking to see if there were any major revisions, major developments in comparison to either the last filed IMP or the last prior update two years ago. And then from there, staff consults with the zoning administrator to see if such revision or new development proposal would warrant a full new IMP. So it is simply that. It is more of an update, oftentimes a quick, I'd say, one to two page summary, perhaps, of what's been going on, oftentimes. It is a non-update update where there have been no major significant changes since the last IMP or the last update. So in that case, perhaps we don't even have that update on file if there's nothing substantial to report. But it is more brief. And that, again, is the opportunity for us to confer internally and decide if we were to request a new IMP.

And if I can just add in, they're more often progress reports than like an update to the plan. I think it's a little bit of a misnomer calling it an update. It's not that the institution is necessarily updating their game plan every two years, but those two-year updates are them informing us, like, how are they making progress against that 10-year plan? Like, we've built one of the three buildings we said we were going to build, or we haven't built any of them. There are instances where they inform us, like, they're going to make a pivot. And I think that's really what Veronica was talking about. But very often, it's just sort of marching through the progress of, you know, that 10-year plan, or the quarter of the way through executing that 10-year plan, or the halfway, etc.

I see. So the updates are more just it's a progress check-in, and it's an opportunity for staff to then see if it's a significant enough change in the plan that really there needs to be something more extensive.

Yeah, if they're either just tracking with their plan, and they're giving a progress update, or whether they're deviating in any way.

I see. OK. Thank you. So the two-year requirement isn't especially onerous. I am curious. There are a lot of, at the back of the staff report packet, there's the 42 IMPs on file that are required. What's the staff side burden of needing to monitor every two years, making sure that folks are submitting these 42 IMP updates or new plans?

Um, we used to have dedicated staff whose full-time job it was, was to sort of manage the IMP process and tracking everyone's compliance. Candidly, we've had to make staffing decisions and that has not fallen to a top priority. So we don't have anyone active monitoring. So usually where it happens is when somebody is coming in with their permit, we look back and say, let's double check that they're in compliance. Um, I think on bigger ones that are more of note, because keep in mind, there are a lot of IMPs out there. Um, like a lot of these ones that are maybe one location, relatively small footprint, maybe one permit that executed their project. And so I think on those, there's not maybe the proactive monitoring the same way. I think for other ones that are more of note, Academy of Art, things of that nature. I know I worked on CPMC's institutional master plan. Those definitely do have much more proactive maintenance because you have a project planner that's really working on that in real time across years and years. So it deviates a little bit, but it is definitely something that is, if we were to do it properly, we would need some dedicated staffing to do it that right now we just don't have. And so it often becomes more of a gating requirement when somebody is coming in with permits to do work.

OK, thank you for that explanation. I think I just have two more questions. So one is, do we know, unless I missed it, I don't think this is in the staff report, do we know how many IMPs would remain because they're in residential districts? Obviously, all the hospital ones and health care ones stay, but what about the residential district ones?

Yes. So we have 42 IMPs on file. 33 of them are schools. And then of those 33, 17 are entirely in the C3 district. Nine are partially in a residential district. And then the remaining seven are a mix of other zoning districts.

I see. Under this legislation, for the ones that are partially in a residential district, would that mean the whole institution does have to submit an IMP?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Sure. So you mentioned that there were nine that are post-secondary institutions that are partially in a residential district. And so under this legislation, would the ones partially in a residential district still need to submit an IMP? Yes. OK. Thank you. Oh, and so my last question then is, there's discussion about, you know, Is this something that needs to be changed? Is it working or not working? And I'm just curious if you could share a little bit more about the supervisor's perspective on why this change is needed, sort of more about the background and motivation on this legislation.

Yeah, so I think over the last few years, you've seen consistently from the supervisor, from our mayors, that there's been real consensus on wanting to attract universities downtown and broadly to our city. And this has come up repeatedly in conversations about how we attract institutions like Vanderbilt, a UC, any private or public institution that would be interested in coming here, or my bad, any private institution that would be interested in coming here. So we really saw this as a barrier both in the work that it takes to put this plan forward that itself does not have any teeth and has a waiting period attached to the end of it. So this has come up consistently as something that is a barrier to attracting universities.

Okay, thank you. You know, I... have a few concerns with legislation as well. But I think on balance, with that helpful information, I am coming around on the side of supporting the legislation. There's still going to apply to, this IMP requirement is still going to apply to the hospitals. There's still a pretty significant number of institutions that will have to submit in the residential areas and residential zone districts. And then for the others, what I appreciate is that it's not like this becomes a free-for-all for the institutions that are located outside residential districts. They still will require project-level approvals. And so I... I see both sides of this. I see the value of the ability to see the overall direction of an institution. But on the whole, I think that I'm comfortable with supporting the legislation with the knowledge that there is still the separate approvals processes for individual projects.

Thank you. Commissioner So?

After hearing everybody talk about all my fellow commissioners' perspectives, and I live really close by some of these areas that will historically have all these really amazing art school, design school, and then disappeared. And I've seen the benefits of actually having upper high educations in this part of the town and also actually in San Francisco in general. The feel of upper high education university level education is so different now than when this thing was created. We cannot treat our side of the state being just Western side. We have to level the playing field to attract, continue to adapt and grow and bring more young people coming into the city learn the city and learn the specific trade. I am in full support of this with the staff recommendation anticipating there will be amendments listed in this packet. I wanted to encourage other good institutions to come to our city and invest in our new generations to continue to have a pipeline of wild, diverse growth of occupation and job opportunities. And being living near those areas, I can actually feel that these college and university, private or public, actually create better street safety. and a much more vibrant neighborhood. I love seeing young people walking, biking, scootering, or whatever. It just makes it nice than just tech people walking around. So I motion to approve this with the staff recommendation to anticipate with these amendments.

Second.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, planning staff, for presenting this, Ms. Flores. Thank you for the previous presentation, too. I appreciate your professionalism. So I just wanted to acknowledge that now that I got the microphone. I don't see this as a barrier. A lot of these institutions, for example, like Vanderbilt, are very well funded. And the way I see the institutional master plan is accountability to the citizens of the city. I think some of these universities have a huge footprint. And if we use the Art Institute that was talked about earlier, that should raise a red flag because there was a lot of impacts that that institution had on the city. I remember. amongst everything else that was said, that the institution, there was actually people being evicted from these buildings that the institution had purchased. And while that is an extreme situation that happened, One thing about having these institutional master plans presented to this planning commission is to shine the light on exactly what they're doing, what their plans are, and to hold them accountable in a public way. And I'll just remind everybody, democracy dies in the dark. There's been a lot of that lately. In my view, the institutional master plans are necessary. I don't see how they impact negatively new colleges or schools that are planning to come to San Francisco. San Francisco is a very welcoming city. I think it's a way. These plans are a way for them to become good neighbors and be held accountable. So that's my viewpoint. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

I'd agree with everybody. There's a little bit of everything in this. We've had bad actors in the past. We've learned from that. There's rules in place. We also have basically a plan that is old, and like any plan that's old, it has to be adaptive. It's got to be streamlined, and it's got to move with the times. I totally... I come from a college town. I grew up in a college town in the west of Ireland. There is a great feel about a college town. Basically, it's... San Francisco. We have colleges, but we're not a college town. I totally respect Supervisor Dorsey's vision and our previous mayor and this mayor's vision of basically making downtown an educational hub and a center. It's got everything. And it's got troubles. And a couple of tweaks can actually make that happen. Streamlining process, it has to be done. But in no way, I've read this and I've listened, I don't believe it impedes any neighbor's impact for information or notifications or their ability to actually bring their concerns, whatever it is, back to whatever body it is that's here. So I'm in favor of this. I would like to have a variety of every college out there to be within every part of San Francisco. And downtown basically does have the ability to be a transportation, buses, rail, BART. We have it all to actually make it work. And we have the vacant spaces there. And we do have a problem with those vacant spaces. And we have a serious problem with the lack of foot traffic on the streets or the buses down there. And vibrancy has to be brought back. to downtown. And everything should be on the table, including masses of college kids that basically can only re-inject some vibrancy into a situation that basically requires vibrancy. And that's our downtown San Francisco. So I'm in favor of this. It's a tweak to allow progress to happen. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I also learned a lot about institutional master plans. I did not know what the original intention of IMPs was in terms of its focus on residential neighborhoods and concerns back in the 60s and 70s. So this was very educational for me. These feel like very practical changes. And it feels like these opportunities to welcome growth and draw educational institutions, which I know we very much would like to see. So removing procedural barriers, I'm always a big fan of. And knowing, as Commissioner Braun mentioned, that we have other planning control measures in place. makes me very comfortable with this and has my full support. So I see no other comments. And I think we have a motion that's been seconded.

Indeed, Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with anticipated amendments on that motion. Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

No.

Commissioner Moore?

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, Commissioners. That passes 4-3, with Commissioners Williams, Imperial, and Moore voting against. Commissioners, it'll place us on item 10 for case number, excuse me, there is no case number for the arena progress and affordable housing informational presentation.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Lisa Chen with department staff, and I'll be co-presenting with James Papas. So today's informational hearing will provide an overview of our progress in meeting our Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, goals with a specific focus on affordable housing production. We're also joined by Sheila Nicolopoulos from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development and Jacob Bintliff from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. They're on hand to answer any questions about funding sources for affordable housing. And before we begin, we'd like to invite Sheila to provide some introductory remarks.

Thank you, Lisa. Hi, all. I'm Sheila Nicolopoulos. I'm the Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs with the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. I'm just going to give a brief introduction. I want to thank you for the opportunity to join this conversation. And on behalf of MOSEDU, we appreciate the ongoing collaboration with the Planning Department. Before staff present on this, I'd like to provide some information about where we are with affordable housing today. I want to first highlight how successful San Francisco is in producing and preserving affordable housing, despite some really significant funding challenges. We have put $1.5 billion in local investment over the past five years. Since 2020, we've added more than 3,000 units of new affordable housing, and 1,000 units acquired under small and big sites. Last year, we closed $240 million in loans and provided rental subsidies to more than 5,000 seniors and people exiting homelessness. We have 26,000 units in our portfolio compared to Los Angeles that is five times our size and has 72,000 affordable units. San Diego is 60% larger than us and only has 23,000 units. So we can confidently say that we have the highest amount of affordable housing per capita of any major city in California. Those are big accomplishments. We have more than 2,700 units under construction right now, and the SF Permit Tracker shows that there's 4,200 new housing units have approved building permits. So affordable units right now are 65% of new units under construction. And we face some real challenges. In general, we fund new affordable housing with one-third funding from local and two-thirds from state and federal dollars. MOCD anticipates making approximately $330 million in project loans to support around 20 projects in this fiscal year, and looking forward to next fiscal year, about $288 million to support 15 projects. But in the following 27-28 year, the number drops to about $130 million supporting seven projects, reflecting the spend down of the remaining GO bonds from 2019 and 24 issuances. In 28-29, if no new local funding sources are identified, MOCD will have minimum funding for new loans. So steady and consistent funding for affordable housing would ensure a stable production pipeline. Predictability of funding supports the affordable housing ecosystem of construction and property management. And the mayor has directed senior staff from his office, MOCD, and OEWD to identify an effective, durable, and sustainable source of local funding for affordable housing. And we do expect an announcement soon. Lastly, I want to highlight upcoming hearings on these topics, housing and affordability are a priority for the board and the mayor's office. And there are five hearings scheduled at the board in the coming months that will provide a forum for ongoing public discussions about affordable housing topics. And the dates for these are included in the presentation that you're about to see. And thank you, and I am here for questions after the presentation.

Thank you, Sheila. If we could please get the slides. So today's staff presentation will first provide some background information from our housing element. We'll then provide the data on housing production, including affordable housing. I'll hand it then to James, who will discuss affordable housing trends and site acquisitions. And we'll close with related policy efforts and next steps. Today's hearing responds in part to a letter of inquiry from Supervisor Cheyenne Chen requesting information on the city's progress towards its RENA goals, particularly for affordable housing. Much of this information was provided in the memo the department sent to the commission on March 16. We also provided paper copies today, which we will summarize as part of the presentation. Today's hearing also includes some information from two recent reports, including our Housing Element Annual Progress Report, or APR, which was submitted to HCD on April 1st, and the 2025 San Francisco Housing Inventory published earlier this month. Supervisor Chen specifically asked the department to report on the city's progress under housing element action 8.1.10 shown here. This action directs the city to examine our progress in meeting the low and very low segments of the city's larger arena goals. Specifically, if the city's production of affordable housing over 2022 to 2025 falls short of its pro-rata share of ARENA targets, the city is directed to identify additional funding to pursue site acquisitions for affordable housing. In addition to reporting on our arena progress, we are also using today's hearing to highlight the other completed reports. Our housing inventory, which is published annually each April, found that after several years of declining construction activity, San Francisco did see an uptick in production in 2025, with about 2,700 new homes added to our housing stock. This is an increase of roughly 50% from the prior year, but is still well below the pre-pandemic peak levels. About two thirds of these homes, or roughly 1,800 units, were affordable, which was also an increase year over year. Separately, our annual progress report was submitted to the state on April 1 and will be posted on HCD's online dashboard in the coming months. The report includes information on the city's progress on short and medium term implementation items from our housing element. This graph shows our production rates over time. It confirms a continued weak market for overall housing production, though there was some modest improvement in 2025, as noted. Encouragingly, this trend has continued into early 2026, though it is still too early in the year to draw any firm conclusions. This chart shows housing production from 2022 to 2025 by income level relative to our RHNA goals, prorated for the first three years of the RHNA cycle. Overall, in the first three years of the cycle, San Francisco has produced about 31% of what we would need to keep pace with our RHNA goals. However, performance was uneven across income levels. For above moderate and moderate income housing, we produced a little bit over one quarter of our goal. For low and very low income housing, we performed better due to recent increases in local funds for housing, as Sheila noted. And we produced roughly 37% to 38% of our goal. To provide more context on these affordable housing trends, I'll now turn it over to James.

Thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm James Pappas with Planning Department staff. We wanted to focus a little bit more on the very low and low income RHNA and highlight the shared struggles across cities and counties of producing and preserving affordable housing. As you can see in the table shown here, covering the prior housing element period from 2015 to 2022, all of the counties with larger populations and larger RHNA targets failed to reach their low-income RHNA goals, showing a shared need for additional funding and financing resources. San Francisco produced the most affordable housing of any county in the Bay Area and achieved the greatest RHNA progress of the more populous counties, thanks to significant local investment. Some less populous counties achieved a higher percentage of their RHNA target, in part because their goals are proportionally much smaller. It should be noted that many jurisdictions have counted accessory units, i.e. ADUs, towards their RENA, their lower income RENA, while San Francisco only counts them at moderate and above. San Francisco's investment in affordable housing shows up in longer-term trends of affordable housing production. In 2015, San Francisco voters approved the first in a series of affordable housing general obligation bonds, or GO bonds, as Sheila called them. I'm going to start calling them GO bonds. now on. So bonds were passed again in 2015, 2019, and then again in 2024. In addition, the Board of Supervisors and the mayor approved allocations of ERAF funds and other general fund allocations. These funds allowed the city to increase affordable housing production by 400 to 500 units per year on average from 2016 onwards. and allowed significant increase in affordable housing preservation through small sites and the rental assistance demonstration program to rehab public housing. The drop in housing production from 2022 through 2024 reflects competitiveness of tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits beginning in 2020, demonstrating that San Francisco remains dependent on federal and state sources, as we'll discuss a bit more shortly. We wanted to highlight the work from the affordable housing sites analysis and strategies completed in fall 2025, including the analysis of the existing affordable housing pipeline. There are about 12,000 units in 100% affordable housing production and preservation projects around the city, shown in green and yellow on the map. They are awaiting funding from local, state, and federal sources. In addition, as Sheila mentioned, there are 2,700 units under construction and 100% affordable housing projects. Projects shown in blue on the map are privately financed mixed income projects with inclusionary units that are often also stalled because of high construction costs and lack of available or affordable financing. Given the substantial funding needs of affordable housing projects already in the pipeline, the city has been able to fund one notice of funding availability, or NOFA, for new site acquisitions in the last four years, from 2022 through 2025. Five sites were acquired in partnership with nonprofit affordable housing developers. They're shown in the table here. They include three sites located in well-resourced neighborhoods that are part of the recently adopted family zoning plan. Most of these sites are awaiting funding for construction along with other sites in the affordable housing pipeline. In addition, over the last four years, the city funded the acquisition of 15 existing residential properties, shown here, with over 500 homes that will be made permanently affordable through the small sites, Homekey, and other programs. As we cover affordable housing production and preservation, we wanted to step back and cover some key principles about how 100% affordable housing is delivered. Often it takes five to seven years to develop a site from securing the site to building completion, and often longer in many cases. Securing funding and financing can take significant time, particularly for competitive state and federal funding. Per unit development costs have averaged above $900,000. It can be lower for smaller buildings with smaller units, such as supportive housing, or buildings that are using lower construction cost approaches. Sites that can accommodate at least 75 units per building are desired because of operational and financing efficiencies. And land is approximately 10% of total project costs. Construction costs are typically greater than 60% of total project costs. And soft costs such as architecture, engineering, financing costs are approximately 25%. So looking at how affordable housing is financed, on the circular graph on the left-hand side, we see a kind of basic breakdown of how our 100% affordable buildings are funded. As Sheila mentioned, there's a mix of federal, state, and local funding. And federal and state make up about 2 thirds of the project funding costs, with local funding providing about 1 third. It should be noted that local funding often helps leverage competitive state and federal funds. The biggest federal source and probably largest single source of affordable housing funding is the low-income housing tax credit program. Looking at the graph in blue, this is showing where our local funding is coming from, primarily looking at the six years from 2018 through 2023. The general obligation bonds, or GO bonds, have been the largest single funding source. In addition, general fund sources like the Housing Trust Fund and one-time ERAF allocations have been the next largest source. It's important to note that property taxes are the biggest funding source for these affordable housing funding tools, including the GO bonds, and they're the largest funding source for the general fund. Local development fees have in the past been a significant source of affordable housing funding, but as development has declined, so have fees. Declines in development also reduce property tax revenue. To support implementation of the city's affordable housing goals, the Planning Department and MOCD, along with other agencies, have worked with private and nonprofit and community partners on a few recent efforts. In 2024, we released the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Leadership Council made up of leaders in the affordable housing field. These recommendations fell into three broad categories, and we presented to you all at that time in 2024. So broadly, pursuing federal, state, and regional help with funding and financing and other tools for affordable housing, expanding San Francisco's local capacity and coordination to produce and preserve affordable housing, and continuing to innovate with diverse partners in the nonprofit, philanthropic, and private sectors. We've seen some progress and challenges across these three categories. At the federal level, of course, we've seen extraordinary volatility and uncertainty for programs to help people in need, including for affordable housing. There have been a few bright spots, however, such as changes in federal law to increase availability of low income housing tax credits and tax exempt bonds. Regionally, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority funding measure proposal did not move forward in 2024, as many of us know, and state budget setbacks have limited state funding for affordable housing. However, a state affordable housing bond seems to be moving forward in 2026, and BAFA is considering future funding measures in 2028. In addition, the state is working to integrate state housing funding and finance agencies, which could make processes for applying for funding and financing more efficient and faster. Locally, San Francisco passed another affordable housing GO bond in 2024, and MOCD has increased coordination with the Housing Authority, which was one of the recommendations in the Leadership Council report. The city continues to work with the Housing Accelerator Fund and other partners, and we've also seen private mixed-income developers begin to produce 100% affordable housing using public funding and financing programs, for example, the Sophie Maxwell Building at Potrero Power Station. So lastly, we wanted to also return to the affordable housing sites analysis and strategies, which was completed late last year. And we presented initial findings at the commission in July. Recommended strategies from the work include the following. Using best practices for pipeline management, including aligning new site acquisitions with overall funding availability, meaning that expanded funding would enable the city to strategically acquire additional sites to join the existing pipeline over time. The city will also need to support site acquisition for affordable housing in higher resource areas, again, accompanying the recently adopted family zoning plan to meet fair housing goals while continuing to invest in our equity communities where needs for affordable housing remain acute. Public land can continue to be an important resource for affordable housing in balance with the operational and financial needs of public agencies. And religious and nonprofit landowners also have significant potential sites, but they need technical assistance and capacity building to unlock those sites. The city can also expand the tools it uses to make market acquisitions, including transfer tax incentives, options to purchase, and partnerships with nonprofit and other organizations to allow for nimble acquisitions. And with that, I'll hand it back to Lisa to talk more about next steps.

Thank you, James. To close the presentation, we just wanted to highlight several ongoing and emerging efforts to address our housing shortage and expand resources for affordable housing. First, we do want to emphasize that there are many active conversations happening among policymakers on different funding strategies. As Sheila noted, there are additional ideas that are still under discussion and not on the slide yet. The goal is to identify additional funding to meet our needs while ensuring we do not hamper or prevent housing development. So these current discussions include ideas like potential adjustments to our inclusionary housing requirements, new financing tools such as enhanced infrastructure financing districts or EIFDs, and exploration of social housing and other models of delivering affordable housing. Simultaneously, other cost-reducing strategies such as Permit SF and the BUILD Act aim to make housing development more feasible. Already, the changes under Permit SF have reduced permit processing times by 20% and created greater certainty for projects. Sorry, I know the timer went off. Could I have just another minute to continue? Yes, absolutely. We're just about at the end. Looking forward, the department and other partners are advancing several other initiatives to encourage housing development and affordability. We're starting work to encourage small and medium-sized infill development, including pre-approved plan sets, as well as processes to allow single-stair buildings in San Francisco. Collectively, these types of actions can enable housing development in more locations throughout the city, including housing types that may be more affordable by design. We're also continuing to identify potential sites for housing, including working with SFMTA to analyze potential sites for affordable and mixed income housing, and updating the affordable housing sites analysis that James already mentioned to reflect the recent rezoning. Separately, the BLA is analyzing other public sites that could potentially support housing. Finally, as Sheila noted, there are numerous hearings at the board that will be discussing housing in relation to the city's budget. In April, three hearings will examine how budget constraints may affect housing and other services. Then in early June, there will be a hearing and report released by the BLA on different affordable housing funding strategies. And June will also include the board's regularly scheduled budget hearings, including review of MOCD's department budget. As discussed today, while we are making progress, particularly in affordable housing, we remain behind our RENA goals overall, and many funding challenges remain. The city is actively evaluating a range of policy and funding strategies to help close the gap, and we will continue to report back as that work advances. This concludes our presentation, and staff and our agency partners are here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. With that we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward.

Good afternoon, Georgia. I sent you a letter on the 12th. And after I sent that letter, then I saw those two $8 million homes in my neighborhood. And I kind of freaked out, because $8 million, one's 8.1, one's 8.6. And I thought, that has a huge impact on the rest of the housing, not only in my neighborhood, but on adjacent neighborhoods. So I made a little packet. first of this article about the workforce housing that Choo Choo did back in 2021, and it really talks about the policies that the city does that allow speculative development. And I think that's something that needs to be looked at. Maybe it's not practical or what people want to hear, but I think that's something that needs to be looked at, whether it's with flats or anything else like that. Then I looked at, and I'll submit this, several multi-unit buildings that have sold since January. It totals about 33 units. And like this one in particular slayed me. It says five of the six units are rented to master tenant who oversees subleasing. What is that? What happened? How can you do that? Another one, it rinsed out rooms within it. I mean, this is on Shotwell. Another one is a nine-unit building that's sold. And these are all pre-'79, so they're all rent control. This one said they had a lot of renovations in recent years. So were those renovictions? What happened to the tenants there? That's a nine-unit building on Cesar Chavez just sold. And they all sold for multi-millions of dollars. So here's one where it says one unit's delivered vacant. It's a... How many units is this? Six. Six one-bedroom units for $4 million, just sold on March 6th. Here's another one sold on March 27th. One unit's vacant, so the new owner can achieve market rents upon acquisition. The remaining three provide stable... in place cash flow. Are the tenants going to stay there? I don't know. I mean, these are things, these are buildings, all of them, that I looked at because in my letter I said I thought that the best thing that I learned from the staff's report was that there needs to be an expansion of the small sites program. That's the best way to keep tenants renters in the housing. And that's the finding in Section 317A. And I think that that's something that we all need to live with. San Francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing, high ratio of rental to ownership tenure, The general plan recognizes that existing housing is the greatest stock of rental and financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of protection. And that should be everybody's mantra. So I'll submit this. Here's one that's two legal units and they're selling it as a single family home. So again, going back to the flats, you can look at that. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is . Living in San Francisco as a student at San Francisco State University is honestly really challenging because of how expensive the city is. When people think about going to the school in San Francisco, they imagine this ideal lifestyle like living in the city, studying in a cafe. But the reality is very different once you actually look at the housing prices. Rent is the biggest problem. I have had classmates who really want to live in San Francisco at first. They will look at apartments near campus, but even the cheapest option were way out of their budget. Even a small studio apartment can cost like $2,500 a month, which is unrealistic for most students. Even shared housing isn't that affordable. you might be paying $1,200 or more just to share a room. So for lots of students, including myself in this story, living in San Francisco just isn't financially possible. Because of that, a lot of my classmates end up living in East Bay instead. It was still expensive, but more manageable. The downside was the commute. They would take bus into San Francisco every day, which could take 30 to 45 minutes, and then sometimes another bus or unit ride to get to campus. I remember when classmates talk about how their whole schedule revolved around transportation. They have to leave early in the morning to make it to class on time. At the same time, they were There were other students who live in San Francisco and have completely different experiences. They would walk home and didn't have to worry about commuting. So even though everyone is going to the same school, the cost of living in San Francisco really creates different experiences for students. For a lot of them, living in the East Bay isn't just a preference. It's something they have to do because they simply can afford to live in the cities. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Teresa Dulalas with SOMCAT. We're here to talk about San Francisco's obligation under the housing element to meet its affordable housing goals, not comparisons, not narratives. This is about delivery, and we are not seeing it at the scale required. The city is not an observer in this process. It is the lead responsible authority for delivering housing production targets. This is what it looks like from where we stand. Slow down the delivery of affordable housing while advancing deregulation that primarily benefits market rate development? What concerns us even more is that what is being presented publicly creates a facade of progress. And yes, that may make the mayor's office look good on paper, but it does not translate into real affordability or protection for the communities most impacted. And the truth is, most of the public does not see what is happening underneath these processes. They do not see the level of community organizing, follow-up, and constant pressure it takes just to keep these issues from being ignored. They do not see that we are here consistently fighting to ensure this city does not move forward in ways that harm the very communities it claims to serve. Right now, what we're experiencing feels like delay, deflection, and a pattern of shifting responsibility that slows urgency instead of addressing the crisis. We're standing here repeating the same concerns while the system continues to move at a pace that does not match the urgency of the housing crisis. If the city is serious about its housing element goals, then we should already see real production, not just reports, not just recommendations, but actually housing delivered that meets our affordable housing goals. What is missing is proof, proof of implementation, proof of scale, proof that these actions actually meet the housing element mandates to build and fund affordable housing. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Zachary Friel. I'm a D5 resident, and I work with SOMCAN. So I've already shared my story of when I lost my housing last year. I'm a low-income tenant who barely makes 30% AMI. Because of my low income, most landlords wouldn't even consider my application. Last year, I applied on Dahlia to live at the affordable housing development at 730 Stanion. I didn't get in because over 8,600 people apply for just 95 units. These numbers alone clearly illustrate the need to intentionally build more affordable housing in the city. I was able to find housing, but I currently pay around 60% of my income on rent. The city needs an actual affordable housing production plan. As required by Housing Element Action 8.1.10, SF must raise significant new sources of local funding, advocate for new funding from the state, and commit to a land banking strategy. However, the actions that the city is currently taking are not just counterproductive towards reaching our affordable housing goals, but actively harmful to low-income and no-income people in the city. Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmoud's legislation to repeal the Prop I transfer tax will, according to the controller, cause us to lose at least $390 million over four years. The tax just recommended to reduce inclusionary housing requirements from 15% to just 5%. And on top of all that, four permanent supportive housing sites will be decommissioned, and more than 450 shelter beds are being eliminated. I would like to ask you, what is the plan for housing low-income and no-income people in the city? Because right now, it doesn't seem like there is a plan. There is no comprehensive plan for funding site acquisition and construction. There is no comprehensive plan for land banking publicly owned sites. There is no comprehensive plan to preserve existing naturally occurring affordable housing. There only seems to be a plan for continued displacement. Thank you.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Priya, and I live in D9. And I'm an organizer and multimedia producer at People Power Media and the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. We're all here for the same reason, to address the very acute and felt housing affordability crisis that threatens how low-income communities of color and working people can live and build in this city. Last year, People Power Media published a report called Who Is San Francisco Building For?, which we worked on for over three years. And the report pieces together an answer to this question by analyzing housing production during the last housing element cycle from 2015 to 2022. We use the planning department's own housing production data and data from market aggregators such as Zillow and the U.S. Census to paint the most complete and accurate picture of who San Francisco is actually building housing for. One of the report's key findings shows that the city is overbuilding housing that most San Franciscans cannot afford. Not only did the city build only half of what was needed for affordable housing and double the number of market rate housing, but the city also overreported its numbers for affordable housing. Planning erroneously calls ADUs affordable despite the fact that ADUs are not price restricted. another key finding reveals that low-income communities of color especially minimum wage workers and essential workers cannot afford new market rate housing the report details the cost gaps in each neighborhood the gap between what a household can afford compared to the cost of new housing and some of the most alarming cost gaps exist in neighborhoods such as the tenderloin and chinatown with a cost gap of 38 000 and 32 000 respectively which means that residents are needing to spend more than their entire income to pay for rent in an apartment. This is a very clear result of the last housing element cycle. We are extremely behind on our affordable housing production. Therefore, it's imperative that we take a different approach to affordable housing in this new housing element cycle. Instead of continuing to rely on a scarce few BMR units from market rate developers, and some incremental increase in property taxes from new market rate development, there needs to be a real commitment to new funding from both the city and state, as described in Housing Element Action 8.1.10, to truly address the affordability crisis. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Reina Tello. I'm a community organizer with Poder. Poder is a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, as well as the People's Budget Coalition. Today's presentation shows off land banking as a strategy. However, Not only is this an effective strategy in many areas of the country, including Los Angeles, but it's also a proven success story here in San Francisco. The 5M project dedicated a site on Mission Street for affordable senior housing. And while it was waiting for development, the Soma Filipinas Cultural District put it into productive use as the Capo Gardens, a space for community to gather and for cultural expression. How land banking can improve communities and opportunities has been proven here in San Francisco. Additionally, it's important to note that the housing element actions are required to be fulfilled. They are not rendered optional because planning staff lack vision of how to implement them. I would like to invite you to the family affordability hearing next week on the 22nd in front of the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee, where we will be having this very important discussion. I hope to see all of you there, and I look forward to being able to have conversation with you there. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sharon Ng, and I'm from Chinatown CDC, a community-based organization that develops and manages affordable housing, provides tenant counseling, et cetera. The production of inclusionary housing may have slowed down due to reduced market rate development, but inclusionary alone still would not meet our low-income RENA numbers. By this logic and reliance on market rate production, affordable units will always trail behind. The intentional production of 100% affordable housing brings us significantly closer to meeting our RENA goals for the low-income category, and when done with community, helps residents stay in place. Evictions are up, with evictions for nonpayment being a primary cause. And even outside of the quantitative data, I'm sure all of us can see the rising cost of living. It's the most marginalized communities, however, that are most immediately affected. Not meeting our low-income arena goals specifically directly impacts the ability or inability for some of our neighbors to remain in the city. It's disturbing to me that while we sit or stand here debating how to best incentivize the production of housing, there are people literally being pushed out of the city as we speak. Planning has conducted its parcel suitability analysis and the packet lists various bills that streamline the approval for affordable housing projects, but until we tap into the over 1,200 suitable sites and get serious about acquiring them for development and funding construction, the lived reality of low-income and working-class people being priced out doesn't change just by doing these reports. The department and the city have argued that land banking is costly, but there are far more costly items the city spends its money on that are much less essential, in my personal opinion. If planning is serious about moving forward these suitable parcels, you would work with communities to determine priority sites and a strategy for land banking them with MOCD. You say that your analysis didn't, quote, assess the specific availability of any particular site or the desire of owners to sell, end quote. But in some cases, this is information that community members have or can easily find out. Maybe it's not within planning's purview to do the site acquisition itself. But something that the department could do is identify and refine the 1,200 sites with community members. As projects hopefully move out of the pipeline, the department would already have other sites queued up. Thank you.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners. My name is Daniel Cruz on behalf of the Mission Economic Development Agency. We thank the commissioners, supervisors, and staff for this hearing on affordable housing progress. The numbers are clear. We are falling short on our arena affordable housing goals, and the need among low and moderate income residents is urgent. we need new funding sources and bigger picture strategies we have to work on this together immediately furthermore we must begin land banking as it will soon be required by the housing element affordable housing circuit breaker for low-income communities facing strong displacement pressures on their central transit corridors land banking remains one of the most effective strategies to ensure the remaining transit corridor sites will be used for housing for low-income residents who rely on it the most And the need in our community remains acute. Since 2000, the mission has lost over 12,000 Latinos from a single neighborhood, along with countless essential workers who power our local cultural economies. And while the mission has made significant progress on our affordable housing production more recently, like so many of our nonprofit developers ready to go, projects sit idle, unable to move forward without local funding as part of the overall funding picture. Meadow alone has more than 300 units of affordable homes ready to be built and paused due to a lack of funding. In closing, we would reiterate our hope that the city will convene a working group to collaboratively strategize with us on big picture affordable housing funding solutions to address this need. Thank you.

Hello, commissioners. David Wu with Soma Pilipinas, the Filipino Cultural Heritage District. Thank you for holding this hearing on affordable housing progress. And Soma Pilipinas fully supports the building of 100% affordable housing in the south of market, as well as acquisition and rehab of existing housing through the city's small sites program. And we also support and advocate for family-sized units. The city has not reached and achieved its three-year housing element goal of producing required affordable housing and must take actions to remedy this per housing element action 8.1.10. Having just passed a citywide market rate of zoning that was said to be the result of pressure from the housing element mandates, we must see an equal effort to address affordable housing. While the city has a stated objective of funding and building affordable housing, it directly works against those goals by pursuing legislation that undermines that objective. The city directly contradicts that goal when there are funds from the Prop I transfer tax that are not actually spent on affordable housing and there are active efforts to repeal that tax. Similarly, reducing the inclusionary housing rate, which clearly did nothing to spur new market rate housing development, works directly against the goals of providing new affordable housing. And we see now proposals to reduce even further the inclusionary housing rate, showing how the city is prioritizing the development of market rate housing over affordable housing. If the city truly has a commitment to the building of affordable housing and to small sites acquisition, then steps must be taken to aggressively seek new sources of funding to achieve this. We must locally require that the tremendous wealth that is within the city and continues to flow here be taxed to provide increased funding for affordable housing. We must also demand from the state increased funding to meet the RHNA goals that they have shaped and set for us. To achieve our affordable housing goals, we also have to land bank. While the memo stated that land banking can incur substantial costs, this fails to take into account that both waiting to buy the property incurs substantial costs and increased land value, and that land banking itself is a community investment that supports existing residents and the neighborhood. As shown by 967 Mission Street and the success of Kapo Gardens, land banking and community use of a site before development begins is a tremendous benefit to the community where the new affordable housing will be developed, and that is well worth investing in, and we should remember that. Thank you.

Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you commissioners.

Commissioner Imperial. Thank you. Thank you staff and also public for coming and also presenting what we have received from Supervisor Chan's office in terms of the follow-up on the housing element goal. I ACTUALLY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TWO WEEKS HEARINGS, I ENDED UP READING MANY OF THE LINKS IN THE MEMO THAT THE PLANNING HAS PRESENTED AND ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES THAT WAS DONE, COMPLETED BACK IN DECEMBER 2025. ACTUALLY, AGAIN, FOR THE COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE MAYOR TO READ THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I mean, the hearing for this, and although this is informational, and again, thank you for MOCD for coming down here as well, because with the Affordable Housing Leadership Council report that was done back in 2024, and many of those recommendations are, even though it was two years ago, but the politics, especially in the federal level, has shifted. And so I guess my question to MOCD as of now, how do you, or what will be, because I know it's a partnership together with other affordable housing folks and other groups as well. Is there still going to be, in a way, follow up or for them to be invited back and to reassess about that report. Hi.

Sheila Nikolopoulos with MOCD. Are you asking about a reconvening of the Affordable Housing Leadership Council? Yes.

I don't think we've discussed it, right? A reconvening of the council?

It's not something we've discussed. I mean, I think we still have so many of those recommendations in the report are active. And we're working on them. And so we haven't, it was really intended to be, when we conceived it, this like convening to pull together recommendations. And I think those recommendations are still active and live.

Okay. And so part of the Supervisor Chan's letter was to identify or to identify for land banking strategy. And in the Affordable Housing Leadership Council recommendations, it doesn't seem that it identified a land banking strategy. So that's why I'm wondering, will there be some form of reconvention in response to this letter and also to the housing element goals that we've been talking about in finding funding streams and also the land banking strategies and also the advocacy for state funding as well?

So I heard a question about land banking and funding streams and state advocacy. So starting with land banking, I think the report that you mentioned, the site's analysis, was really our effort to take an in-depth look at what land banking, how it helps and how it doesn't. And I think the conclusion that we came to in that report is that we want to bring properties into the pipeline proportionally as we are moving properties through the pipeline. So we don't want to overinvest in land banking so that we have a glut of empty properties that we then have to manage and take care of. So to have like a bloat at the beginning point, the entry point of the pipeline, we want to be able to feed everything through the pipeline in a fairly steady manner. So that may address part of your questions about land banking. So land banking, it happens through various ways. The project that some of the commenters mentioned, the 167 mission, which was senior housing, was a land dedication project from a market rate developer. So there are opportunities to bring properties in via sources like that. And then your second question was about funding, correct? I mean, funding is really our greatest challenge. And funding is the trigger that helps us move things through the pipeline. So if we can increase funding, then we can sort of increase the speed at which everything is moving through our affordable housing pipeline. Funding right now is extremely challenging. It is more competitive for the state. There actually were some positive shifts at the federal level that may help us access some additional tax credits. And simultaneously, there was a program that was called Faircloth to Rad that we were optimistic could be used to help support some affordable housing. But because of shifts under this federal administration, that program is no longer accessible to us, at least right now.

Do you anticipate the change of, because from the report, it looks like about 40% is coming from the federal. Do you anticipate that because of where we're at right now, that the formulas for local funding and state funding will change as well? And if that, how would that look like?

Yeah. It's a great question. And of course, we all know we're facing uncertainty every day. We haven't seen significant shifts in either the HUD formula funds. Those are codified. And the tax credit program has remained fairly stable. And those are our two sources of federal funds. So for right now, those look OK. And then locally, we've We've relied heavily, as the presentation says, a lot of our local funds is coming from our general obligation bonds, which we've been incredibly fortunate to have voter support for over the years. But it's not consistent and stable. We have to go through these tranches, and it's always a balancing act with other city needs around bond funding.

Um, another question that I have is actually around the, um, sorry. Oh, actually it's not a question, but it's more like a comment, um, around, you know, the public has commented about the LA, how they're doing, um, also the scaling of their land banking system there. Um, also in Seattle. Also, actually, there is a movement in terms of going away from the federal funding in general just because it becomes more unpredictable at this time and very competitive. So it seems like other cities have been doing this kind of movement to really, for the local, to have more robust strategies on local funding or also anticipating perhaps also in the state funding. Has MoCity as well looked into what kind of advocacy has been happening in the state level for funding?

So one thing I want to highlight on that, your mentioning of Seattle and Los Angeles, is that MOHCD participates in the High Cost City Housing Forum, which is a group of housing professionals from Seattle, LA, Denver, Chicago, Boston, New York, Miami. And we convene every month online, and then we convene about once a year in person as well. And so that has really helped us stay connected to this unique set of challenges that other large cities are facing. So that's a great professional resource that we've plugged into so that we can keep tabs on what other people are doing and share expertise. And then your other question was about sort of state funding. I mean, we are actively working with the mayor's office and our lobbyists in California every year to advocate for funding. We do hope that there's going to be a state housing bond on the fall ballot, which, with any luck, will help generate funding for the state overall and help set aside funding for it.

Thank you. Thank you. Those are my questions to Moe Sidi.

I think for- Commissioner Hariel, before we go on, I just wanted to add on the land banking question in addition to what Ms. Nikolopoulos shared. I think what's important, and I think illustrated on slide 10, is that while we can say potato, potato, do we or not have a land banking strategy or not, we have a lot of land. We have 12,000 units worth of housing that are in our pipeline and pre-development. So whether we are intentionally or de facto land banking, we have a lot of land waiting for funding to build the housing. is trying to say is, as we have so much that's waiting, we want to move that through. So there's a question, should the city acquire more and more sites when we don't have funding to build the housing on the sites we have? Because buying the sites and holding them does also have a cost. Right? There's an opportunity cost of money to maintain that site in use instead of going into the production of housing on a current site. So there's certainly policy decisions to weigh. But we do have a lot of land that is banked and waiting for funding. I think that's an important point for us to note. And to your point about all the funding questions, when we get more money and have more funding and have more stable funding, then we can move more housing through that pipeline more quickly.

Thank you, Ms. Tanner, for that explanation. I mean, the land banking strategy can go in so many conversations, like the expansion of the small size program as well can also be part of the land banking strategy. But I think what the public is commenting about is What are, aside from the finance, but how are also implementing that in the programs? I mean, MOCD, the Affordable Housing Leadership Council, you know, when it was reported back in 2024, you know, that MOCD will be like a revolving public loan. And that was like a great announcement. And I hope it still continues to be that way. And so I think it's like, from what I'm hearing from other community members, also affordable housing, it's like how it connects to the programs and how it can be scaled more. I think those are the questions. One thing that I appreciated in this report is the social housing study by LAFCO that is going to be forthcoming. I think for the city, we need to be bold really at this point. And again, Seattle is leading now on that conversation. And so they are identifying strategies, funding strategies to fund for their social housing, creating a social housing developer as well. And so I think it's that kind of like, for me, it's like the robust type kind of strategy and that people are waiting for. And I just want to comment on recent news that I've been hearing lately, especially on the upcoming inclusionary housing tax. And that's one thing that I'm just going to be, that in the news that it's going to be reduced to 5%. And that also questions me about what that means for off-site fees, what does that mean for land dedication, inclusionary housing options. We have like four options on that. And to reduce those is still concerning. I mean, we're trying to find for more local funding strategies. So anyway, so that's also my comment on that. Also, again, the transfer tax that is in debate right now. Again, I think, I mean, there is, you know, we, in my other work, I've seen the impact of Prop I in terms of the, for the small size and also for the rental assistance. And it's actually continued to grow. I think last week there was a report that it still continues to grow. And so to repeal the Prop I is still a concerning thing. But I look forward for upcoming more hearings, conversation, but I think people are really eager to see the outcome in the next in the next two years. And so as, you know, for the planning department, I know we care more about the zoning and land use, not necessarily on the funding part, but again, under the planning, the inclusion of housing is something that I care about, and also in terms of the, and how we connect to those most city programs. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioner Imperial, for those very thoughtful comments. I want to thank planning staff for putting this together. James Pappas, thank you. And the mayor's office for being here. Also for Director Phillips for convening this informational. Thank you. I know there's a lot to talk about around affordable housing. You guys have touched on a lot of it. And I bet you're happy enough to have to talk about the upzonings. I see you over there. I also want to thank the community organizations that have come out here. In my experience, these community organizations around the city that have been the sole advocate, not the sole, but have been the heartbeat of affordable housing production, they have pushed city government. And they have pushed for legislation and these bonds. And we owe them a debt of gratitude. These organizations that are made up of everyday working people from the Mission District to South of Market to Chinatown to the Bayview, all these low-income residents that feel the brunt of the affordability crisis, they're the ones pushing for something better. And so I want to just publicly thank them and to keep pushing. Because what we're doing now isn't working. It's working. It's like the faucet. It's a slow drip. And I don't want to put down anybody that's doing the hard work. the mayor's office and planning and everyone else. But it's failing a lot of people. And we can all see it. We all know the data. And I don't want to go over everything. But what's concerning to me is the lack of urgency that I see around affordable housing, around the not only some of the issues that were brought up, but the lack of urgency around getting funding, about advocating for new streams of funding, new ideas that are needed. What we have now, it's trickling in. And yes, it's making a difference. These other ideas that are being presented, and I'll go into them more. are really great. But the bottom line is we need to really change the conversation around how we're going to get money for all these great ideas around affordable housing. That's what's going to make our city affordable. That's what's going to help our everyday residents. That's what's going to help our seniors, is to really dedicate you know, dedicate time and passion and everything else around funding affordable housing. I've seen the planning department and a lot of other agencies, you know, around the streamlining. People put a lot of energy into that, that effort. And I would like to see that same amount of effort go in to the affordable housing production and acquisition of small sites and everything else. I know that kind of leadership has to start at the top. But we all have a voice in our different professional places, the planning department, the mayor's office. Every one of us has a voice and can advocate for the urgency of this issue that's been many, many years in the making. And so I just had to get that off my chest. Thank you. Some of the issues that the community brought up, I think, are really valid. And that's the land acquisition issue. Yes, we know we shouldn't. over by raw land. But at the same time, land right now is cheaper than it's been in a long time. And so I think we could reevaluate some of those things. And the other thing is a small site acquisition that stands out to me as something that we could do with relatively limited funding. And that's purchasing existing buildings that come onto the market that are rent controlled. I mean, we could really save some buildings that way, some tenants that way. We could secure housing that way. And it's being done right now, but it's like we need to pursue that more robustly. I know that there's There's a building that I see every morning on my way to work that's empty. It's right on Mission Street. It's a multi-unit building. And there are some around. I don't know how you identify some of those opportunities from the mayor's office, because sure,

It sounds like your question is about how we identify and acquire, how the small sites program. So I'll give you a very brief overview of it. So we have local legislation called COPA, which is Community Opportunity Purchase Act. So when a multi-unit building goes for sale, there's certain qualified nonprofit organizations that receive the notice of that building being for sale. So if One of those organizations, which includes names you'll know, CCDC, TNDC, META, if they are interested in acquisition, they can come with a proposal to MOHCD, and half is often usually involved as well, our local fund, because they can help move projects forward faster. And then we do an assessment of what is the current mix of residents that are in the building, how many units, what is the state. Sometimes these buildings have been neglected for many years, and so they need quite a bit of capital improvements. If they do, what would be the cost of having to relocate all the tenants while we do that? And then if it's a valid project, it moves forward. On your question about the funding of it, so we use 100% affordable funding for our small site acquisitions. The per unit cost is cheaper than producing a new unit, right? Like if it costs us $900 to $1 million to produce a new unit, maybe, depending on the state of the building, we can buy a unit for about $500. But the catch is that we have to use $500 of local funds for a site acquisition rather than more like less than $300 of local funds when we produce a new unit. So it's a little bit of difference just in, like, in local funds, it's more expensive. In overall cost per unit, it is less expensive. So right now we did have, there was a tranche of funding for small sites, acquisitions, preservation projects that was included in the last bond. Those have all been allocated. There are other site acquisition funds that come through for permanent supportive housing, like the home key funding from the state is used for that as well. So we are still actively pursuing those kinds of acquisitions where they are possible, which is sometimes determined by the source of money.

Right, right. I appreciate that. I appreciate you explaining that. Again, we have all these great ways to purchase property and to finance them. The thing is, we don't have the money. We have a very limited supply. And I guess for me, the heart of this matter around affordable housing and about site acquisition and land acquisition is we really need to work on how we're getting this money. I think there's been a lot of talk about how market rate housing is all we have to do is build tons of market rate housing, and somehow that's going to be the solution to affordability. I happen not to believe that. I happen to believe we need to do that, but we need to do everything. And we need to weave as a city. And I'm going to stop in a minute. But this just needs to be said. And that's why I'm saying it. But we need to put as much energy as we did into our market rate housing and flip that into affordable housing now. We've streamlined the city. We've changed a lot of impact fees and stuff like that that have given developers. We have all these state laws that are really market developer driven. Now it's time to turn around and use that same energy. Lawmakers, hopefully someone will catch fire and start to work on legislation. But this is urgent. This isn't something that we can kick the can down. Things are not getting better. And as a matter of fact, they're probably going to get a lot worse before they get better. And so we need to really explore new ways and new ideas that have worked in other places, like what's been said. in other countries even, that have dealt with this. This isn't a new issue. They figured it out in places like Barcelona and in other countries, Singapore. They figured it out. And it's time for us to try to figure some of that out as well. And so I want to thank all the work that you guys do. that I don't want to be putting anyone as the bad guy. There's no bad guys here. Everyone's trying to work for the same goal. I think that my message today, if anything, nothing else, is that we need to explore new ideas. We need the urgency around funding affordable housing has to meet. the crisis. I haven't seen that. And that's a big source of my frustration today. It's a big source of my frustration being on this commission as a commissioner. It's been a big source of frustration before I got on the commission because I understand that we're not meeting the challenge. And those who are Our suffering impacts are the most vulnerable of our society. That's not right. Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I also want to share my thanks to staff for putting together the presentation and everyone who has turned out and to advocate for the importance of continuing to stay focused on affordable housing funding and production. I have a few thoughts, but I just want to start with one question, though, which is I just want to verify something. You know, we talk a lot about the unit production for the deed-restricted affordable units. I just want to verify one thing. I mean, are we losing much in the way of deed-restricted affordable housing to expiring restrictions now? So, okay. Does there happen to be a, so forgive my ignorance on this, is there a place to track the overall inventory of existing affordable housing units, just in terms of numbers by affordability level?

I am so glad you asked, because we have a beautiful dashboard on our MOHCD website. So if you just Google MOHCD dashboard, we have a robust data there. So it's our full portfolio plus everything that's in the pipeline. And you can sort by project type. You can sort by district. You can sort by when it was constructed as well.

Okay, thank you. That's great to hear. I'm going to dive into it because, you know, being on Planning Commission, we so often deal with those.

Sorry, Commissioner, can I just add one thing, which is that there are probably the highest risk of loss of affordability is in older HUD-funded properties where there may be expiring restrictions. I think MOCD today takes extreme care to put long-term affordability restrictions in place that might not have been in place decades ago. So there is a set that is not part of MOCD's portfolio, but there are state laws that require properties that are opting out of long-term affordability to, again, inform qualified entities. There's opportunities to purchase those sites. So there are safeguards in place to try to retain that affordability.

OK. But those units that might be a little bit more vulnerable, are they not tracked as part of our, because they're not San Francisco units, they're not tracked in that inventory of deed restrictions? Not necessarily.

So but we would be monitoring any of those explorations or plans for the owners of those developments to withdraw them from affordability, which could be nonprofits. They could be church groups. They could be a range of different ownership entities. So there would be mechanisms to track them if those things are planned.

Okay. That's good to hear. You know, whenever we talk about affordable housing production broadly in a forum like this, I think it's helpful to bring forward any information about units at risk in that same way, too. Just out of the thought that it's the net production that ultimately matters at the end of the day, and our total inventory clearly is going up. But still, it's something I'm sensitive to. So thanks for that answer. Besides that, I'll just try to keep it brief. I think what I keep hearing and I keep thinking about is the need for funding tools that are stable, they're continuous, and they draw from a broad base. We have all these mechanisms and funding mechanisms and tools that are so dependent on market conditions and activity. And they have their place. Inclusionary housing is obviously one of the biggest ones, affordable housing related fees. But we're always going to be just dependent on something that shifts from year to year, moment to moment. And so what I like that I'm seeing is the continued exploration for alternatives. And even the geobonds are great, but they have to keep going back to voters for new ones. So hearing the exploration of the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, that's really perked up my attention. I don't know what the details of that are going to end up being. But it could potentially be. To me a little bit of a game changer depending on its structure You know if it is structured so that the district itself is citywide or something along those lines the Requirements for bonds that can be issued against it don't need the same voter voter approval And so it just seems like a way that we could maybe move faster And draw from a broad base of funding for affordable housing so that that's really interesting and I'm curious to see exactly how it ends up being structured and And then on the social housing models, I've been kind of fascinated by those too, and I'm curious to see how this could play out, the idea of creating permanently publicly owned but mixed income housing developments that are sort of self-subsidizing. You know, those need seed funding, and Seattle's been raised, and Seattle did have to pass a new tax to fund the social housing model that they're now implementing. So I see there's a lot more to come, and I'm just going to be paying a lot of attention, and I think these tools, though, could be really promising, and so I am excited about those, at least. Thank you.

Commissioner Soh.

Well, I'm going to have to share with everyone. I think it's not secret. It's all over our industry. Public and private sector in real estate in general are really not looking good. So let's just start with this, with understanding what the reality we're talking about. There's no one really interested to buy anything, to build anything. That's a problem. And I am really grateful that Director Tanner mentioned that we actually have a really healthy pipeline that we had approved entitlement and even building permit that is just a bunch of paper permits that's sitting there for people like can you just, they're a shuffle ready, but no one is able to get their financing or willing to carry that kind of risk. So that's in general in all different types of housing situation we're in right now. But I think right now, I'm glad to see that at least the commercial rental side is picking up. That momentum, the sort of feel good moment about let's go San Francisco is really happening. I'm really happy to see that. And so when the rent increase, it trigger more people willing to invest in our commercial real estate, and then we can maybe fill back the tax income revenue that really is a major source of funding mechanism to MOCD and many other agencies that help to fund affordable housing. I really appreciate staff. What's your name again? LISA AND THE GENTLEMAN, JAMES, TO CREATE THIS STACK OF SLIDES. I'M GOING TO APPRECIATE SHEILA LATER. I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT WITH SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY LOOKING AT THE REGIONAL CONTEXT OF LOW INCOME ARENA ACROSS BAY AREA, WE'RE ACTUALLY ACHIEVING AT THAT 70% OF VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME PERCENTAGE ARENA. compared to all the other county where we actually don't even count the ADUs and all the other ones. So we're actually really strict in counting strictly this definition of what affordable housing development is, right? Instead of try to add other things to it, to lump it into the math. So I really appreciate that. We are not at like some other county is 29%. So it's 70%. So I think I have to give, EVERYONE WHO IS INVOLVED IN THIS EFFORT AND APPRECIATION, GOVERNMENT AND ALSO COMMUNITY ADVOCACY AND ALSO OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS. BUT I DO WANTED TO SAY THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE, I RECOGNIZE A LOT OF MY COMMISSIONERS SPENT AN EXTRAORDINARY TIME OF EMPHASIZING THEIR CONCERN. I REALLY HEAR IT AND I ALSO I'm thinking that I really need to thank Sheila in terms of sharing what MOCED has been working on. And we asked you to show up many times already. We know that your budget is down to like $3 million, which is I think even maybe less than now. And you actually also demystify the buzzword everybody is using about land banking. You explain eloquently enough about the fine details about it's not always that rosy, but it is a possibility. I'm glad that it's on public record, everybody hearing it. I do appreciate a lot of listing on the efforts that we are going forward with. These are really good solutions, but all these items, they are all kind of like, it takes like a whole universe to work, to make it work. I really like to see that expanding the opportunities for missing middle affordable housing types, I think that actually we have a higher chance to get that to work in terms of getting everything in the universe to work out for it. And there's an appetite for that. I like the idea of social housing study. Also the Bill Act. And absolutely, we need to look into more financial analysis of the SFMTA joint development sites. By doing that, I also think that we also need to help SFMTA to get out of their red zone. So I hope everyone study, read more literature, and help them out in this upcoming November. election ballot measures. And I, in general, just looking forward to see all the other public hearings that you have in this upcoming couple of months. I think you guys are doing the best you can. And I just really want to give you guys the courage and support and appreciation to continue to fight for for the people. Some of these are really tangible, and I hope that everybody in San Francisco can help come out to vote and help SFMTA. Okay.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd agree with everything. I'd like to thank staff and MOHCD, basically the dashboard. I'll be on that this evening. We have the time. We have the resources. There's definitely a plan here. We have expertise that's second to none. But what seems to be missing is a dedicated stream of funding. We have a mismatch of local, state, federal. And yes, you have to leverage one off the other. It would be phenomenal if that was just the standard and we didn't have to go, like, I've got three kids in public school. And knowing that the ERAF money is part of the second biggest funding source here from the general fund is terrible if you've got a kid in public school because you know that money was collected to go. Oh, if you could, make it a good one, because my heart's bleeding.

Yeah. Sorry, James, with planning staff. The ERAF funds, this was the excess. So ERAF is education, I'm blanking on the R, but essentially it's dedicated property taxes that go to school funding. And by state law, once a certain amount of funding is met, the funds then roll back. They're no longer school funds the excess rolls back to the county or the city So when we got those rolled back funds, they were not educational funds that were taken away from schools. They were excess Amount that exceeded the minimum set by the state those funds rolled back to the city the city could use them for anything in its budget and And the city chose to use them for housing and homelessness. It took nothing away from educational spending.

PETER SINGER- Totally understand. But if you had a kid in public school, they were collected for your kid in public school. And when they come back and they don't come back to public school, and public school is in the state it's in,

Yeah.

You know, if you're a parent, you look at it slightly differently.

Yeah, just to be clear, though, it was not a local decision to not fund a public school.

It just, anyway. The point I'm trying to make is we're robbing Peter to pay Paul here, and there's way too many fingers in the pot. If Seattle did specifically tax itself, to get a designated pot of money funding for housing. I think we have to do that. I think Bothell was going to do that last year, but it didn't. I think that was a bad mistake not to do it. I think it was the time to do it. I think the choice was made not to do it for whatever reason. Rob and Peter to pay Paul back this horse and not another one. But it should have been. It should be this year. And I think we definitely, definitely need a designated time. funding source for housing. Because when you've got 20 different pots, somebody else is looking at that pot, too. And we're back to robbing Peter to pay Paul. But phenomenal work. The plan is here. The people are here. The expertise are here. And the will is here. The community is here. But the money is not. So I think we have to look at that, because we have everything else covered. It's really that simple. And we just have to concentrate on it. That's my two cents.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for the report. And not totally surprising, but obviously very sobering to see how grossly behind we are on our arena goals. But it seems like almost every major city in California is also really behind on their arena goals. And as everyone's been talking about, funding streams and gaps is obviously the biggest challenge. And I have no doubt we're working tirelessly on that. So we have until 2031 to meet our goals, which feels really challenging when we look at these numbers. I guess I'd like to just kind of reverse the conversation quickly and just ask, is there anything we as a commission can be doing within our purview or anything we should be keeping in mind with things that come before us to help move things along in any way? And I'm putting that out there, and I know I'm kind of putting people on the spot, but if anyone wants to jump in with

Thank you, President Campbell, for the question. I mean, I think certainly this commission in this capacity, often we are bringing to you decisions on specific projects. Certainly policy items come before you that change the planning code. And so as those come forward, maybe with regards to city policy regarding affordable housing or other measures that might come here, You can use this information. And certainly, staff would be here to support the deliberations or briefing you ahead of time, try to understand how to think about legislative changes that might impact affordable housing and funds available for it. Certainly, some of those legislative policies would not come to this commission. And certainly as individuals, you may be engaged with other legislators or with constituencies that you work with to try to advocate for more funding. So certainly I don't think there can be too many people asking for more money for affordable housing. So anytime you can lend your voice to those efforts, whether it's locally or at the state or federal levels, certainly we would welcome you all to do that. And I think what I hear very clearly from the conversation with the public and from this dais is the dedicated stream for affordable housing and how can we not only have that, but make sure it is steady and increase it over time so that we can build the housing that we need and want to build in the city, not just that's in the pipeline now, but future projects that will be in the pipeline. So hopefully that helps a little bit, but happy to answer any follow-up questions.

In response to, I think, a very sensitive question that President Campbell is asking, And following up on what you were saying, I believe that this forum is actually the best forum for hearing everybody. I think it is the expertise of our city agencies. It is the hard work of the planning department. But most and foremost, it is the open forum for the public and those affected by non-affordability to speak in front of us and really speak about their life experience and what it takes for them to survive. And that was, I think, a very powerful part of what we heard today. We were reminded again not just about the theory of numbers of units missing, but how does it actually affect somebody in their day-to-day life. If you have to pay more than 50% of your limited income in order to have a roof over your head, I think that hits everybody hard. And I do think that that remains an effective forum for this commission to have meetings and updates and discussions with the community to where we are, what we are trying to do, you are trying to do, we are here to basically present to us but have the community speak about the reality of where the rubber hits the road. And I believe that, just as I have the microphone, that the work and the agencies behind this work is absolutely totally up to par. I'm deeply impressed. I'm deeply moved by the fact that There is no clear sources of money, and that hits us hard, each of us, irrespective of where we are in our own lives. Here as commissioners, we all feel the pain, and we all would like to move things. However, I personally believe I don't have any lever on convincing anybody other than how I vote and how we together develop the collective vote to speak about it and the need for funding to occur. Because if housing at the core falls apart for all of us, there is no win for anybody. Market rate housing will become unattractive in the city if we continue to not have supportive, affordable housing to basically create the complete city and the complete community we're trying to be. So thank you to everybody for amazing piece of work. And I would love at some point, perhaps for two minutes now, what is in the social housing study and who is LAFCO?

It's a group project to remember what the acronym is.

It's the Local Agency Formation Committee.

Formation Committee, I believe.

So it's not the name of a firm. No, no.

It's actually a local city body that is convened. I know. It's not one of the more known ones. So they had, I think there was a budget set aside a few years ago for them to contract with a consultant to do a study on social housing. And the BLA had produced a preliminary report on social housing feasibility maybe a year or two ago. So I haven't heard any updates from LAFCO. But I believe they had issued an RFQ to find a consultant to do the work. It was a couple hundred thousand dollars to do the study. And so they're probably in the process of reviewing and contracting. And then parallel to that, there was a state measure that required the HCD, the state HCD, to do a study of social housing frameworks. And the state has the HCD contracted with the Turner Center at Berkeley. And I believe that study is forthcoming sometime this summer as well. So there's movement in various areas around this conversation of what is social housing and what could it potentially look like.

Well, unfortunately, the word social has political connotations. Unfortunately, they have inherited themselves over decades, and that makes the discussion a little bit more difficult. But I hope that that can be reinterpreted and positively used as a way to look at new housing forms. I'd be interested to share with all of you a discussion about social housing in Switzerland, actually, Luzern, Switzerland, that focused on only a particular housing type. And I found it very interesting because the financing aspects which came into this kind of communal model of how to fund social housing would be something that I would definitely like to throw in the pot for all of you to perhaps use as at least food for thought. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice President Moore. Commissioner Williams.

I'll be brief. I ate up a lot of time here today. So thank you for, don't judge me too hard. But one of the things, and I just want to mention it because it came to my mind, but one of the things that I wish would happen would be organized labor play, and I'm talking about the building trades right now, that they would play more of a part in advocating for affordable housing. Because I know that they do, but most of the projects that I know about are 100% union labor. And I've noticed, I don't know why, but it doesn't seem like. So they've benefited greatly, the building trades, from affordable housing development. And so it would be. It would be great if a coalition of concerned citizenry and organizations in conjunction with the building trades, who actually benefit directly from construction of affordable housing, get together and really advocate, push, uh for new funding so i just wanted to make that comment thank you and thanks for all the other comments that were were here today i think uh there's been a lot of a great um commentary and uh so thank you for everyone who's involved thanks thank you commissioner uh commissioner mcgary

I can't speak for the trades, but I'll speak for the carpenters' union. They were all here at land use the other day. Basically, there are projects. One Oak, that's 100% union pension fund money that's going into that. The trades, the carpenters, do a phenomenal job of standing up here and advocating for projects to get built and build a union, because basically that money does go back into the economy The statisticians will tell you that every dollar that goes in on a union project, seven comes out. So to the local economy where it's being built, from the parking to the coffee shops to the lunch, the restaurants, basically when a union project is going on, that money is spent in the neighborhood. And it goes back. in a plethora of ways, to the locations where the individuals reside, because through health care for them, their families, a decent wage, they can actually pay a mortgage, hopefully, but unfortunately, or the gas, it took them two hours to drive in here and two hours back, or local higher requirements to try and get people from disadvantaged communities within the community. The project is being built, direct entry in a pipeline into, I can attest to that, because I sign off on every one of those as on my day job. But what we do do a terrible job is basically promoting what we do. We'll get the job done, but to stand up and say we put our money where our mouth was, we put our members' pension money back down or on the table to have this project built, and it's basically going to be 400 or 500 units, we do a terrible job. of explaining that to the community and obviously our own members too because it's happening every day and it's especially when times are hard because we do it to put ourselves to work because we are totally out of work and a tradesperson in this town or any other town if they've got a union card in their pocket the day they're not working is the day they're not getting paid And $550 a week on unemployment just doesn't cost it. They have to work. And they'll travel three hours in a different direction in order to try and do something, because the alternative is just not possible. It just doesn't work. So it's being done on a daily basis. But unfortunately, it's not being advertised. That would be the answer to that.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is no action required on this informational presentation, and we can move on to items 11A and B for case numbers 2025-000195, CUA and VAR for the property at 535 through 537 Jesse Street and 1026 through 1028 Mission Street. Commissioners, you will be considering the conditional use authorization while the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance.

Good. Good afternoon, commissioners, Joseph Sackey, planning department staff. The project before you proposes to convert an existing vacant approximately 34,000 square foot commercial building from ground floor retail and office above to self-storage use. The project includes associated interior tenant improvements on the basement, first mezzanine, and third floors with no exterior changes proposed. In order to proceed, the project requires a conditional use authorization to allow the establishment of a self-storage use in the C3 zoning district. The zoning administrator is also here today to consider a variance request from the active use requirements of the planning code, as self-storage uses are definitionally not an active use under the planning code. Subsequent to publication of the staff report, the department did receive one letter of opposition to the project, citing a desire for use that would contribute a greater degree of street activation. The department finds that the project to be on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the city's general plan and the downtown area plan. The project would provide convenient and accessible storage opportunities to neighborhood residents and businesses, while reactivating a commercial building that has remained vacant since the prior tenant vacated in May 2024. Therefore, department staff believes the project would be desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval with conditions. That concludes my presentation, but I'm available for questions. And then the project sponsor is also available to present.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Commissioners Frank Fung representing family friends who owned the property. Just a little bit of history. They operated a fund transfer and check cashing operation that serviced the Filipino community in that area. They were there for decades. They owned the building and As everyone knows, one can now download an app that allows you to transfer funds without having to pay a fee. The intent of the property owners was to try to rent it out. They had great difficulties. So they were looking for something that would allow them to generate some funds to be able to maintain the building, but that would also service what is now predominantly a residential area. As most of you know, that portion of Mission Street was predominantly a service district. It was not a commercial district in the sense that some of the elements of various qualitative requirements in the planning code, dealing with transparency, dealing with activity, dealing with vibrancy, which are all desirable, especially at a commercial district, doesn't necessarily apply to this particular zoning at this point in time. So we request that the commission and the zoning grant conditional use and that the zoning administrator grant the variance which applies to the activity zone. I'm here to answer the questions you may have.

Thank you. If that concludes Project Sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. Last call. Public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

One question about the project. So there is the lobby and lounge space that's included in the plans for Mission Street. And I think that... that's helpful to me because it's potentially, even if it's not technically in active use, it is at least a space that still could maintain some transparency and, you know, kind of read as a little bit more of a still retail-centric kind of appearance. But what exactly What types of things will be happening in that lobby space? I'm just curious, what's the intended use of a lobby lounge in the front of a self-storage building? Is there any vision for what will be going on there?

There are some vending machines there. I would assume some people would like to have a cup of coffee when they're dropping off or going through their storage islands. It's probably not a heavily intensive activity space, but it's meant to allow people to rest or gather or have a cup of coffee.

OK. What was the intent, I guess, of providing that space at the street? Was there any other thoughts that went into that plan? Was that something that, or I guess maybe my question is, did planning, the planning department kind of request that that space be provided, or was that something that, you know, the sponsor, you came forward with initially?

Yeah, staff has brought up a number of things, one of which was, is it possible to put a commercial space in that area? And I raised the issue that there are a lot of empty storefronts. on Mission Street, in fact, all over the city. And there is not a lot of foot traffic for this portion of Mission Street. We don't think that a commercial space is going to create any activity because it's not going to be used, it's not going to be rented.

OK, thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. My thought on this is, obviously, I've said this before, in kind of a dense urban context, it's not like I find a self-storage use to be an ideal use. But I also do see the challenges that are likely with renting out street front space. to a retail or restaurant tenant in this area. There are other vacant spaces that are still available on this block. Hopefully there will be an uptick in foot traffic here, or, well, customer traffic, I should say, here. But in the meantime, one of the other things that I'm less concerned about this project, that makes me less concerned, is the basic floor plan of the building stays the same. The bathrooms are retained. It really looks like this is largely putting in the storage lockers or facilities within the existing kind of shell of the building. It seemed like a reasonable use for the time being to me. I imagine if market conditions were to improve dramatically and suddenly there's a lot of demand for office space, there could be an opportunity to do a, it looks like this building would need pretty extensive tenant improvements either way, but do the tenant improvements, revert it back to office use in the future. I know that self-storage tends to stick around for a long time, which is why, again, not my favorite use. But I'm able to support this project. And so, yeah, I'm curious to hear other commissioner comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice President Moore.

I've thought long and hard about this project because self-storage is not the highest and best use. I think we all know that. Former Commissioner Fung sat here for many years with us, thinking about the same type of issues. And I know, I'm sure you've thought about it. I appreciated the fact that he put a little bit more meat on the description, that the family who owned this particular property used to be an integral part of the community. My question to you, Mr. Fung, is the following. Is there any possibility of adding to the lobby space that is visible anything that ties it back? No, I'm asking you. You're the only one who could answer that. Is there anything that the owner could do to still tie the ownership of this building to the community? That is a piece of visible art from Market Street. significant attention to the rear of the building that at this moment looks rather stressed, I would say, is maintained in a manner that it becomes still something that is owned by people who had a stake in this community. Because as you know, Justice Street and any of the less and less successful alley attempts we have made over the years requires stewardship and attention. And this particular property is very close to 6th Street, which is still a very, very big hotspot, unresolved, which creates the type of negative activity, including defacing building frontages, et cetera. Is there any possibility that that type of attitude could be brought to having storage in this building?

You're just going through thoughts as you bring up that idea. Would you consider a community message board to add to the activity?

I would appreciate any idea which makes it build or have a... I mean, we would consider that.

I think that would make sense. If it can generate foot traffic, people moving around there, that would be all to the better.

That would be something which planning would have to think through. As an idea, I really support it because I would like to see the community still caring for the building because they used it before. Even if cash checking is a very business-like thing, it's still part of you. I would like to see conversations in that direction to have the building, despite its change in use, remain part of the community? And then my next question would go to, actually, the zoning administrator, asking him, is a permission tied to the use if, for example, this building would move on to other ownership. Would the variance revert? Because in the long run, I believe that any location in inequity communities requires a more forward-looking look at higher and best use.

Sure. Thank you for that question, Commissioner Moore. The answer there is that the variance and the conditional use of the land use entitlements are going to run with the land regardless to owner. And because this is an authorization that is specific to a change of use, You know, it is specific to while it is operating as self-storage, if that's where it goes. If in the future, obviously they come, for example, let's say self-storage is approved, they operate for five years as self-storage and then whether it's new owners or not, they change the use of the building, then these issues would, you know, the variance in the conditional use authorization issues would be moot. But the actual authorizations themselves are going to run with the land regardless of the owner going forward.

But the use itself would determine what's required. That's what you're saying. Correct.

Everything that's being triggered here is because of the change of use, because of the self-storage use.

But if there would be a cafe facing Mission Street, that would require transparency no matter what.

Correct. The fenestration and transparency requirements and the active use requirements still happen. So if in the future, for example, if this moves forward as a self-storage facility, but then, you know, through some coordination and hopefully good luck, they decide to convert that front lounge area into, you know, a retail store or a small cafe, you know, a coffee shop or something, that would absolutely be more compliant with the code because that would be an active use.

I mean, I see the idea of discussion about a community board together with some whatever art hanging on the wall which helps the cultural aspects of the community would be definitely something I would ask that we consider that. Under those conditions, I would be supportive. If it is just a storage with nothing else, I have my concerns. So that's all I want to say. Thank you.

Thank you. You know, I kind of want to thank the applicant just for kind of the upfront honesty. I mean, this isn't a large-scale self-storage operation. Can you let, is there a tenant lined up or is this trying to get approved before there is any actual self-storage tenant?

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear that.

Is there a self-storage company that's already lined up to be a tenant here, or is this going to be self-operated, or you're going to find a tenant?

As I indicated to you previously, the property owner is not a developer. They ran local businesses, and they have not entered into a contract. They have talked to several companies that have manufactured the type of storage units that potentially may go in here.

Thank you. And that's just getting to the point that this proposal is not kind of like a, active choice in the sense that this is really where they wanted to go with the property this is being presented I think honestly it's like they have a property they can't really make good use of and they're you know they're trying to find something that can actually work it doesn't have to be forever but it's not going to be again like a large school just a layout of the building you can't get a lot of big vehicles in there it's it's not going to be conducive to large the storage of large. This is probably going to be the smaller storage. It's probably primarily going to serve residential units, a lot of very small residential units in Selma. So I think it's fair to assume that it would serve the local Selma community probably more than other communities. And then The retention of the front lobby and reception area, I think we can understand if it's going to be self-storage, we can try to do everything we can to get something happening there. But I think we understand with what's happening here, it's not going to be nearly as active as a typical active use. Of course, it's not active at all when it's all vacant. And just to echo the Commissioner's comments, all things being equal, self-storage is not ideal, especially on a mixed-use street like this. The idea would be to have something more active. I think it is helpful that not just self-storage in general, but this type of self-storage, just in terms of the physical build-out and infrastructure is, by definition, much easier to convert to other uses in the future if the market changes, if the property owner changes, et cetera. And then I think it's also helpful to point out, just from the variance perspective, that this does trigger variance for all the floors. On the ground floor in particular, the lobby area is 20 feet deep. The requirement for active use is a 25 feet deep, but also if the building, if the property was just about 10 feet less wide, lobbies are permitted to be active use, lobby of a building. So this isn't a proposal that's asking for something that's hugely different from what's permitted in the code. I think if this was a proposal that was going to be a night and day very active ground floor space on Mission Street converted into a very blank space, and very inactive space, that would be a very different story. But I think for all of those reasons, and because for a variance, it does actually allow for exceptional extraordinary circumstances related to the use of the property, not just the property itself to be considered. I think there's enough here to support this specific type of variance, although I do believe it would be helpful for the variance to be conditioned on the retention of that lobby area. And we wouldn't want in the future kind of more storage, you know, areas to be placed in there. So we just want to condition the variance to make sure that that space is being preserved because you're kind of keeping the bones. You're keeping the storefront system. You're keeping all the fenestration. You should have the same level of visibility in the space off of Mission Street. We're just going to all cross our fingers that, you know, a more active use can make its way home there at some point in the future.

Thank you. Commissioner Imperial. Thank you, Mr. Tigg, for your insights. Always helpful to hear your insights. I also second what Commissioner Moore talks about in terms of the deactivation of the lobby space. If the planner, if we can work with community folks to think about what can be some form of not form of activation, but there seems to have like, again, like a community, inspiration or something. Because again, the Mission Street and especially the Justice Street is a very, I hate to say this word, but it's a blight area. And it reminds me of one of the buildings that came here in the Planning Commission about the Rush Street, that it was an office and then turned into into a storage as well, but at least in that there were conversations having lights on, having lights on the pedestrian and making sure it's still welcoming. And so I would like to put that as a condition in a way that, and what would be the language, but for... to put or to work with or to have insights with community in terms of what could to make this area as welcoming and Yeah, I mean, especially in this area of, I mean, storage is not going to be my first, you know, use. But, again, this is a small building. It's a small use as well. And I'm familiar with this building as well. And so it's my support with conditions. Thank you. Thank you.

I am in agreement with everything that has been said, so I'll skip most of my comments and fast forward to the secondary frontage on Jesse Street. It seems like the implication is that we imagine most people would be loading and unloading in the backside of the building. Is that correct? We're going to encourage that or require that that happen in the back of the building? Is that the idea?

I think that's what's intended. There are roll-up doors there. There's an open space and a workspace that's set up in the back.

That's great. I think that's going to make a lot of the neighbors really happy if we can ensure that that is what's prioritized to the community. like the operator, you know, really makes that clear to the users. I guess my other comment is really just being thoughtful about lighting on the exterior of the buildings. It appears that there is no exterior lighting on the Mission Street facade. And it does appear that there are fixtures on the Jesse Street facade. So I'd love for you all to work with the project sponsor just to make sure we're getting the right amount of illumination on both sides of the building. I assume this is a facility that would be open in the evening, and we'd want to just make sure from a safety perspective that there's proper lighting.

I'm not sure they got that far into the operating hours, but yes, we will take a look at that.

Thank you. Those are all of my comments. Commissioner So. Thank you.

My question is, how long this place has been vacant? Two years.

Over two years.

So we've been kind of paying for that vacancy penalty thing. I do aware of like San Francisco is compared to other neighboring county we have a very low percentage of storage facilities compared to the capital for the population that we serve in San Francisco. I know storage is not anyone's favorite programming in terms of urban planning, but then reality is like a lot of people who are lucky to rent a little place to live in San Francisco find themselves don't have space to store their stuff. And so the closest they could find could be all the way in Oakland, and they will have to pay $8.50 toll bridge just to go there. So I'm sympathetic to the situation, the reality of San Franciscan. And also, I think our zoning administrator actually had a really good point that I resonate a lot, is that this is not a... massive national storage empire coming to town. This really is what a local land owner tried to find ways to get away from having to pay for the vacancy fine. I'm just making an assumption. I think I've seen a lot of them are really hurting right now. It's like, what can we do to get out of this situation, right? The situation of having to find the right type of tenant to fill their vacancies so they don't have to continue to pay for the vacancy fine. So I'm in support of this proposal. And I also support of my fellow commissioner, President Campbell's request on what also Commissioner Imperial's request on making sure that we have enough illuminations around the front and the back of this property, truly aware of where it is, We need to protect everybody's safety, the future tenant, the operators, and also hopefully with this business running, we can encourage the rest of the streets to kind of uplift it with a newer, better street activities. So I'd like to make a motion to approve item 11A and 11B will be deferred to zoning administrator. Oh, I added the lighting thing. Do you want me to add anything else?

Commissioner Moore, did you mention about community art?

I was giving that to consideration since the family is rooted in the neighborhood that that would kind of, I think Commissioner Fung agreed with that.

And commissioners, just to clarify for the conditions, do you want these to be specific while the self-storage use is in operation? So if, for example, the use were to change to retail on the ground floor or more traditional retail, would you want to retain whatever kind of benefit or community? So OK. So this is specific to the self-storage.

And if I could just piggyback off of staff on that issue, I would just offer out there some of the things I've heard that have been requested. Like the concept is fairly straightforward, but what would actually be required is not. So... One thing I get concerned about is having kind of vague conditions because if there's ever an issue about if someone's meeting their conditions, it can be challenging. So an alternative is to have it be a finding in the motion that these requests were made and the project sponsor acknowledged that they were, you know, attempt to work, to achieve those things. Again, it's not a required condition of approval, but at the same time, a vague condition of approval isn't super helpful either because it's very hard to enforce. So I just want to offer that out there as a potential way to achieve the same thing, just a slightly different method.

Thank you, Mr. Zoning Administrator. Yeah, I didn't hear that Commissioner Moore intended them to be conditions of approval, but rather considerations for the project sponsor.

Exactly. And I actually would prefer staff, which seem to really agree with this idea, to continue talking with the applicant. I think this is small enough an enterprise to make that really possible as a relationship, and they should just continue talking to each other.

Thank you for that clarification, Commissioner Moore.

So my motion still stays the same?

It stays the same, yes.

Mr. Cheek, was that everything?

I did have one other thing that I just wanted to touch on. I forgot to touch on it earlier, which is I did want to at least acknowledge the public comment we got from the Summer West Neighborhood Association because I think – I mean, I speak for myself. I think the principles they laid out are consistent with the principles that we look for as well. And they reference the Western SOMA plan and some of the policies there. I actually, and it seems like a different lifetime, worked on that plan with John Elberling. and Jim Miko and Paul Lord a very long time ago. And I just want to acknowledge the challenge that they're calling out, which is when you have areas that are suffering in various ways, you know, you want to do what you can to improve those areas and set them up for success. And I can understand why going to self-storage feels like a step in the wrong direction. And we've all kind of acknowledged that. I think that tension, I think it's worth acknowledging their input, but at the same time clarifying that for all the mitigating issues we raised, the fact that the storefront system is going to remain, the lobby area can be easily converted, the self-storage itself, And also, this isn't like a big development play. This is a family-owned property just trying to survive. I think all of those are important factors in this decision. If it was a different proposal, I think we could maybe land on a different outcome. But I think it's just worth acknowledging that input. Thank you.

Commissioner Braun?

Just for the sake of making sure I know what I'm voting for, I sort of missed the part about, are we saying that the additional finding about some sort of activation, not activation in the planning code sense, but an activation of the storefront space, That just rests with the conditional use authorization for the self-storage, right? Or are we saying that it is attached just to the COA for self-storage? Okay.

Just for clarity again, I believe I heard it was just a verbal recommendation from Commissioner Moore that was received by the project sponsor. I don't believe any additional finding or conditions are being added to the motion. The motion is remaining the same from what I understand.

Okay. Even cleaner then. All right. Thank you.

There is a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner. If there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. The motion passes unanimously, 7-0. Zoning Administrator, what say you?

I will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant with a condition that while this ground floor is used for self-storage that the existing front lobby and reception area be maintained as well as the existing storefront system.

Very good. Thank you. With that, Commissioners, we can move on to the final item on your agenda today, number 12, for case number 2026-001787, PPS at 1053 through 1055 Texas Street. This is an informational presentation required by SB 423.

Thank you, commissioners. John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor. I obviously need to start this hearing a little differently than I typically do. I really am so very sorry to this commission for missing the informational hearing two weeks ago. It was a human error. It was my error. I screwed up my calendar that afternoon. And so I truly apologize to all of you. I hope none of you take it as any sort of disrespect. Obviously, my relationship with this commission is particularly important in my life. I also hope you don't take it as any sort of bad faith on behalf of the project sponsor, my client either. And I was particularly concerned about the fact that the combination of my absence plus that issue with the SB 1214 plans created a particularly unhelpful hearing and, in fact, is a lesson to me in terms of not realizing that the 1214 plans i don't know if they're not provided to the commission via pdf all of this is to say it's something that was an oversight and moving forward we will certainly be attending these hearings but also i think we want to make sure that this commission has a full set of plans because it doesn't really make sense for you all to be making design comments on the two pager that you had at the last hearing so Again, my apologies, and I do want to make that change moving forward, and I think that's been helpful to learn. I did provide you all the full plans last night, and I've got them with me today. I'll just do a very quick overview since I think one is needed. SFGov, if I could get the computer screen. Thank you. So there's a little bit of history to this site, right? So we got approved for a 25-unit building back in 2022 or so, five floors above street grade, which was about 10 feet over the height limit. We were using state density bonus at the time. We've been processing a site permit for that. We actually got a site permit issued for that in 2025. the project as designed was not able to obtain financing for construction. And so there's a couple of unique factors, not just those that we all know. This site, we were having particular issues with PG&E, the transformer location, and the transformer connection with Texas Street not being improved in front of this building. expensive, unanticipated issues. In addition, the 25-unit building was going to require an elevator. And I think, as we all know, that just significantly impacts the construction costs. So we're back today with a reduced project. It's two buildings, six units total, three in each building. We've now reduced the height to three floors, which is about 10 feet below the height limit. It's also a smaller structure than it's immediate neighbor to the right as well, so to the degree there's any concerns that it was kind of changing the built environment. The units are between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet, so kind of modest size units, nothing too big, nothing too small. And just to be absolutely clear, Texas Street will be improved in front of this property as part of the project, which is particularly important here because there's actually several of the lots beyond this lot have been entitled for residential already. And there is obviously a cost issue with continuing to extend the street. So this is kind of the next obvious piece in that puzzle of getting Texas Street extended and allowing some of that housing to be built. And I think if you all have had the opportunity to take a look at the plans, they're relatively straightforward. We've got a lower unit on the first and two below grade floors. And then there's a unit per floor on the second and third floor. So I think that's enough for now. Thank you again. My apologies. And I'm here if you have any questions. And we're certainly taking your input. Thank you.

Okay. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Thank you for those opening remarks, Mr. Kevlin. We did wonder and worry about you. And we did proceed. I don't know if you watched the recording, but we sort of had a dress rehearsal, I think, already on this. We did talk about it for 10 minutes. So I think we're pretty prepared to make comments. Commissioner McGarry?

SP-423, I just want to be on the record. I do not believe, well, I know it wasn't intended to be anything less minimum than 10 units. Anything less than 10 units is just basically... It's just for profit. There's no affordable. There's no nothing. What disappoints me further is it's not nine, you know, because it could have been nine and it would have been three extra, at least it would be three extra units under the bare minimum that's required. So I'd just like to be on record for that because this is not what 423 was intended for, you know. Put a lot of work in behind the scenes on that too.

Thank you. Commissioner Soh.

Thank you for showing up today and I hope your client also show up because like I said before last time, we did have this administrative process and I really hope that the government did its part to streamline to make housing, this whole permitting entitlement process, easier. And I need the developer and their consultants to do their part to also do their minimum to at least show up. And then because it will allow our staff and the planning department to actually then do their job easier once this thing taking into their administrative process. And we did get those protected file, but my concern is only the seven of us got it. Right? So no one else can see it. And so it's like many of my fellow commissioners have repeatedly mentioned that this is a forum for some level of public transparency. So yes, we appreciate and respect there is a protection on intellectual property as an architect. But then also, that's why you need to be here. And the design of this thing is really ugly. And the drawing is really unclear what you try to do. There is a question I have on sheet a 101 there's a good you have two addresses and there's like a giant box over one address of 1055 Texas Street say under separate permit. So what is your application for this? I don't really understand

So the project consists of, thank you for your comments, Commissioner So, and I take them very seriously and to heart. Thank you.

I appreciate you do.

Yeah, yeah. The project is two separate buildings. And so therefore, we have two plan sets, one for each building. So what I've sent is the 1053 plans and the 1055 plans. And so there's just two sets. one for each building. But obviously, we want to show the project as a whole. So both sets show both buildings, even though each one applies to one building or the other.

So are you coming in now? I'm going to see you again next time for the other one.

No, what's before you and what's subject to the SB 423 application are two separate buildings, one single project for the purposes of planning approval, SB 423. When we get to the building permit stage, they will be two separate set of plans, but that reference each other.

So the description should be, say, under separate building permit. Because right now it's kind of really misleading and confusing because we're... Yeah, I'm really confused.

OK, yeah, I take that point, yeah.

Like you're really basically just, yeah, that's kind of repeatedly saying the same thing. A101, sheet A101 and sheet A3.5 also said just one half of your entire project right now is under different permit. But in reality, this document is actually, this two address is actually for the same PPS, right? So that shouldn't actually be even there. That little word here. And which word permit? Yeah, because it's really confusing. It's not relevant for this. Anyway, so... Yeah, I don't have anything to say more than that. I think this is a really ugly project. Okay.

Commissioners, if I may interject just for clarity purposes, SB 1214 provides that the project sponsor elects to withhold their full set of plans from public view for copyright purposes to prevent members of the public and anyone from easy access to photograph or to copy them. They do provide two sets of plans, one set that does get distributed to the commission that is visible by staff, but the public-facing on our web page is the sort of dumbed-down schematic version, all right, that doesn't prohibit members of the public from actually viewing the full set of plans. If any member of the public wishes to view the full set of plans, they are more than welcome to come down to the planning department and view them. We do prohibit them using their phone in the viewing room to prohibit photocopying, But essentially, it doesn't prohibit any member of the public from viewing them. It's just a prohibition from copying them. That's all.

Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Braun?

And maybe just to piggyback on some of those procedural issues with the plans, just to make it clear, we did receive the detailed plans. However, I think now what Commissioner So was referring to is that, I don't know why or how, but one way or another, I believe we only received the 1053 Texas Street plans via the commission secretary's email, unless I overlooked something. But I know that what I managed to obtain prior to your email last night at 9 was just the 1053 Texas Street plan. So I see now you've sent last night plans for 1053 and 1055. But it's possible we may have been missing 1055 earlier. So I think that's a part of what's going on. It is confusing and a little frustrating for the confusion. Yeah, thank you for coming back. I appreciate your apologies for missing the last hearing, Mr. Kevlin. You certainly raised some interesting procedural general questions about SB 423 and what constitutes the hearing, but I won't go down that road. I think just as far as the project goes, whether it's this project or the previous one, it's i think it's a real plus to see the street continue to be improved texas street improved and not just sort of the the dirt path that is today uh i am disappointed i think i share commissioner mcgary's disappointment about the the number of units being provided uh i'm disappointed by the reduction in density for this project versus the last one I understand the reasons that have been offered and the general financing challenges for rental housing right now and those higher density projects. But still, I think those are my only real observations. Just if it was possible to increase the density, add more housing units, I think that would be a win. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice President Moore?

Since this SB 423, since this project has not been reviewed by staff, the purpose of us looking at this project are only there to fill in additional suggestions of what may be expected should this project in reality come to this commission, which it will not. So the only things I would add, and unfortunately the architect is not here, is the fact that I think this project, as many projects of this scale, not all of them do, is to show the building in context. That is a slightly larger view of where we are, what is the surrounding development, et cetera, et cetera. There is a kind of... three-dimensional depiction of context that is missing. The other things that typically we have to remind many architects of is a slightly more detailed, even at this early stage, discussion about materials and methods, building color, building materials, fenestration, et cetera, the drawings as black and white line drawings are difficult to discern in terms of what the real quality of the building is. This is only an anticipation when your architect will be working with staff to take this project to its next step. Otherwise, I think there's no reason to comment on its architectural quality. It is what it is, and so I'll just leave it with that. Those are just supportive suggestions as you move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

If I did have to vote on this, I'd have to vote no, or at least to continue it, because we do not have a full concept of what's happening here. We don't have two sets of plans. We're working off one set of plans, but it's two different permits for those projects. And we're here today listening to it, but it's incomplete. I believe it's technically incomplete. Am I correct on that? We're seeing half the project, but not the other half. And they're two totally different projects being provided in one, but they're two individual permits. Am I correct in that?

No? For purposes, Commissioner, for purposes of SB 423, One single project, two buildings. Per DBI's department's guidelines, because they're separate buildings, they will need to be two separate building permits, even though they will be approved as one single project by planning.

But my question is, if that was coming through us and it's not SB 423, we would have the plans for both of those individual permits individually, not just one of them.

That's all we're seeing here today. And I want to make sure we're saying the same thing. If we were not using SB 423, this project wouldn't require a planning commission hearing. But to the degree it was appealed and came to the planning commission, you would be considering both buildings as one single project.

OK. But would we have access to both sets of plans?

Yeah. And the plans that were sent last night, there were two links. I'm sorry. That was at 9 o'clock last night. But they were both submitted as well. So to the degree that that hasn't been shared with you, that's something that it's there and we can share with you. Got it.

Yeah. Just from start to finish.

Yeah, yeah, there's a number of layers of problems. So, again, appreciate everyone's patience.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, this one hasn't been the smoothest, I think. But that being said, I think... Just to change the tone a little, I think in light of the item regarding our shortcomings with our arena goals, it's lovely to see a project like this bring six more much needed units of housing to the city. So I think it's a great little infill project. I wish you much luck expanding the street and the services to make this project a reality. But those are all my comments. Commissioner Williams.

I just wanted to say I enjoyed everything that was not enjoyed, but it was informational. Thank you, John, for the apology. I won't hold it against you. But for me, this whole process kind of outlines or shines a light on SB 423. the unfortunate consequences, I would say, just as far as the public understanding what the project is, even the planning commissioners understanding totally what it's all about. But again, we don't have a say. per se, but my general feeling is that there's nothing there. You're going to make the street better. There will be some housing provided. And I think we can all agree that that is not a bad outcome. So thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, that concludes your hearing today.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned in memory of John Elberling. Thank you.

SFGov.