Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, June 18th, 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'll 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'd like to take roll. Commission President Campbell?

Here.

Commission Vice President Moore?

Here.

Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner McGarry? Here. Commissioner So?

Present.

And Commissioner Williams?

Here.

Thank you commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance and to date there are still no items proposed for continuance. Placing us under commission matters for item one, the land acknowledgement.

No problem. Thank you so much. Okay.

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 to their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretaker of this place, as well as for the 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 two, consideration of adoption draft minutes for the May 21st and May 28th, 2026 hearings. 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. Your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Vice President Moore. Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6-0. Item 3, Commission comments and questions.

Seeing none. She said, I think that was...

No?

Okay. That'll place us under department matters for item four, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners. We just want to report that our budget continues to work its way through the city's budget process without many changes. And so the budget that you reviewed remains mostly the same. So we'll continue to keep you posted as the budget process winds its way forward. But other than that, there are no other announcements or updates.

Okay, item five, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. The board. This week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee continued the Institutional Master Plan Requirements Ordinance to June 29, 2026, and the full Board heard the Balboa Reservoir Special Use District and passed it on its second read. I have no report from the Board of Appeals. The Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and considered restoration of the U.S. Grant Monument at the Music Concourse. three legacy business registry applications, the Bay Company, Irma's Pampanga Restaurant, and the Royale. Finally, they recommended approval for engine company number 33 at Broad Street to be designated as a landmark. 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.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Georgia Shudish. I went to the BIC yesterday, and I raised an issue that I've raised here previously, and I actually think I raised it last on May 28th, and that is that projects that are approved as tantamount to demolition, like the one I showed at 248 Valley, which had extreme demo calcs, they should have a permit applications form six and two. not form three, which is an alteration permit. I think that it would be very important to do that to clarify the situation. And I think it can be done administratively. Ms. Harris, the secretary of the BIC, was very kind and she printed out what I submitted to the board members. So I'm resubmitting it here for the record if anyone's interested or you could watch the hearing. And that's that. The only thing I'll add is If anybody has a chance before you go home, you should check out the Muny pictures, photos in the basement. It's the last day. And it's a really interesting, fun thing to look at, especially if you look really closely and you see what people are wearing and what they're doing and all that. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, members of the Commission. My name is Diane Oshima, and I am here because I believe that your next Planning Commission meeting next week may be the last one for Vice President Moore. And since I can't make that, I thought I'd beat the line. And I just wanted to express my congratulations and thanks to her. There's such a deep in my heart appreciation for over 20 years of service. I believe that that's probably the longest tenure for a planning commissioner in the city. And I should know because I worked as a planner at the planning department and at the port for 40 years. So I went to a lot of planning commission meetings, and I know the hard work that you all have to deal with. Just Catherine has been the most dutiful, devoted planning commissioner in terms of just taking the work seriously and devoting the time and attention to reviewing all of those thousands of projects that have come before her as a commissioner. And I know it's very hard and unglamorous work, but it's important work to do. And your architectural and urban design expertise has always just been a stalwart resource for the city, but combined with your heart and your sense of the community values and public needs to balance out the best in bringing about changes and projects in the city. I saw that most closely firsthand for the over 20 years of service that you pledged towards the Waterfront Design Advisory Committee, which was a city committee that worked with the port and BCDC to oversee the design of major developments in the public parks all along the port's seven and a half mile waterfront. And I can tell you that those values and expertise that Catherine Commissioner Moore brings to the Planning Commission were especially important for the port because it really allowed for the city to be reunited with its waterfront with a lot of delights and business functions and developments that will provide a good foundation for future work going forward. I take great pride in the opportunity to work with you, and I wish you the absolute very best for your next chapter. Thank you.

Thank you. And I apologize for the sunglasses. I left my other glasses at my office. So it's not meant as disrespect. My name is Shannon Way. And you will see my name on your inclusionary tech committee report. I am here today to urge you to please Just throw all of those TAC recommendations out the window. The process was flawed. We really- Excuse me, ma'am.

Excuse me, ma'am. Are you speaking on the inclusion of the affordable housing program? Yes.

Item 7A. Okay.

So this is general public comment for things not on today's agenda. Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't understand that. So when we get to that item, you're more than welcome to submit your testimony.

I'm so sorry. My apologies for misunderstanding. That's all right. Thank you very much.

OK, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 6, case number 2026-002046, PCA, for the relocation and reestablishment of liquor establishments, planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, commissioners, Veronica Flores, planning department staff. This next item is the relocation and reestablishment of liquor establishments ordinance introduced by Supervisor Walton. Today I am joined by Mr. Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. The proposed ordinance would allow bars with the pre-2003 ABC licenses to reestablish after closures of up to 10 years. And it would also allow such bars to relocate within the Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District, or RUT. This would be principally permitted. All other liquor establishments would still need a conditional use authorization to relocate, and all of these updates are reflected in the Bayview NCD zoning control table as well. The department supports the overall goals of this proposed ordinance because it provides needed flexibility for longstanding bars within the Third Street Alcohol RUD, and it supports continued economic activity in the Bayview NCD. The RUD has been amended several times in recent years, and this proposal represents another step in updating an older regulatory framework. However, the ordinance highlights some structural equity concerns. Only one establishment appears eligible under the narrow criteria tied to the pre-2003 ABC licenses. This limited applicability underscores the need for a more comprehensive update to the NCD's alcohol-related controls. For this reason, the department recommends a broader approach, and that is to conditionally permit all bars within the Third Street RUD and the Bayview NCD instead of the narrow criteria. This would create a more consistent and equitable regulatory structure by applying the same level of review for bar uses, not just the few with the historic licenses. My understanding is that the supervisor is not amenable to this broader recommendation. However, staff is still presenting it to illustrate a more equitable and predictable policy framework that could address the underlying structural issues identified through this analysis. Had this broader approach been adopted earlier, Sam Jordan's could likely have already completed the conditional use process in the time that this ordinance had been developed and reviewed. This illustrates how a district-wide CU framework would provide a clearer, more efficient path for all operators, including the historic businesses, rather than requiring individual one-off legislative fixes as we have seen in recent years. This approach still achieves the original intent and Sam Jordan's would continue to have a clear path to reopen at a new site, but other prospective owners would also have the opportunity to apply through the conditional use process and appear before you. This shifts the focus from tracking relocation eligibility to reviewing each proposal on its merits, consistent with how most land uses are reviewed today. Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a recommendation of approval with modification. This concludes the staff presentation, and I am available for any questions along with Mr. Van Houten. 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. You need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd like to make a motion to approve a modification.

I second it.

Vice President Moore.

I'd like to ask Ms. Flores a couple of questions. The alcohol restrictive districts have existed for a long time, and I believe that they have been crafted in a protective manner for specific parts of the city to really ensure that there is health and common sense in the use of alcohol in those districts. Over the years, this issue has come back over and over again. And each time, I felt that those supervisors who had a strong interest in supporting these restricted districts, we're taking a great deal of personal responsibility to monitor that this was applied with the most sensitive care regarding all aspects, enabled viability, public health, community feel, et cetera, et cetera. I'm a little bit uneasy with particular Supervisor Walton or anybody from his district being here, that we are trying to interpret something which you've stated he is not really supporting very much or is not interested in it at this time. And that worries me a little bit, particularly if you are asking us to expand this legislation citywide There are other vulnerable communities where alcohol is indeed a big issue, aside from drug use, et cetera, et cetera. And I put alcohol in that similar category. But I am hesitant to let go of what I believe needs to be an extended attitude of care and specific attention by somebody who lives and represents a district. And I'm saying that you're modestly not passing judgment. But I believe that the careful attention, personal attention, over the years has done a lot of good to those areas and to those communities who are in the middle of those conflicts. Could you comment on that further, please?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Moore. And just a clarification, the recommended modification is only to be applied to this area, not citywide. I think we're in the same understanding there, but I just wanted to state that for the record. Regarding broadening this specific RUD, It's something that we've talked about. We talked about at length two years ago when there was another proposal to principally permit bars with a Type 42 license within the Bayview and Third Street RUD. And both in... preparation for today's hearing and for that most recent ordinance, we really were considering the restricted use district, the original intent, really to respond to the proliferation of bars and liquor establishments in the area. The idea is that by establishing the RUD when a business closes, a new bar or liquor establishment would not be able to open up next door or around the corner. It really was to help wind down these types of uses. In recent years, we have seen more openness and more of an appetite to such uses. And when we're thinking about this from the land use perspective rather than specific tenants, that's where this broader approach could respond to more of the interest that we are seeing today. So that's where the recommended modification is coming from. And I do apologize that we do not have someone from the supervisor's office here.

Do we have any kind of complaint-based information built into this ordinance which would allow residents to say, hey, this is not working for us, and there would be exceptions made to potentially close more closely watched or close undesirable businesses?

As currently drafted, there is no additional complaint process. We have the standard complaint-driven process where we would have our enforcement planners go out to the site as needed. If of interest, you would be able to add a comment to that effect within your action today, if that's of interest. But there's not currently an additional complaint process written into this ordinance.

I sense that you have really thoughtfully given these considerations. I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. Thank you so much.

Commissioner Williams.

Just want to lend my voice to Commissioner Moore's thoughts. I don't see anything wrong with the legislation, but I'm not in agreement with the Planning Department's recommendation. I feel that the supervisor knows his district best. And we should respect his district and respect his wishes not to go along with the recommendation. So just to be clear. Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I've been listening to the thoughtful questions and comments and trying to take it in myself. I certainly do support the legislation for its ability to allow this longstanding business to reopen. However, I also generally am a little skeptical of land use and planning code changes that are focused on solving for one specific issue. And so I understand and I can see where the staff recommendation is coming from. I think where I'm coming down on this is that I do support the motion with the staff recommended modification to allow bars with a conditional use authorization in the district. I know the supervisor does not support it, and so in some ways I'm just hoping that this can kind of further a conversation that can happen about looking at changes to the restricted use district, especially given the way it has been kind of watered down. I do remember the terminology right, but essentially wine bar, wine and beer license businesses being allowed in the district is that legislation we saw about two years ago. And so I think it's appropriate to maybe just bring forward the question of whether further expansion is appropriate for allowing these uses, but with a conditional use authorization. So I will support the motion.

Okay. Commissioner is seeing no additional requests to speak. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Moore? No. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting against. Commissioners, it will place this on items 7a and b for case numbers 2026-003786 PCA and CRV for the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and Development Impact Fees Planning Code Amendment, as well as the delegation of authority to modify conditions of approval relating to inclusionary housing requirements, validity and period of performance, adoption of delegation authority.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the commission. Ada Tan with department staff. On May 28, 2026, city staff provided this commission with an informational presentation on the proposed changes to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and development impact fee reductions. Under the proposed ordinance, board file number 260538, That was introduced by Mayor Lurie along with Supervisors Melgar, Dorsey, Sherrill, and Souder on May 19th. We are back today to provide an overview of the key changes proposed under the ordinance, including revisions that were introduced through the substitute ordinance on June 2nd under the same board file number, which is included as Exhibit H in the staff report. I'll discuss the relatively minor revisions under the substituted version later in this presentation. The proposed ordinance is intended to address three key goals. Goal one, meet the housing production objective set forth in the 2022 housing element. Goal two, incentivize development through local zoning regulations and this family zoning plan. And goal three, streamline and simplify affordable housing requirements. Today, there are two action items before this commission. The first is to adopt the planning code amendments under the proposed ordinance, and the second is to adopt a resolution delegating authority to the department to administratively approve requests for projects seeking to amend related conditions of approval. The city's inclusionary program under Planning Code Section 415 was formalized in 2002 and requires market rate housing projects with 10 or more units to comply with the program requirements. Previously, changes to the rates required a charter amendment. In 2016, voters approved Proposition C, which allowed the city to adjust the requirements by ordinance. the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee, TAC, was also established, and they meet every three years to evaluate feasibility related to the inclusionary requirements. Temporary inclusionary rates, along with the 33% impact fee reduction, have been in place since 2023 and are set to expire on November 1st of this year. Overall housing production has declined sharply since 2020, with annual market rate housing production down by 70% compared to pre-pandemic levels. As fewer market rate developments move forward, overall housing production declines, making it more difficult for the city to achieve its housing production goals. Mociti's affordable housing portfolio includes about 35,000 units. Section 415 inclusionary units account for 9% of the total, and since 2020, only 6% of affordable housing production has come through the inclusionary program. Annual inclusionary fee revenue has also declined compared to the years prior to the pandemic. And as funding and market conditions evolve, the city must have a broader mix of housing production and financing strategies to help sustain long-term affordability. During the informational hearing, Chief Economist Ted Egan provided an overview of the Technical Advisory Committee and the findings made under the Triennial Economic Feasibility Study. The Comptroller's Office worked with a consultant and conducted a study on 20 different prototypes. They found that no amount of inclusionary housing is currently economically feasible and that the feasibility gap has worsened since the 2023 report, due primarily to rising construction costs and financing costs. As a result of those findings, the TAC unanimously agreed on a set of recommendations, which included lowering the on-site inclusionary rate to 5% if a companion measure is placed on the November ballot for a long-term recurring affordable funding source, exempting projects with fewer than 25 units from the inclusionary requirements, removing the middle income tier and retaining the low and moderate income tiers, and to reduce development impact fees on new housing by 67%. FOLLOWING THE TAX RECOMMENDATIONS ON MAY 19TH, SUPERVISOR MELGAR INTRODUCED A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AND RENEW THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND. THE BALLOT MEASURE WOULD INCREASE THE CURRENT ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION FROM $50 MILLION UP TO $125 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. IT WOULD GROW THE ANNUAL FUNDING BY SETTING ASIDE A PORTION OF THE CITY'S ANNUAL GROWTH IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ALLOCATED TOWARDS THE FUND. This is projected to increase the city's total baseline annual funding for affordable housing production and preservation by an additional approximately $3 billion over the next 30 years. This measure is co-sponsored by a majority of the Board of Supervisors and is supported by the mayor, so it is expected to appear on the November ballot, keeping in line with the TAC recommendation. The following slides highlight the proposed ordinance key changes, many of which reflect the tax unanimous recommendations. The applicability threshold would increase to projects with 25 or more units. The onsite rate would be 5% with identical rates for rental and ownership projects. The highest tier, middle income, would be removed and the low and moderate income tiers would be retained with 4% at low and 1% at moderate. The ordinance also proposes that the affordable housing fee rate and off-site rate be set to 10%. Proportional reductions to home SF requirements are proposed to align with the citywide on-site reduction. The areas shown on this map currently have higher rates than the citywide rates. Projects in these areas will be subject to the citywide on-site rate of 5%, with fee and off-site rates set at 15%. The ordinance expands the land dedication options citywide. Projects in the specific areas shown on the previous map would still be able to dedicate land for affordable housing equal to 15% of units on the principal site, while most other projects would dedicate land equal to 10%. Dedicated sites must accommodate at least 70 units, be approved by most city, and generally be located within one mile of the principal project. Projects located in the specific areas or within a well-resourced neighborhood could locate anywhere within those areas. The same location standards would apply to projects providing units off-site. The proposed ordinance also establishes administrative processes for how projects can take advantage of the new rates, request extensions to their performance period, or modify the method of inclusionary compliance and project tenure. As part of today's action item, the commission would need to delegate authority to the planning director or their designee to allow for administrative approval of such requests. Projects have a three-year period to vest their approval. If a project requests an extension, the department will apply new requirements related to inclusionary and impact fees, and new objective standards would be triggered. Projects that do not qualify for administrative approval may still request to modify their conditions through the planning commission process. Under the proposed ordinance, all Article IV impact fees except for the inclusionary affordable housing fee would be reduced by 67%. This reduction would apply to all projects, including non-residential projects that submit a complete development application and to pipeline projects that have been finally approved but have not been issued a first construction document. The list of Article IV impact fees that can be reduced by 67% are stated on pages 18 and 19 of the staff report and are also listed in the department's impact fee register. The fee deferral program that was reinstated in the 2023 ordinance would remain in place and would be amended to allow all projects to defer 85% of fees to temporary certificate of occupancy, including Section 415 fees. Currently, projects and area plans may only defer 80% of fees. The areas shown on this map are required to pay additional affordable housing fees on top of the inclusionary fee. This ordinance would eliminate the additional housing fees for these areas. When impact fees are reduced or eliminated by legislation as proposed under this ordinance, pipeline projects would be able to modify their requirements to incorporate those reductions. Any amount that has already been paid at building permit issuance would not be refunded and the reduction would only apply to the remaining deferred balance due at occupancy. Projects with minor modifications can retain their original fee types and the rates will be locked in at final approval. Projects with major changes, entitlement extensions, or expired approvals will be subject to the requirements in effect at the time of the request. Projects must obtain first construction document within three years of final planning approval. The proposed ordinance includes planning code simplifications and cleanup amendments as outlined during the informational hearing. The substitute ordinance introduced on June 2 adds clarifying and conforming amendments to improve consistency across the code, including updates to definitions and other technical cleanup items as noted on this slide. The department has three recommended modifications to the proposed ordinance. I provided a handout earlier with the red line version of the specific code changes and revisions to exhibit A, the draft resolution for reference. The first recommendation is to amend Section 249.5 for the North of Market Residential SUD to allow exceptions to the 80-foot base height limit in the 80-120-T and 80-130-T height and bulk districts to be approved through conditional use authorization. A CUA is already required to exceed 80 feet in the North of Market residential SUD. The CUA is currently required under Section 263.7, which currently establishes an affordable housing fee that is proposed for removal, as shown on the map in the previous slide. After the publication of the staff report, two typos were identified in the proposed ordinance, so the department also recommends correcting section 415.10 to reference 415.4 and instead of 415.4 and . And the third recommendation is to correct the definition of development application. Specifically, for projects that are subject to a development agreement, the development application shall mean an individual building's first site or building permit application. As of this morning, the department has received 21 letters of support for the proposed ordinance. The letters state that currently, inclusionary requirements and impact fees are making many projects financially infeasible, contributing to stalled housing production and affordability challenges. They also indicate that the ordinance would improve feasibility, increase production, and support long-term affordable housing investment with the Housing Trust Fund. THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION STATING THAT LOWERING INCLUSION REQUIREMENTS WOULD WEAKEN OR ELIMINATE ONE OF THE CITY'S CONSISTENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOOLS AND ADDITIONALLY THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED ONE LETTER EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT AS MARKET CONDITIONS IMPROVE AND HOUSING PROJECTS ON STANDARD LOTS OF 2500 SQUARE FEET BECOME MORE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, EXISTING MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROGRAMS MAY INCENTIVIZE LUXURY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CORRESPONDING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS. On June 9th, city staff met with the department's Community Equity Advisory Council and presented the proposed changes under the ordinance. Council members discussed the ordinance's impact on housing affordability, production, and development feasibility, including the lower rates and the removal of the middle income tier. City staff explained that the changes are based on TAC recommendations and MOCD data and are intended, along with the Housing Trust Fund measure, to increase affordable housing production and preservation. The Council also raised concerns about advancing the ordinance before the Housing Trust Fund vote, and staff relate that the timeline is driven by the expiration of the current temporary rates on November 1st. Broader equity concerns were also raised, including displacement, gentrification, and access to affordable housing opportunities. Again, there are two action items before the commission today. The first is to adopt the resolution for approval of the planning code amendments under item 7A. Staff recommends approval with the three modifications that were previously mentioned. The second action is under item 7B. Staff also recommends adopting a resolution delegating authority to the planning director or their designee to allow for administrative approval through the process outlined in section 415.4G. The proposed ordinance supports advancing the objectives of the housing element, aligns local zoning regulations to support new housing development, and streamlines and simplifies affordable housing requirements. If adopted, these changes would better align the planning code with the city's housing goals while making the development process more predictable and efficient. As for the updated legislative timeline, this item was presented to the Building Inspection Commission yesterday, and they unanimously approved the proposed changes under the ordinance that pertain to the building code. After today's Planning Commission hearing, this ordinance will go before the Government Audit and Oversight Committee on July 2nd. The goal is still to get this proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for the consideration prior to the August recess. This concludes staff presentation. Myself, along with other city staff, are available to respond to 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 items 7A and B. Please come forward. And if you could line up on the screen side of the room, on the right side, that would be great. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name's Mary Travis-Allen. I am the co-chair of the American Indian Cultural District. I also sit on the Planning Equity Council. But most importantly, and I'm going to say this, do you see me? Does this city government see the people there and most in need? These ordinances, the resolution that was passed by planning in 2020 to uplift communities that have suffered disparities because of the decisions in this city that didn't provide housing for people. For my community, the American Indian community, who for the most part was forced in many cases to come to this city along with several others in the relocation in this government's history, promised housing, employment, sustainability, and we've yet to receive it. Our community are the highest rate of unhoused. As city council, and I'm going to support anything that's going to give more housing in this city, but what's affordable? Because what we experience is unaffordability. Our incomes. do not afford affordable housing. So when these decisions are being made for the housing trust fund, is it really comparable to the rate and the increase in building these buildings? And what's the cause these landowners who are holding onto their properties so that they can profit more off of the sale of the properties? to release it so we can build affordable housing. There's nothing in this There's nothing in this. A lot of promises, and quite frankly, this country's history with our community has defaulted on a lot of promises. There's a lot more I could say, but I hope that for those of you, look to your heart, look to your conscience, look to the resolutions that have been passed. Give meaning to equity. Don't let it just be a word of the past that was applicable like equality and this and that. Take it to heart and to the people who are suffering. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices.

Hello, everybody. My name is Debbie Santiago. I'm one of the elders of the American Indian community. I'm on the Advisory Council on the American Indian Intertribal Center here in San Francisco. I have been born and raised here six generations. My grandmother was relocated here in 1919, not by her decision, by force. So again, when I'm listening to all of this and reading everything, what is affordable? I read that some of these things seem like they're going to complement each other. It doesn't look like it's going to complement each other. These affordable housing needs go across the board for everybody. And for my community, as American Indian, my people are 20 times more homeless than anybody else. And there are 28 more times in the country. So when you say that these things are going to be available to everybody, make sure it's even available for the smaller units as well. I've been waiting to hear. I work with my community to help them with housing. And as Mary also said, Some of our community members do not reflect of what the prices are. And then you're talking about market rate. That's a joke. That is a sheer joke. So I ask you, and I've seen a study where we're not even on that paper. I stand here in front of you as an American Indian. I'm here. And again, I'm saying, see me. See my people. See those who are less fortunate to help them. There's so many people in the shelters that have been waiting for three or four years to get housing. And a lot of them are my people. So again, I ask you to please think from your heart, not what's on paper. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Again, my name is Shannon Wei. I am on the inclusionary TAC. And I would like to, first of all, push back on this misnomer that the TAC recommendations were at all unanimous. This was a chaotic process that half an hour after our last meeting, after months still not knowing what was going on and where we were going to land. Things were pushed through. There was no vote ever held. And we've been going back and forth in emails for weeks afterwards trying to even clarify what the recommendations of the TAC that would be moved forward are. And I also want to push back on this. idea that we have to pit the Housing Trust Fund against inclusionary housing. They're talking about two completely different things. We should not be pitting low-income housing against middle-income housing. That's ridiculous. There's a lot of other things that I think the TAC brains or all the smart bodies in the room could have been talking about. But what we were told was, here is your determined, what is the percentage of inclusionary that is affordable? And by the way, here's a trick question because here's a report that shows that no level of inclusionary is affordable. And I think that where you'll see maybe the attack did step a little bit out of bounds is that through without this all, we were all very frustrated that we couldn't be having a broader conversation about what other things that we could do to actually increase the development without having to throw our middle class under the bus or to take away from these very, very critical units over 24 hours thousand households every year apply for these. I also want to push back on the fact that for the TAC committee, CHUCHU, who had helped draft the original legislation for inclusionary in the early 2000s, was removed in their place. Mercy Housing and the San Francisco Community Land Trust were added. Those are wonderful organizations that do absolutely amazing critical work in this city, but neither one of them work with inclusionary housing programs. They do 100% affordable housing development, and I'm not sure that they have the authority to sacrifice inclusionary in order to get the funding that they need to build the affordable housing that we also need. I just really want to urge you guys to push back and to stall this and not let this just steamroll forward because in addition to being a critical program, a housing program that does produce housing units that we need so desperately that people are applying for years in lotteries to try to get, this is also a planning tool. And just in the same way that we require developers to build two bedrooms and limit parking, those are all things that do impact their bottom line. And also we have to do that because of the fact that it is in the greater good of the San Francisco that we need to build. We need to be having the conversation of how to preserve the highest amount of inclusionary possible, not playing these bizarre political trade-offs of like, well, what if we get a housing trust fund in exchange for inclusionary? That framing is so dysfunctional and really needs to stop here before it goes forward and the Board of Supervisors unwillingly pass something that they don't understand and that actually limits your ability to do your job. Thank you. That is your time.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, commissioners, and staff. My name is Leigh Lovett, and I'm a new member of Planning's Equity Advisory Council. So there's an old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to drink. And that's the situation that we find ourselves in with changing the inclusionary requirements. So we want developers to build more housing in San Francisco and be using these tools, both the city and the state, that are at our disposal. But let's look back from the last three years. When we are reducing inclusionary housing, what are we doing? We're kind of repeating these conversations that we had with the TAC recommendations from 2023 and also the controller's report. Currently, the controller is saying that the costs of construction have really been tamping down on housing development. It's the labor, materials, financing costs, including interest rates, which have stayed very high. And even adding to what Ms. Tan was saying, even when you zero out inclusionary housing rates, almost all those project scenarios are still not feasible except for, I think, a mid-rise condominium project. So what are we trying to do? We're leading our market rate developers to the watering hole, but all these factors throw mud into their willingness to build at this point. And as the previous commenters said, we really need to explore other tools. So if we kind of look back and look, I think we need some data. from the past three years. Just looking, let's say, at the rental projects with 25 or more units with the on-site affordable requirement, like in 2017, this was set at 18%. Now with the 2023 legislation, the TAC recommended the board passed 12% for pipeline projects. So let's look at the pipeline projects because these were the ones where an administrative process was put so the developers could say, hey, I have a higher rate. Can I apply for this newer rate under the 2023 legislation? So we should have... a record here if we indeed saw that these projects were jump-started in the last three years. And probably really two and change, right? Because now we've started this conversation in 2026. So my question is, are these pipeline projects really going to be jump started as we move forward with 5%? It's another jump. And it feels like this becomes a slippery slope down to zero. And we won't have a core tool, a core program, actually, the inclusionary program that helps to provide additional housing, not insignificant, again, from the charts that we've seen, At its peak, and of course this was at the peak of work rate development, this was $30 million that was provided. And finally, we should really- Thank you, ma'am, but that is your time. Okay, thank you so much.

BETTY TRAINER- Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Betty Trainor. I'm a board member at Senior and Disability Action here in San Francisco. And we strongly oppose this reduction and even elimination of some of the inclusionary affordable units in new market rate developments. The very word affordability says it all. So many, even most, San Franciscans cannot afford market rate housing. Our city workers, people right here in this building, as well as our bus drivers, nurses, teachers, and younger people with disabilities. They cannot apply for senior affordable housing. They also cannot afford market rate housing. At this point, we say that we understand that we need to wait for these units as market rate housing cannot be built at this time. As other people before me have said, it's not even feasible if it was at 0%. But we believe it's the city's moral obligation to not reduce affordability. In fact, it should be increased. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices. If you don't know how to silence them, please just turn it off. SFgov, we're going to need the overhead.

Oh, thank you very much.

My name is Calvin Welch. I was an original member of the Supervisor Leno task force that developed the inclusionary zoning ordinance in the very beginning. Nothing is gained, in my view, by reducing affordability requirements in terms of increasing market rate development. I have no idea what policy you are following, since that is inimicable to the policy articulated in the housing element. In a recent analysis of what it would take to pay for meeting the affordable housing requirements of the housing element, we're talking about $7 billion. the notion that a housing development fee that will produce $10 million in 30 years is laughable. It is laughable. Let's take a look at where we were in 2017, the high point of market rate housing production in San Francisco. some 4,972 units were produced. The overwhelming majority were market rate units. This is at the height of the inclusionary zoning requirement. What relationship existed between the inclusionary housing requirement and market rate housing development? Very little. All kinds of other considerations were made to assume that we're going to increase market rate housing production, which is not an emphasis in the housing element. by reducing the amount of affordable housing is, again, laughable. By 2025, according to the housing inventory of this department, We were producing 2,406 units. The housing requirements, the inclusionary zoning had been dramatically reduced. All kinds of fees have been waived. All kinds of procedures have been removed. Still, market rate housing development is not responding. There's something else going on that has nothing to do with permanently affordable housing. If we look at 2025, according to your own statistics, we see that almost 74% of the housing produced in 2025 was affordable housing. You are proposing an ordinance that will reduce that number. In what sense are we increasing the housing inventory of San Francisco by adopting policies that reduce the amount of affordable housing? I have no idea, and I don't think you do either.

Thank you, Mr. Wells. That is your time.

Hello, I'm Theresa Dulalas with SOMCAD. I live in Soma, Filipinas, District 6. We strongly oppose reducing the inclusionary housing requirement to 5%. There are two sides to the housing story. Increasing housing production and preserving affordability for the people who already call San Francisco home. For years, community members have come before this Commission asking for more affordable housing and stronger protections against displacement. We have consistently asked the City to give the same urgency to building and preserving affordable housing that it gives to market-rate housing. San Francisco's housing element requires us to produce thousands of affordable homes. To meet those goals, we need every available funding source, policy tool and housing strategy working together. We need the Housing Trust Fund, public investment, impact fees, preservation programs, tenant protections, and strong inclusionary housing requirements. And this is not stalling. What we don't need is to weaken one of the City's most important affordable housing tools. We understand that developers may choose to dedicate land instead of directly providing inclusionary housing. But dedicating does not automatically create affordable housing. Are we expected to wait 10 years or even 115 years? The community cannot afford affordable housing that exists only on paper. We need affordable housing that is funded, built, and occupied. The City has already provided significant incentives through upzoning, streamlining, density increases, and regulatory changes. in favor of developers. Yet today, we're being asked to reduce affordable housing requirements even further. At a time when San Francisco is struggling to meet its affordable housing goals, we cannot achieve them by weakening the tools designed to achieve them. We need more affordable housing tools, not fewer. And then we don't want the city coming back to us and say, there's no money. We urge you to reject both proposals. Maraming salamat po for listening to our side of the story. Maraming salamat po.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lloyd Sarangan, a San Francisco resident and a sophomore in college. I'm working with the South of Market Community Action Network. Again, we strongly oppose the reduction of the inclusionary housing requirement to 5% and the development impact fees on new housing. I was born in a low-income family in the Philippines and grew up there for a part of my life while my parents worked here in San Francisco. When I immigrated here to the US, I found myself in a cramped one-room apartment where my entire family had to squeeze itself in. and it would take eight to 10 years before my family could move into an affordable unit. Housing is beyond just a place to stay. It is where families and friends break bread, where students study, and where full-time employees go to rest. Failing to provide adequate housing is a failure for our labor force, our students, our families, and who holds this city together. And as we have experienced in the city, ASAP is in another moment that could leave tenants vulnerable. and yet housing development continues to not meet our city's trajectory. I was at the Land Use Committee hearing on June 8th. The BLA found that reducing inclusionary housing requirements and fees did not spur new market rate development. In fact, it reduced city revenues. We are in a budget crisis and a housing crisis. We shouldn't be cutting back on one of our most consistent sources of new affordable housing units and funding. These planning code modifications presupposes that the invigoration of market-rate developing would also benefit low-income working-class families. We cannot count on market-rate developers and profit-minded entities to address our housing crisis. Only the public sector and you all here have the power to do something for the right reasons. We must not be stingy and hesitant about this issue. We are living through a crisis, and we must handle it as such. It is our responsibility to protect the families that breathe life in San Francisco. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jugal Patel. I live in the Castro, and I'm here with Abundance San Francisco to build more homes in any way that we can. Thank you for your thoughtful work on the inclusionary requirement changes. At the informational hearing, you highlighted that we can't lose sight of those most vulnerable in this crisis, neighbors suffering from or on the verge of homelessness. I spent years in that situation myself, and I can't imagine how much worse it would be today with costs so much higher. Homelessness, affordable housing, and market-rate housing are not separate problems. They are one system. I lived in a rent-controlled room for five years. I'm ready to move into market-rate housing, but the pricing here is keeping me stuck. A friend had a one-bedroom open up in his building right by DuBose Park. close to the neighborhood I've called home for six years. His former tenant paid $3,500 a month. He floated $4,500 to his rental agent. The agent said, go to $5,000. They had 20 applicants in one day. When apartments cost $4,000 to $5,000 a month, I stay in my $830 room longer than I need to, even though I could afford more. And the person who actually needs that room has nowhere to go. More market rate housing can free up below market rate availability for the people who need it most. We know that the numbers aren't panning out, the system is not working as it should, and the inclusionary rate has fallen off a cliff as far as the revenues it's generating and the housing it is generating. We need to pull every lever that we can to try to boost development. I urge you to move the inclusionary ordinance forward with a positive recommendation. Thank you.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Sachit. I'm here with the SF abundance to support the inclusionary ordinance. I'd like to thank the commission for your focus on this issue. I recently moved to SF in February, and I was astounded by the cost of living here. Just a single room costs double, triple, quadruple what I've been used to before in other cities across the country. My friends, neighbors, and I, we love living in SF. We love the community here. But the rent is just too high for everyone here. One of the paths out of this housing crisis is by increasing the supply of housing in the city over time. And reducing the current requirements and fees are a key step forward in doing so. The historical requirements were well-intentioned and have worked in previous periods to create affordable homes, but now economic conditions have worsened. As you know, the TAC report has found that costs have grown so much that it is no longer financially feasible for developers to build market-rate rental housing. Unfortunately, an inclusionary requirement reduces to nothing if no housing is built. When these market conditions change, as they are changing now, it is critical to review and update local laws to make sure that they remain effective. This is exactly what's required now in this moment, which is why I request the Commission to send this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hello, my name is Lisa Danz. I'm a renter living in the Mission, and I support the staff recommendation and the update to the ordinance for all the reasons that the previous speakers mentioned. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Rick Cantor, Bill Sorrell Housing Program. I want to say thank you to the previous speakers. A lot of what I want to say has already been said. With the exception, I'm really saddened by my South Asian brothers and their Lack of connection with other communities who have sacrificed here in San Francisco and been displaced. Hearing the voices of our indigenous sisters. I don't know, like, why... Excuse me. Why... Why, when it comes to issues of affordability and homelessness, why is San Francisco insisting on fighting that battle with one arm behind our back and our knee taped to our elbow? There's way too many smart people in this room to recognize that this recommendation of reducing the BMR percentage is just It doesn't make sense in this environment. The BMR program and this particular aspect, the clients, the community that we work with, these opportunities provide space for people who are in the shelter system to move up and then free up further space. I'm glad that people can recognize that connection, but I don't think people are taking that to heart enough. So, yes, I really want to reemphasize that this reduction is something that we need to look at more closely, and I think that 5% is way too low. There needs to be a different number that gets negotiated. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Commission and staff members. My name is Kate Hartley. I'm the chief lending officer at the Housing Accelerator Fund. I'm also a former director of the Mayor's Office of Housing in San Francisco. And I implemented both the Housing Trust Fund and the inclusionary ordinance during my time there. I'm speaking in support of the ordinance. It's the result of extensive analysis by the Inclusionary Technical Advisory Committee, which includes members that have dedicated their careers to affordable housing and community development. The reason the ordinance works is that it's a companion to the Housing Trust Fund amendment, which will increase and extend the much more significant, more reliable, and more impactful resource this city needs for affordable housing. The inclusionary ordinance as currently written is not reliable year to year. It's rigid in its implementation. It does not enable good planning because you can't count on those resources five years out, and housing takes five years or more oftentimes. A steadily increasing housing trust fund extended for 30 years does allow good planning, and the housing trust fund can serve extremely low-income people and prevent displacement in a way that the inclusionary housing fees don't. We need more housing of all types. We especially need affordable housing. We cannot do that without a steady, reliable resource. And the Inclusionary Ordinance Amendment can help expand that resource through an increased tax base. Without that tax base, we can't serve low-income people in our community. So together, the Inclusionary Ordinance and the change to the Housing Trust Fund Amendment, which is essential, will produce better planning opportunities, help lower costs with those planning opportunities, and better provide the housing that we need. And we need this change. Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners. My name is Lori Droste, and I'm the Housing and Planning Director at SPUR. SPUR supports the proposed inclusionary housing and impact fee reforms because they reflect current economic realities and are grounded in evidence. Last month, the Controller's Housing Feasibility Analysis found that housing development in San Francisco is largely not financially feasible under current conditions. When projects don't get built, neither market rate housing nor affordable housing gets built. In response, the Technical Advisory Committee, a diverse group of affordable housing advocates, market rate developers, housing finance experts, unanimously recommended recalibrating inclusionary requirements and impact fees. While no stakeholder got everything they wanted, the tax recommendation reflects the compromises necessary to reach a broad consensus after months of discussion. This is not about abandoning affordability goals. It's about recognizing that affordable housing requirements only create public benefits when housing projects actually move forward. Higher requirements on paper may sound appealing, but they produce no affordable housing if they make projects infeasible. Of course, these reforms are not a silver bullet and are only one part of the solution, but they are necessary. Of course, San Francisco will need additional affordable housing funding and other strategies to increase housing production, but restoring project feasibility is a necessary first step. SPUR also supports exempting smaller projects, focusing scarce resources on lower-income households, and simplifying regulations that add cost without providing meaningful public benefit. The choice, again, before us is not between housing production and affordability. These goals are interconnected. If we want more affordable housing, we need policies that allow housing to be built again. Thank you, and please support these reforms.

Hello, my name is Mo Zhu. I'm a resident of San Francisco. I urge you to support and approve the department's recommendations. I live in market rate housing, and this year my rent went up by 10%. And I felt lucky, actually, and then I felt that, Nobody is lucky when someone's rent goes up by 10%, even in a market rate situation. And I think that there is a false sort of choice put before us by some of the folks previous where either we are going to have affordable or we're going to have market rate. But here, as many of the previous speakers have also said, these two things are not mutually exclusive. Right now we're choosing between absolutely no new units versus some new units. I also think that there's another false choice that is presented, which is whether or not market rate units actually help people who need affordable units. I saw in the controller's report a shocking number, something like 2.5% of people who are applying for affordable units, trying to get in, actually get it. So 97% of them, what are they doing? Where are they going? Combining that with another research done by the Pew Center, they looked at moving chains, which was when new housing gets built, somebody moves into the new housing, and then other people move in. And so then at the end of that chain, a unit of affordable housing becomes available for someone else to take in. So it actually does. Building more units in general actually does free up units across the entire So I do urge you guys to look past these false choices and have a clear sense of what the choice is here. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Lisa Platt. I am a resident of Pacific Heights. While there's a proposal to increase the housing trust fund as a way to address the gap in funding created by reducing and eliminating inclusionary housing requirements, that has no guarantee of passing. So we're replacing the only meaningful lever we have with thoughts and prayers. At the same time, data suggests that this wouldn't even result in the construction of additional market rate housing, so we're giving away what we have for no gain. That is hella irresponsible. I support more public housing, but we can't yet rely on that without enough guaranteed funding, which we don't have. I also know that the current inclusionary system isn't producing as many affordable units as we need. But getting rid of it without a viable replacement reads only as a developer giveaway, and we've had enough of those. Only 1,000 affordable housing units were built each year since the inception of the Housing Trust Fund. At the same time, there were more than three times more market rate units built. And yet, the influx of AI money, with several more IPOs on the way and thus thousands of new millionaires in this city, continues to drive up the cost of housing, while SF population is actually lower than pre-pandemic levels. This isn't a supply and demand problem. My newly arrived and SF neighbor happily pays $5,000 per month for a one bedroom because he can. Market rate units attract new people who can afford them, while those who cannot leave the city. I know. That's how I, too, ended up here with a great paying tech job, and I probably took someone's home. We need to stop the cycle. The previous speaker was right. Someone does move into these units, And it's people like me. Don't give away one of the only mechanisms we have for no ROI. Have a holistic solution in place and then move forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Whit Turner speaking on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We are hella excited to support this legislation. Our membership, builders, affordable housers, labor, community organizations has been saying for years what the controller's data now confirms. which is that the current inclusionary and fee structure is not working. We are not producing enough housing. Inclusionary program, pardon me, has consistently under-delivered, not because it's not important, but because it's only as effective as the housing starts it's attached to, and right now, those are zero. What's in front of you today aims to fix that, and what should give the commission confidence is that the people who actually deliver housing in the city across every segment of this industry are unified behind it, and that doesn't happen often. It's happening now because the ordinance is grounded in reality and because the companion charter amendment to more than double the housing trust fund means that the city is pairing housing production with the largest dedicated affordable housing investment it has ever made. The coalition is here, it's present, and the data is clear. So we ask for your vote to advance this ordinance today. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramey Dare, and I'm the original director of real estate at Mercy Housing California. Our president, Tiffany Bohe, served on the technical advisory committee, which informed the recommendations in the legislation before you. We are supportive of the tax recommendations aimed at improving the city's housing ecosystem. We are in favor of the proposed modifications to the city's inclusionary housing requirements and development impact fees, provided that the city establish an alternative funding source for affordable housing through a renewed and expanded affordable housing trust fund. Mercy Housing is a nonprofit organization that develops, owns, and manages 58 affordable housing communities throughout the city. We have an additional pipeline of 2,900 new housing units in the city. As a mission-driven affordable housing developer, we know firsthand that reliable local funding is one of the most important factors in preserving existing affordable homes and delivering new housing opportunities for San Franciscans. For that reason, we strongly support the Housing Trust Fund Charter Amendment. If placed on the November 2026 ballot and approved by voters, it would establish a more sustainable and predictable source for local funding for affordable housing. This would help ensure that San Francisco can continue to invest in housing for low-income families, seniors, veterans, and people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. We also support the broader legislative package, including modifications to the inclusionary housing requirements and development fees that can help improve project feasibility and encourage the production of housing. Taken together, this package represents a significant opportunity to expand housing opportunities across income levels while ensuring that San Francisco remains dedicated and committed to serving its most vulnerable residents. We urge you to advance the Housing Trust Fund Charter Amendment and the accompanying legislation so that the city can make meaningful progress toward addressing its housing needs. Thank you.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Mitch Manken. I'm the policy and data manager at San Francisco Housing Development Corporation. We're a community-based affordable housing developer, resident services provider, and HUD-certified housing counseling agency. And we serve clients across the Bay Area, but especially focus on San Francisco's black community and the Fillmore and Bayview districts. Our housing counselors have clients coming in every day asking how they can find an affordable place to live. And inclusionary units are one of the major sources of those homes, as well as the 100% affordable that is built with the in lieu fees from an inclusionary. The need for affordable housing is urgent, real, and not going away. The analysis presented to the tax show that there is no level you can reduce the inclusionary rate to that would make the performers pencil out. Inclusionary housing is not the problem. Cost of building is the problem. As long as the costs of land, labor, lumber, and liquidity stay high, market rate projects will remain stalled. And when those market conditions improve, we will still need inclusionary housing dollars to support affordable housing. Further, I couldn't find a single city in the Bay Area that has an inclusionary rate below 10%. 5% would be an unprecedented reduction. Given all that, I want to uplift the six modifications that were named in the choo-choo letter you received yesterday. Each of these deserve careful consideration and discussion from each of you as planning commissioners. And hopefully, I have time for all of them. One, reject the permanent collapse to 5% on-site rate. Restore a meaningful floor, prioritizing units at 55% AMI, and provide a path towards pre-reduction levels as the market recovers. Two, retain the 10-unit applicability threshold. Reject the permanent exemption of projects that are under 25 units. Three, preserve the geographic anti-displacement requirements in the Mission, Soma, and Eastern neighborhoods. Four, protect the jobs, housing, linkage fee, and the community stabilization fees from the 67% reduction. And five, pair any feasibility release with cost side measures. That's financing, construction costs, and process that address the real costs of getting shovels in the ground so the burden does not fall on affordable housing. Even the Technical Advisory Committee acknowledged this burden should not fall on them alone. And finally, six, advance the Housing Trust Fund as additional support, not as the price of this rollback. And address the gaps between when these cuts take effect this year and when the replacement revenue from the Housing Trust Fund will arrive, which doesn't come until 2029. Housing is a public good. The market can be made to serve the needs of the residents. But we need to do it thoughtfully and think about not just current market conditions, but those that are coming down the road. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dane Ouellette. I'm a volunteer lead with SFEMB, and I live in Coal Valley. I'm speaking in favor of the TAC requirements, and I hope that you vote in favor of them today. The reason that I'm in support is the same reason that I am part of SFEMB. Me and my wife moved to San Francisco a little over a year ago. We moved from Texas, which, as I'm sure you are all aware, is not the best place to be living for a lot of communities right now. My wife and I want to be able to have kids soon, and that is a dangerous prospect in Texas with their abortion and health care laws. And we saw that San Francisco has been welcoming to my sister, to my wife's parents, and we wanted to feel welcome and to come here as well. Thankfully, we are able to get an apartment, and we live in San Francisco and have for over a year now. But as others have echoed with looking at moving up to bigger units, we want to be able to have an apartment where our kids can have rooms of their own, hopefully. And right now, the market is just not in a position where that's happening. I believe that the TAC recommendations will help produce more housing and will make it where me and my wife are not going to have to wait for some miracle unit where we have some lottery that we managed to win to get a three or a four bedroom unit to raise our kids in this city. And we know that there are countless other people who have this same concern, where they cannot, even if they're currently living here, they cannot live in their ideal type of housing situation. And so I know that in order for our family to be able to grow and prosper here and hopefully not get pushed out of the city, we absolutely have to build more housing. And the TAC recommendations are a well-grounded and well-thought-out effort to make that a reality for me and others like me. Thank you.

Good afternoon, George Ashutosh. I would like to make four points, please. First, everyone should read Lorraine Petty's thoughtful letter in the supporting documents, which is on the commission website, on the end of the inclusionary. Second, there are three feasibility studies that need to be looked at together. All are contingent on improved market conditions. God bless you. One year ago, in June 2025 for the FCP, the most feasible development across all project types was on a lot of 2,500 square feet, the typical lot in the residential neighborhoods. Now, in June 2026, per the controller's report on the inclusionary, the most feasible development did not take lot size into consideration. Yet the BLA analyzed projects similar to the type the controller used, market rate condos roughly 100 units at eight stories tall, but that study did include a lot size of 10,000 square feet. Aren't these all in conflict with one another? Third, again, one year ago, for the rezoning, the most feasible development under improved market conditions was any project on a 2,500 square foot lot. Given the real estate frenzy, the city is likely in improved market conditions. But under the HCSF and SB 423, allowing fewer than four units in the 4044R is a loophole that should be closed because this may just lead to two units of luxury housing. This is not affordable housing, and it skews the market way upwards. There's a prototype I submitted in August 12, 2025 letter for about four units, four flats with three bedrooms, two baths. Please look at that again if you're looking for a prototype. And it has a 45% rear yard. Finally. To everyone who follows the blanket, build baby, build philosophy, including the people, all the people on the second floor of this building, they should recognize that they have won. They've won. And they should use their political capital and put their efforts into repealing and ending the Ellis Act. Thank you very much. And here's my 150 words for the minute.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wormer. I have various thoughts. One is we have a residential nexus study. And I'm assuming that that is a real useful document because the planning department has used that as justification for the inclusionary requirements. And it ties the demand for below market rate housing that is created by the construction of market rate housing. So understand, every market rate unit creates a demand for sort of a 30% or 1 third of a below market rate unit. That's an economic study that's based on really good economic models. I've seen improper analysis on similar things, and it's pretty reliable. So it's not at all clear to me. why allowing market rate up to 24 units to provide no inclusionary housing and to dramatically reduce inclusionary housing requirements for above 25 units actually helps us deal with the fundamental problem of affordable housing in the city. couple that to the idea that we are going to do, let me say there was a politician you may remember who was advocating for the repeal of the ACA. But don't worry, you can repeal it, but I will have a very good program in two months. And here I'm hearing, oh, we will have a charter amendment in the fall. How many of you can guarantee me that charter amendment on the housing trust fund will pass? If you are going to pass something that is relying on the charter amendment, please, please, please make sure that its implementation does not occur unless that charter amendment passes. That needs to be a link. its promises. And I think someone at the beginning talked about the history of promises from government to vulnerable populations earlier in this hearing. And I call back to that. So thank you. I think that as it stands, this really needs to be thought about a little bit more before it's put forward. And then I would note a separate issue, a safety issue. That seat in the back there is broken. It sort of collapsed under me. So maybe someone needs to make a note to get maintenance to look at it because someone could get hurt there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Nice to see everyone here today on such an important issue. I have a little perspective on this, having been one of the architects back in 2017 when we actually created the idea of the TAC and having there be a body of experts, both developers, affordable, controller, economists, that would come in and say, depending upon where the market is, we're going to take a look at where the inclusionary numbers should be. So I'm happy to be here today on behalf of the building trades in support of this proposal. There are a lot of different levers that you'll notice. And we have one of the tech members that's going to speak after. But the cost of construction, the lending, the number, the transfer tax, the inclusionary number, all these things play into the levers that impact the decision of where we are in the market today. And so it's not just fixating on one they all are related to one another and so lowering this number today is going to unleash development in the city and there does need to be both affordable and market rate and this can be done in good way and I think there's a nexus and there's a connection to the proposed housing trust fund so yes this might be a reduction in the short run but there is going to be a I believe, a larger allocation for affordable housing. Another thing I worked on back in 2011 with Mayor Ed Lee. And it's not enough money to jumpstart. But if we're able to increase that number, it's going to be overall a positive impact on overall for affordable and market rate housing development. So happy to be here on behalf of the trades in support of this. And so I hope you all will send this out with approval. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Jesse Blout with Strata. I've been a member of the TAC since its inception, as then-supervisor Safiye mentioned. Been on it since 2017 or 18. And I'm really proud of the work the TAC did this time around. Six months of effort. The group really came together with, under a difficult set of circumstances. It's never something that even I, as a market rate developer, relish doing, which is to lower affordability on an inclusionary basis. But as I'm sure you've heard in the presentations, the controller's report shows the truth, which is housing construction is infeasible today. We've had the privilege of building over 1,000 units in San Francisco in the last five years. I think we're probably built the most housing of anybody. I would be lying to you if I didn't say it was very difficult to get housing built today. And this will make a material impact on our ability to build here in the city. We have over 1,500 housing units in the pipeline. One of the things I'm most proud about is how much unanimity there was in the room around these recommendations, as I think it states in the controller's report. And one of the big breakthroughs here was this notion of this comes together with what we call the grand bargain of moving forward with the Housing Trust Fund, which is a longtime goal of Everybody who's tried to support affordable housing, which is to create a sustainable source, a dependable source of affordable housing financing that doesn't depend on the exigencies of the market rate development market, which inclusionary, of course, is tied. And impact fees from inclusionary are tied to the market. And so this takes that away a little bit and says, OK, no matter what, we're going to have a reliable source affordable housing funding for affordable housing developers to plan appropriately for and the city to plan appropriately for and to implement. So personally that was the big breakthrough in the room. Nobody including myself relishes the idea of lowering the affordability requirements if we don't have to. It's just what the time calls for given how expensive it is to build and how hard it is to get housing financed. But the Housing Trust Fund I think really brings this all together into a way that allows everybody to move forward in a kind of comprehensive way. The other thing I'll point out which may be a subtlety of this set of recommendations is Most setting the inclusionary level as low as 5% does create an interesting incentive for those of us that are looking at whether or not to use a density bonus by having a lower inclusionary rate for non-density bonus projects and density bonus projects. I think it really does. potentially point a lot of developers towards using things like the family zoning plan without requiring density bonus. So I think that's a feature of this thing. It's important. I've heard Commissioner Moore and others talk about the challenges that the density bonus presents from a policy perspective. So just to note that. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Shia French. I am the Director of Organizing at Senior and Disability Action. We are a nonprofit that has many, we reach a few thousand people in the Bay Area, and the majority of those people are people who have needed some form of affordable housing. And I think that we feel pretty concerned. We're opposing what's being put forward because anything that reduces the amount of affordable housing in the city really harms our folks. That we have enough vacant units in San Francisco for every unhoused person to have two units. The problem is not that we're not building enough housing. The problem is that not enough of that housing is affordable. And so the solution to that, there are many, but one of them is to continue to require developers to make more housing that is affordable. We have a number of Filipino elders who are in our network. And I was talking to someone today who, you know, her rent's $314, and that is still too much. You know, it still means that she's not able to get all the food in a month that she wants. And that... We need all of the tools at our disposal in the city. We need the rent control. We need the supportive housing. And we really need this inclusionary housing. Because if not, we will have a city of billionaires. We will have a city of people who make $200,000 a year or more, and we will lose the city, the people who make San Francisco San Francisco. I think it's unethical to pass this resolution, and I hope you take these comments into consideration. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Maya Moria Selke-Scott. My pronouns are they, them. I am 60 years old. I am non-binary and queer and multiply disabled. I was born with a really serious disability that makes it hard for me to breathe or swallow, which is primarily why I use a wheelchair. I live in a unit now that has a combination of market rate, below market rate, and units that people with housing vouchers like me can live in. And it's one of the most multiracial, multilingual, intergenerational accessible places that I've ever lived. It's an amazing place to live. I moved to the Bay Area in 1990, so I've been here for 36 years. I am also a domestic violence survivor. And I was actually married here in City Hall during the Winter of Love on Friday, February 13, and also married again. So this is a very important place to me. But unfortunately, I'm in the middle of divorce because I'm a domestic violence survivor. And I had to go into the domestic violence shelter system in the height of the pandemic on May 4, 2021. There is an absolute pandemic around domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and trafficking going on in this time during the pandemic. And I am one of 70,000 families. in the United States that got an emergency housing voucher under the Biden-Harris administration. So without these kinds of affordable housing, I am living currently on below $400 a month. I don't even have SSDI. I have to do GoFundMe to be able to eat. When you cut this housing, you have people like me who have incredible history. I've been an organizer my whole life. I love the Bay Area. But without this kind of housing, I could not live here. I would have to go back to Massachusetts, which is completely not queer-friendly, very inaccessible, and not my home. So think about people like me. I'm a mama. I'm a domestic violence survivor. I'm an organizer. I'm an artist. And we want the Bay Area to have folks like me here. So please, please, please make more spaces like the place that I live in available for people. And thank you so much for your time. I'm also a member of Senior and Disability Action and Disability Justice League Bay Area and Hand in Hand and a lot of grassroots disability organizing groups. So thank you so much.

OK, last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And these items are now before .

Commissioner Williams. I want to thank everyone who can hear me. I want to thank everyone who came out and gave testimony today. This is a very serious and impactful issue. I have some prepared thoughts that I'd like to read into the record. Our inclusionary affordable housing program adopted in 2002 has been in effect for over two decades REQUIRING MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE A MODEST, INITIALLY 12% OF THEIR UNITS BE AFFORDABLE TO THE COMMUNITIES THEY WERE BUILDING IN. FROM 2006 TO 2018, THE PROGRAM PRODUCED 2,761 BELOW MARKET RATE HOMES. THAT'S 2,761 FAMILIES, MOSTLY LOWER INCOME, SENIORS AND WORKING CLASS RESIDENTS. I personally know several families and friends that have benefited from this program. This program has been one of the tools to provide affordability and stability to existing residents of our city when luxury and market rate development is being built in their communities. The legislation before us today seeks to lower the inclusionary rate to 5%. This is not without consequence. Every percentage point can represent hundreds of families, seniors, lower income residents, formerly homeless residents, not afforded an opportunity for a stable, affordable home. At a time when rents in our city are at a record high, income inequality is soaring. and everyday expenses are soaring, the demand for affordable housing is at its greatest levels in decades. Not only does this legislation seek to lower the inclusionary affordable units, it also reduces the in-lieu fees that feed our affordable housing fund. The revenues generated by the in-lieu fees are leveraged from state and federal and private investment. In a good year, that contribution has reached roughly $50 million. All of this revenue dedicated to affordable housing production. In the past two decades, in communities like the Mission District and south of Market, we've seen the impacts of luxury and market rate development when it is built without housing, affordable housing, to offset the upward pressures. The gentrification that has ravaged these communities has been well documented. As a result, safeguards in land use have been put in place with the adoption of area plans and designating these communities as priority equity geographies. This legislation dismantles these protections and leaves communities vulnerable. According to our current state mandated housing element, all new development requires to be 57% affordable units. This legislation further diminishes our opportunity to achieve our affordable housing requirements. at the same time reduces in lieu fees needed to achieve funding for affordable housing. The findings from the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee leave out two fundamental parts that are required for development. One, the cost of financing, the percentage rate to capitalize projects, Two, the cost of materials, both having nothing to do with inclusionary units or impact fees. Another recommendation from the Technical Advisory Committee is to exclude small projects of fewer than 25 units from the program, which currently is 10 units or more. This recommendation will negatively affect our affordable housing requirements. and in areas like the west side of our city, which have been up zoned and targeted for new development because of the smaller lot sizes will ensure most new development will be market rate and not affordable housing. Reductions to the inclusionary housing requirements and development impact fees wouldn't be so negatively impactful if we had a comprehensive, fully funded, affordable housing strategy and production plan and pathways to achieve them with specific timeframes. Unfortunately, we don't have that. This current legislation as written will impact the most vulnerable residents who are in need the most. dismantle current land use protections in our most vulnerable communities, and further diminish opportunities to create affordable housing within the system that we have. The need for affordable housing is one of the most important issues facing our city. This legislation highlights the vulnerabilities in the way we produce and fund affordable housing. My hope is that this sparks the conversation that we should be having right now, which is how do we fund and create the affordable housing that we so desperately need. The proposed legislation to increase the annual appropriations to the Affordable Housing Fund starting in 2029 is an important step to achieving our affordable housing needs. I'd like to thank Supervisor Melgar and the mayor for putting that legislation forward. The voters of our city will have the final say. The idea that we are putting this legislation that's in front of us today before having a permanent source of funding in place is unnecessarily, adversely affecting our affordable housing. Those are my opening statements. Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I'll also echo the thanks for the extensive public comment and interest that has happened here today with good reason. When it comes to protecting and producing affordable housing, it is a high priority in policy for, well, high priority for me. I'll say that. I'm not going to rehash all my comments from May 28. Maybe some of them I'll try to not get back into that when this was an informational item. I will start, however, with a little bit in the weeds questions for staff before sharing some broader thoughts. And so most of my questions are about changes that have happened since the May 28 hearing about this item. So the first one is, A staff recommendation that was included in the original packet and here today about the alignment with the 80 120 t and 81 30 t districts in the north of market residential sud and i just wanted to i see what the issue is it's basically trying to make sure that there's still the same policy in place for that area with the changes that happen with this legislation i just want to verify a little point of understanding here is are those zoning districts um are they exclusively located in the north of market residential sud Because I kind of was poking around in our zoning map and trying to verify this. It looked like it to me, but is that, for the most part, the case?

Just one second. Excuse me, folks. Those of you standing at the doorway, if I could ask you to take a seat. There's plenty of seats on this side. It's just that blocking the door causes a fire hazard.

Harley Grove Department staff, it's not a perfect overlap between the North of Market residential SUD and the 80 to 130T and 80 to 120T. There is some of those height districts right outside the North of Market residential SUD, and they go west to Van Ness a little bit. But it's generally almost a perfect circle in a Venn diagram.

OK. Thank you, Carly. I just want to make sure it was roughly the same. It looked like it to me, but I wanted to verify. I have another question about one change that happened since the May 28 packet, and that is the clarification of the definition of the phrase household of low income in the legislation. I saw there that it's now being clearly defined at specific area median income levels with, I believe it was the ownership income level definition would be, sorry it's not my notes, I think it was 100% of AMI. My question is just, it was a little hard for me to figure out, and sorry I'm just bringing this on you now, but it was a little hard to determine the implications of where household of low income with that very specific AMI definition then plays through in the legislative code, like how we use that definition versus more specific guidance. And so I don't know if it's possible. It's a little in the weeds, like I said, but is there anything to share on that?

Good afternoon, Commissioner Maria Benjamin from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. It is in the weeds.

I will say... We're changing the 100%.

It previously was 105% area median income with a qualifying gap so that the unit would be priced at 105%. And then the maximum income to qualify would be 120% area median income. It's the only pricing gap that's 15% between the qualifying and the pricing. Most all others are 20% between the qualifying and the pricing. So this is just taking out that extra 5%, pricing them at 100% so that we do have that affordability cushion. The reason we have the cushion is because of HOA dues, simply. When the units are priced, including the HOA dues, but HOA dues go up. And so in order to have a sustainable homeownership program, we would like to keep that 20% gap between the price and the qualifying eligibility. And that's all that is.

Is this based on the, I'm not remembering the right term, but the implementation guidance? Or is this what you're saying actually in the planning code?

It was in the planning code. It was in the planning code. And it was a newly in the planning code in 20. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Benjamin.

I was trying to find exactly the page in the legislation. But generally, in 2017, the inclusionary ordinance went from one income level for rental and for ownership to three income levels for rental and to ownership. And the ordinance was also modified to incorporate bands of who could qualify for the household at that certain income. So your price would be set at an AMI And then the inclusionary ordinance has a range of AMIs that a household earns that could qualify for that unit. And so at that time, there was an effort to try to make sure that if the bands were meeting one another and making sure that perhaps if a household made just too much to qualify for the lower band, that maybe they could reach down to qualify for a unit or reach up. So this is trying to clean that up a little bit.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that. That's helpful. Yeah, I think it just caught my attention because in the more typical terminology behind these things, the actual term for low-income household doesn't typically go to 100%. So it's just something that kind of stood out in the legislative change. But I recognize we're talking about the planning code as opposed to the broader sort of like HCD definitions for these kinds of things and city definitions. I'll stop torturing you with the really in the weeds questions. You know, I would say in looking at the legislation, a few things stood out to me here. It was helpful to see that there were clear requirements in this legislation for how to prioritize use of the affordable housing fees that were generated in our SUDs. So I was glad to see that, and that's really clear in the legislation. Broadly speaking, when it comes to just the basic idea of reducing the inclusionary housing requirements and the impact fees, to me, these are fairly volatile, market-driven, development conditions-driven requirements, and historically, As far as I understand it, the point was not to create a constraint on housing, but to make sure that we are able to generate affordable housing when projects are moving forward to try to recapture some of that value and make sure that we are contributing to our affordable housing supply through inclusionary housing and in lieu fees. We're at a point now where just these projects aren't moving forward. I've said it last time, I'm not in favor of taking that and saying we should have no inclusionary requirements. There are still projects that can always move forward because of some unique circumstances. So 5% is a pretty low inclusionary requirement, but I can get there given the current feasibility conditions, while also I like that we're keeping at least the 5%, because again, there will be some projects that move forward. And the other point that's been made really clearly and found in the TAC analysis as well is that these lifting or reducing these requirements are not a magic bullet. They're not going to make market rate housing suddenly pencil. And I take that to heart. But they do have an impact on the overall sort of project cost or the pro forma for these projects. So there will come a moment when this change does enable more housing to move forward while at the same time still contributing some affordable housing units and resources. I would also be very uncomfortable with this change if we didn't have a mandatory process for restudying and revisiting these requirements as conditions change in the future. But the fact that we have this mandatory legal requirement, that we look at this again in the future, that does make me much more comfortable with going down to the 5% requirements on this. I'm looking forward to the day that we can actually increase these requirements again. I think that should be a decision that gets determined by improvements in projects moving forward. And the other thing I would say is just There's talk of the fact the Affordable Housing Trust Fund ballot measure isn't a guaranteed thing to pass. And admittedly, that ballot measure is part of what makes me a little more comfortable with going to 5%. It's been pointed out that's pretty low across the region, and I agree. I would just say, I think that I don't need this to be part of a motion, but I think it might be worth considering accelerating reconsideration of the inclusionary requirements, if possible, if that ballot measure doesn't pass. I think that would be kind of catastrophic if it doesn't pass, but I think if that's the case, then that would be the time to really start paying close attention to and tracking market rate housing development conditions and looking maybe a little faster at when it might be time to revisit these requirements and potentially increase them in case the market moves faster than this policy change. Let's see with that. The other item that we're voting on is the delegating authority for modifications to the planning director. I like that the language in there is very clear for the circumstances in which a request for modifications would be denied. And so when I saw that, I was made much more comfortable with the delegation of authority on this. And then lastly, I want to actually thank Commissioner Moore for pointing out, as some other commenters noted during comments today, that the Legislative Analyst's Office did produce a report on funding and incentivizing affordable housing in the city for Supervisor Chen. I think there are some great ideas in there for other broader and kind of creative policy solutions for creating a more stable and broader-based funding source for producing affordable housing. That's really critical. The market rate housing, like I said at the top, it's volatile. It's great if we can leverage it, but that's not the thing that's going to really fundamentally change how we are producing and ensuring that we have affordable housing. And so I just hope that I would encourage anyone who's interested to look at and consider, especially our legislators, look at and consider some of the program and policy recommendations that are in that report. There's some good stuff in there. And with that, actually, I'm going to make a motion to support recommendation for approval with the staff recommended modifications and approve the delegation of authority resolution.

I second it.

Vice President Moore.

This is difficult to speak about because it is extremely complex. And I'm sitting here with meaningful letters and comments from many people, including you today. Thank you for everybody who is here. Thank you for staff completing an absolutely Herculean project, which is so difficult that I could not envision myself participating in its creation. That said, thank you to Commissioner Williams for his very thoughtful summary of where we really are. And thank you, Commissioner Brown, for setting some of the stepping stones for what I will also talk about. Let me start with saying that the changes that I see are major. a lot of time to prepare and understand, but also thoughtfully read through many letters and comments I've received since May 28th. When we left that meeting, I made it very clear that I'm extremely excited about the idea of the trust fund. The trust fund, I think, is an innovative, strong idea. But what took my breath away is what we're taking away in lieu of it and the timing of what we're taking away. I addressed my questions to Mr. Bindler very clearly last time around. That's the uncertainty about voters' reception of a trust fund remains uncertain. And why are we not considering extending our current legislation that expires on November 1, at least till after we know the reality or the non-reality of this trust fund? It's kind of like wanting to skydive and be very excited about it, and potentially the parachute doesn't open. And I want to be clear about I am a risk-adverse person. While I do all kinds of risky things, like skiing too fast or whatever and ending up breaking my leg, in the end, I'm risk-adverse, particularly when I sit here and have to make decisions which are affecting too many people. And I think the downside of what is still, after 30 years, an unresolved problem hasn't gone away, particularly when we listen to the people who were in front of us today. And it is there where I had been looking for more innovative tools to be discussed before we are jumping on deciding something which I don't think is quite ready for me to fully support it. A member in the audience quoted concerns expressed by Chuchu. And I want to repeat some of those concerns. Give me one second. Point one, reject the permanent collapse to a 5% on-site rate. Restore a meaningful floor, prioritizing units at 55 AMI. Retain a 10-unit application threshold, which was presented last time, where we questioned the wisdom of 10 versus 25. I think there have been enough explanations why 10 would be better than 25. preserve the geographic anti-displacement requirements in the Mission, SOMA, and Eastern neighborhoods, protect the job housing linkage fees and community stabilization fees from the 67% reduction. That goes all the way into concerns about Article IV development impact fees and their reduction by 67.5%. advance the Housing Trust Fund as additional support, but not at the price of this rollback and the drastic gap between when these cuts take effect and when replacement revenue arrives in 2029. I think those are the most crucial things where I see a disconnect between the reality and the uncertainty of what may or may not happen in November. Getting back to my notes, I like to actually ask staff or get a reading of why. I'll look for my document here. why what was presented was actually requested by Commissioner Cheyenne Chen and delivered by the budget and legislative analyst. A 132-page report was never discussed in front of the Planning Commission. I've only skimmed through this report. I got it yesterday morning, 132 pages in an area that I have a steep learning curve. It's a very difficult thing to do, but what I read in that report seemed to me important enough for this commission to potentially have a more fully informed basis to consider of what we're being asked to consider. I'm very surprised about what I consider to be a significant disconnect at a time of where we're making really life-altering decisions about the future of where we're going with affordable and inclusionary housing in the city. Did you want me to address your question, Commissioner? Yeah, if you wouldn't mind commenting on the question. Yes, certainly.

Thank you. And certainly did not mean to overlook the commission. As you know, the supervisor requested the BLA to have that report.

Could you speak a little slower?

Yes, thank you for that reminder. The supervisor requested the BLA to create the report, and she also requested a hearing that planning OEWD and the BLA attend, which was on the 8th. And so we all worked and coordinated to have that hearing for the supervisors requested. So that's why it didn't come to Planning Commission, because it was commissioned by the Board of Supervisors to come to the Board of Supervisors and be presented there. Certainly, we could speak with the BLA if they'd like to come here. The information we presented was presented to you all in April, which was regarding our progress on RHNA, which was the part that the Planning Commission was responsible for, for that multi-agency hearing.

For me, today is my last to last meeting. So I regret that this tool has not been made available. It actually answers the question that Mr. Bintleff said last time around, that we were looking for creative, forward-leading ideas. And I do believe that this particular study allows for a large amount of creative ideas which have not been vetted, at least to the extent that they could help make us an informed decision today. What resonated with me and what I will read as reflecting my sentiments is indeed a letter that we received yesterday from the Housing Accelerator Fund, a group of people who were part of the attack. And that letter is in full support of what is being asked. However, in the closing paragraph, there is a cautionary note. On the margin of this particular paragraph, I wrote, if, if, if, if, everything is dependent on the ability to make the trust fund a reality. And that is, I think, the big question standing in the room. So I'll read of what they are saying. Without action on the housing trust fund, the city will effectively exhaust its local affordable housing funding capacity after 2028, precisely when rents are rising again and displacement pressures will intensify. I'll leave it with that.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, just a thought came to me as Commissioner Moore was talking. And that is the. Our housing element. Just last year we. HCD the the body that oversees our housing element state. Made us. Up zone. 3 quarters of our city and if we didn't. They threatened to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for affordable housing and for transit. When it comes to the affordable side, they also recommended that we build 57% affordable housing to meet the need of San Francisco, but yet no Nothing else. It falls silent. I asked. There's no consequence, basically. There's no pressure to actually come up with solutions, creative solutions, to get funding to build this affordable housing. And I think that that's very telling. And I wanted to make that public comment, this comment to the public, because That's a serious issue. In other words, the state is more concerned about market rate housing, luxury housing, than it is affordable housing. And that's the greatest demand for our city. It's Irritating to me.

Thank you Commissioner so Well, like I said before last time when this item came in front of us for informational hearing These number doesn't lie the statistic of what we have We didn't able to actually encourage anyone that is not just affordable housing developer this is a workforce developer, regular, anyone who's trying to build something here, we are not able to meet any goals since the pandemic. And I don't think this is single-handedly because of what anyone talked about here at City Hall about the ideology of everything. I think we all love to have the ideology of everything we've been talking about. But the reality is that we do have to look at it's a free market. I think this country's free market is supply and demand. And people, if you talk to the bank, and they will be like, well, you're definitely not going to make any return, so we're not going to be able to give you a loan. This is not any different than you go and try to get a simple loan to buy a car, get a simple loan to pay a down payment for your house, let alone get a simple loan to try to build something for anyone. We need housing for everybody. We need housing for really, really below affordability people to address our homelessness situation. We need to continue to uplift and be equitable to communities that this country has been systematically harmed for generations. We also need to provide people who are in the workforce. They are the missing middle. They're not 100% truly unaffordable, but they're not rich. And what happened to them? I think they moved to Tracy and then commute here. And then a lot of developers, well, if you charge us that much, we could have just gone to Burlingame or Millbrae. I'm not going to promote them. I don't want to bring them up. But that's the reality here. And I truly, like I said also, how I want to see my aunties and uncles and myself when I get older to be able to live here in San Francisco. I'm a diehard San Francisco fan. What we have right now, I think there's like a little bit of misinterpretation of understanding of how we get here and what we're about to do to enable us to move the needle to somewhere else better. I think we can understand, everyone agree that we want housing. Everybody spoke in front of me today. Thank you for sharing your family and your personal story. It's really heartfelt, ranging from being able to be fortunate to pay a market rate rent and still subject to a spike of increase in rent, and the one that struggled to find a placement with our government help with subject to when you are in your life having such a difficulty situation is really heartfelt. But what we're doing here, yes, I don't think there's any, if this is not a magic eight ball, everyone is, if the economy is a certainty, I think that we will be living in a different type of world. We can never predict economy and have control over that. But we can shape some policy to enable and encourage certain outcome and hope that this will do better. Because we did try a version 10 years ago or however many years ago. One of the tech committee had participate. We had tried that strategy. And this is a supply and demand. People can just take their money and build somewhere else. So now we're going to have to try a different strategy. And yes, I hear my colleague. There are concern if this will pan out. But we can't. live with the theory. We have to look at the numbers and move forward. Knowing these numbers have been six years of this record from our chief economist and the tech committee and many very trustworthy nonprofit think tank that is outside the city hall, I do believe that they are not just saying things just to say it. It is a lived history. We hear everybody. I myself is affected. Can I afford to continue to live here? I'm not sure. Is my child able to find a place? I'm really not thinking she would be when she graduates from, hopefully she can graduate from college. I'm not sure. So the 5% I don't need to go into detail about this. I think one thing I wanted to mention is that I'm going to say it in one sentence. I think we cannot solve a housing shortage by making it harder to build housing. And I've received numerous letters in support and also letters of concern. I do want to say, moving forward, we can do better as a city and also with collaboration with our supervisors to continue to assist to foster a better understanding and an interpretation of what this charter amendment will actually mean to do. And as a whole, I think we will come out better than what we have. Because what we have in the past is the data has proven to us that it's not working. Some of my colleagues even challenge is 5% even too high, right? Because you can look at the number and the chart looking back the record. But if we create a lot more opportunity for people to come in and build housing, the pot will get bigger for a tax aside revenue. If we continue to hold on to this is what we have and we're not going to change, we've seen the history. No one is coming to build anything. So I really wonder how we are going to get out of this if we're not trying to change something. I really appreciate to see Kate Hartley here again. I think her experience and being served as a head of MOCD really speaks depth of these are the experts of what they have done. They have dedicated entire life to serve. people specifically in the affordable housing space, and also all the MOHCD staff sitting here today, Sheila and Kostka and Ms. Williams, right? Benjamin, sorry. So I really want to see that 1,500 units in the pipeline actually getting built. Let's just really move the needle. And I already second my support. I think we all should be really positive. And I hope that we can attract people to stay in San Francisco and move back here and also have senior housing continue to be built.

Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

I really want to thank staff, everybody who came out. Everybody's got an opinion one way or another. Everybody's affected, positively or negatively, one way or another. Staff, how you did this work, I don't know. I echo Commissioner Moore. It's Herculean. I represent people. I put people to work for a living. And I'm just looking at the numbers. And it totally reflects. Numbers don't lie. Mr. Welch there, 2017, 4,972 units. 2025, 2,406, 48% reduction. My members build those. And if they're not being built, they're not working. And if they're not working, they're on a downward spiral into basically another level of despair that they can't basically provide for their family. And they're close to basically being unhoused themselves. And Tracy, Tracy's a luxury. It's built out. It's way, way the other side of Tracy right now. That's where people are. But there is one thing we do, everybody has in common here, and that's this November. Regardless of how you're affected, I represent 4,000 members. I can reach out to people in the trades and get other people to vote. And that's an issue we do have here. take the if out of it. I guarantee you that I will make sure everybody who I can touch or basically reach will basically vote this November to take the if out of the equation. I ask that everybody does the same. because what Supervisor Melgar has done here with her fellow supervisors, reaching over the aisle and across the hallway to the mayor's office and basically creating the possibility of what Commissioner Williams has wanted from day one here. There's one thing that's drilled into my head, and that's our guaranteed funding. And this funding will basically possibly quadruple the funding that's there, and it's ongoing. That, basically, we're going from 10% to 5%. Bridges that gap, makes it based 10% of nothing is nothing. Because right now, we're building half of what we built in 2017. COVID killed us. We have not come out of COVID. There is a construction recession, savage recession here for years. We have not come out of it. Then we decided to have another war in the Middle East, which We were coming. We were just going. Stars were aligning and then crash. But every major city is basically out of it. They're rising. We're flat. But we're so flat, we know that we have to move or we're left behind. And if we don't move, the stars have to align, the work staff is doing here. It's basically preemptive to get everything. So in November, when we get that, we can move. And the money is there ready and available to actually acquire whatever properties or build on the properties we actually have. So we have to hold ourselves accountable. We have to basically move forward. This is moving forward. But it all hinges on the if. And everybody has to get out and vote in November. That's my $0.02.

Thank you. Vice President Moore.

Oh, you will. Oh, you moved. OK, good. I have a technical question for planning. Despite eliminating the Article IV impact fees, impacts will not disappear. And previously, impacts were mitigated through very carefully calibrated nexus studies. And they were actually very exacting and very complicated, because you cannot establish impact fees without a nexus study. How are we handling that in the future?

I think Mr. Brentliff will take the first.

If I may, Commissioner, as apparently may be my last chance to address you from here, but hopefully not in other venues, we look at this very seriously. Would you speak more into the microphone? Yeah. These impact fee programs have generated revenue. over the years. And it's a very similar story to what we see with the inclusionary revenue that dropped down from being about an average of $25 million a year before the pandemic to about $2 million a year the last couple of years with actually a negative balance where most CD actually lost money because we had a permit canceled and they had to refund them last year on inclusionary. On the overall development impact fees, in the few years leading up to the pandemic, we were bringing in about $100 million a year. That dropped to $25 million a year from 2020 to 2023. And in the last two years, it's been about $3 million of total development impact fee revenue for the whole city from all 20-some fee programs that we have adopted over the years. So this ordinance is removing some of them that are duplicative to the inclusionary ordinance and above what is feasible, and reducing others based on the findings of the tax report that will be revisited every three years. In the meantime, just like with affordable housing, that is not our only source for infrastructure. We have a robust general obligation bond program as well. The voters just passed a $500 million bond in the last election for earthquake and safety resilience. There's another one coming up for transportation and parks next year for transportation. We have two measures on the ballot in November, a parcel tax and a regional sales tax to continue to fund transportation, child care is funded through the Prop C measure from a few years ago, in many orders of magnitude more than what was ever generated from the impact fee. So we have many other sources, and very similar to inclusionary, this is yet another one that simply only functions as well as the market is able to provide it. And so we're trying to get more development to get the 33% of fees we will continue to charge by reducing the upfront cost to development. And Ms. Tanner may have something to add.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Braun.

Vice President Moore actually cued me up kind of perfectly for my last thought on this that's sort of related. With the changes that are part of this legislation, we are sort of flattening some of the requirements to be a little bit more citywide as opposed to the old approach of recognizing that there was a lot of value being generated through increasing development capacity in certain areas of the city and asking for contributions in exchange for that. So that's those sub-area specific development impact fees, for example. I think that given the current conditions, it is reasonable to sort of flatten out these requirements, make them a little bit more consistent. But I would just advocate for and hope that the next time this is restudied, As part of that, it's also consideration of different sub-markets within the city and how they are performing and looking at the possibility of, again, considering some more geographically targeted requirements based on the differences in development market conditions in our different sub-areas of the city. I know I said that a little bit on May 28th, but I'm hoping that can sort of make it into staff summary of this hearing as well. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll keep my comments brief, because a lot of it is repeating what has already been said. But I also want to just thank everyone that was involved across departments. There's a lot of hard work that went into this, and Supervisor Melgar and the mayor for putting the legislation forward, and really the public for coming out. I always say this is not an easy meeting to get to. So thank you for carving out time to have your voices heard. And it's so clear to me how much we all are worried about affordability in San Francisco. I think the question is just, how How do we get there? For me, I land on the data, which this report has a lot of, and the amendments are leaning on. And I'm very, very grateful for the creation of TAC. I think it's easy to get caught up in creating policy in a vacuum or based on feelings, but I appreciate that that group is made up of folks that are very close to market conditions. And I think it's clear that it's not working now as it is. Inclusionary housing is so dependent on the market, housing, and where the funds come from. So I think, to me, these are not like mutually exclusive decisions that we're making, like we're choosing one or the other. We have to have more market housing in order to get more of our inclusionary housing funds bolstered. We can't change all of these other variables that have been mentioned today, like the construction costs and material costs and interest rates, but these are things that we can control by looking at the inclusionary requirements and fees. So I'm in full support of moving forward with this. I am comforted by knowing in three years the TAC will meet again, and we can revisit this accordingly. I also would be curious, and I don't know if this is too hard of a scenario to walk us through. There's clearly a lot of concern around what if this ballot measure doesn't pass? What if this ballot measure doesn't pass? could we ex could could someone speak a little bit to what that timeline is and what would our next steps be if if that's something that we actually don't see if we i think we're confident it's going to make it onto the ballot but if we don't get the votes that we need that's right um in in that um

UNLIKELY EVENT. UNLIKELY, OF COURSE. THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US IS AN ORDINANCE, SO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAN ADOPT ANOTHER ORDINANCE ANY TUESDAY. SO THEY CAN ALWAYS REVISIT IT IF CONDITIONS CHANGE.

THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OF THE COMMENTS, AND WE DO HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED.

Indeed, commissioners, we do have a motion to adopt recommendations for approval with staff modifications for the planning code amendment and to adopt the delegation of authority. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, commissioners. That motion passes 4-2 with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting against. Commissioners, it will place us on item 8 for case number 2025-007500, CUA for the property at 2785 San Bruno Avenue. This is a conditionally used authorization.

Good afternoon, Commission President Campbell and commissioners. I'm Maggie Lausch, department staff, presenting a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 to demolish an existing single-family home and accessory structure with an unauthorized unit and to construct a three-story mixed-use building containing three dwelling units and ground floor commercial at 2785 San Bruno Avenue in the San Bruno Avenue neighborhood commercial district. The one bedroom single family home and the unauthorized studio unit have been unoccupied by tenants for approximately 10 years. They're both considered protected under the Housing Crisis Act, known as SB 330, because they're assumed to be rent controlled. The three-story new building would contain two small ground floor commercial spaces, two one-bedroom units at the second floor, and a three-bedroom unit at the third top floor. The two one-bedroom units would be subject to rent control as required by SB 330 for the replacement of those protected units. I want to highlight that this project is distinct from the 2014 application at the same property. This proposal has a different shape, a lower height, a different mix of uses than the proposal in that application. Most critically, that project did not include rent-controlled replacement units the way this one does. Since my staff report was published, the department received correspondence with six more signatures on the letter of support from neighboring tenants, business owners, and property owners. The support letter focuses on how the project would activate the vacant property and benefit the commercial corridor. The department also received opposition from two members of the public, including an adjacent property owner who highlighted the site's rental history. I believe the commission received those communications as well. The project before you meets the requirements of the planning code and conforms with the design standards. I will clarify that the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards are those that were in effect on August 14th last year, the date the applicant filed their preliminary application for housing development project. So the changes we saw to Section 317 earlier this year do not apply, including the 70% threshold for demolition criteria. You're instead asked to consider all the criteria before you and make findings on balance, as in past cases. The department has found that, on balance, the project is consistent with the policies of the general plan. While it would demolish two existing units, it would construct three units of varying sizes, including the two replacement rent-controlled units and a net new family-sized unit. It would also provide small-scale commercial spaces, creating opportunities for neighborhood serving retail, which is consistent with the San Bruno NCD. Therefore, the department's recommending approval. This concludes my presentation. I'm here for questions, and I will hand off to the sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you, project sponsor. You have five minutes.

I guess Commissioner Moore stepped out. I wanted to say a couple words. Commissioner Moore has been on this commission since I started in fall of 2008, and I don't know a world where she's not on the planning commission. So I'll have to talk to her offline about that. I'm having a little technical difficulties this morning, so I don't have a presentation. You guys have the plans in front of you. It's a relatively straightforward project, so I'm not too concerned. So good afternoon, everyone. John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor, the Huang family. The family patriarch, Henry, and his son, Eric, are here today. Henry is a Chinese immigrant and spent decades of hard work saving to purchase this single property. The project before you is more than just a new development, but it is the fulfillment of Henry's long commitment to leave something better for his family and his neighborhood. The family is proposing construction of a new three-story building with ground floor commercial, three upper story units, two of which will be rent controlled. Let's start with what's at the site today. There is a single family, 900 square foot, one bedroom home. Second, the planning department has technically determined that the small 356 square foot structure at the rear of the site is an unpermitted dwelling unit. However, you can't see the pictures because I can't bring them up, but it is not quality, safe, or habitable housing. It was originally used as a workshop and hasn't had any occupant in it for over 10 years. The project proposes a three-story building. This achieves maximum residential density for the site. Only 36 feet of height is proposed below the 40-foot height limit. The project is also 100% compliant with the San Francisco Planning Code. On the ground floor, there are two modest-sized commercial spaces. The Huangs know the San Bruno corridor well, and establishing these two spaces were important to them as they see a demand for small businesses for these types of spaces on the corridor. On the second floor, there are two new one bedroom units proposed. These also include an additional office room each. Most importantly, these units will be rent controlled consistent with state law unit replacement requirements. So we are creating two new modern residential units subject to rent control to replace a single family home in a structure that is not functionally a housing unit. On the third floor, we have a net new three bedroom family size unit. Reflecting the Hoang's history on this corridor, they have collected support letters from nine neighbors, including the neighbor to the immediate north of the project. So in closing, the project replaces a single-family home and uninhabitable rear structure. It creates two new modest-sized commercial spaces, creates two new rent-controlled units, and creates a new family-sized unit. It's 100% consistent with the planning code. It is fully consistent with all state laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330. And it also maximizes residential density at this site. In other words, the project achieves all the goals we have set for a site like this. So thank you, Commission, for your consideration, and we respectfully request that you support the project. I have two minutes left. I'm going to take 30 seconds.

I was going to give you an extra minute if you needed it. Oh my gosh.

I respect your guys' time too much. Commissioner Moore, I realize this is going to be my last hearing with you. And I wanted to reflect, both because I feel this and because I know you have too much integrity to have any impact on the case in front of you right now. But my first time at the commission was in September of 2008. You were still in your first term. And so I don't know a San Francisco Planning Commission that doesn't have you on it. And I just wanted to reflect on you make everyone on this side of the dais better, because you require that of them. And I've enjoyed my time here, and I just really appreciate the respect and challenge you've given me over the years. You've made me a better land use attorney. So thank you so much, and good luck with wherever you're on to next.

Thank you. If I may step out of line for a second. You actually wanted to be an architect. You told me that early on. So we always had a wonderful kind of challenging relationship. And whatever I said to you, even challenging your legal opinions, I always respected what you said and did. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

OK, with that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Good afternoon, Planning Commissioner. My name is Dr. Michael Wong, and I own the building next door to the subject at 2785 San Bruno Avenue. I oppose the demolition of the building and writing to correct some of the misinformation that has been given to the commission. First, the sponsor has never lived at the site. The application stated that the building is owner-occupied and simply is not true. you will note that the draft motion presented to you listed a different address for the sponsors on Madrid Street, not 2785 San Bernardino Avenue. The sponsors bought the building in 2014 right after it has been remodeled by the prior owner and immediately sought a demolition permit, even though the building had just been remodeled. The demolition application was rejected by the Board of Supervisors, and nothing has changed since the time. Over 60% of the immediate surrounding neighbors support saving the building. And they have advertised on the Craigslist for rent on the building. And it was in excellent shape. And there was students that lived in the front unit. And it has three bedrooms, as the case list shows. And there was a person, Eric Gorman, was living in the second unit in the garage. So in total, there's four bedrooms at the property. There has been tenants living in the site off and on in the past years. We are requesting the commission reject the demolition of the sound housing. I thank you.

Good afternoon, Presidents Campbells and Commissioner. Good afternoon. My name is Teresa Duque. I'm the Executive Director for the San Francisco Community Empowerment Center. I'm here today on behalf of our organizations, as well as approximately 200 volunteers, members, and community supporters who are deeply concerned about the proposed demolitions of 2785 Sambuna Avenue. We respectfully ask that you deny the conditional use authorizations. This case is not about whether San Francisco need more housing. We all agree that we need more housing. I support affordable housing. I support building more housing. Commissioner, the question before you is whether we should demolish existing natural affordable housing when preservation alternatives may exist. The City of San Francisco has repeatedly stated that preserving existing affordable housing is one of its biggest priorities. Existing housing is often the most affordable housing we have because it already exists. When it is demolished, it cannot be replaced. The property at 2785 Sambuno Avenue is not a vacant lot waiting to become housing. It is a site with a long history of providing housing opportunity for working people, students, and community members. Neighbors have documented that the property housed tenants for years. and provide naturally affordable housing in the neighborhood that is already experiencing increasing economic pressure. The evidence before you commissioners that this property has been the subject of previous effort to demolish existing housing in 2016 The community organized, I'm one of them. Neighbors spoke out, and the Board of Supervisors ultimately rejected a similar proposal. The concern that exists then remains relevant today. What has not changed is the importance of preserving existing housing in a city facing an affordable crisis. Can I finish just one page, please? Because I represent... You have six seconds. Thank you, thank you. I want to emphasize that our coalition supports housing production. We believe San Francisco should be more housing. But housing production and housing preservation are not mutually exclusive. We should not be forced to choose between them. When existing affordable housing is treated, preservation must remain a priority. The material submitted to this commission raised very serious concern about the loss of existing rent-controlled housing. We lost family-sized housing, and where did the proposed replacement housing?

Thank you, ma'am.

That is your time. Chuli property. This concern deserves carefully considered. Thank you, ma'am. That is your time. On behalf of San Francisco Community Center,

Ma'am, that is your time. We afforded you additional time out of courtesy, but that is your time.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, members of the Commission, I'm Steve Williams on behalf of some of the concerned neighbors. Tying into the prior case, if statutory affordable housing is not being constructed, this type of housing is the only source of affordable housing, and all of our priority policies say that. There's a lot of history of this case. Hopefully you had time to review my rather extensive proposal to provide you some of that background. The applicants came forward last August with a new application for the site. The application was in the form of affidavits under penalty of perjury. Those are Exhibits 2 and 3. Those affidavits are completely false. And directly contrary to the very well-established record in this case, the affidavits claim there's only one housing unit on the site, they claim there are no units subject to the rent control ordinance, and they claim the site is a single-family home. and owner-occupied. They claim that if the CUA is granted, the units demolished will not include any rent-controlled housing. None of these claims are true, and the sponsor and their attorneys know it because they were the same ones that went through the history with the neighbors before. There's a mountain of evidence, including findings from the Board of Supervisors who state exactly the opposite on every point in their affidavits. Both units are under rent-control ordinance. The owners have never lived there, and they've owned the site for 12 years. It's always been a speculative development for the sole purpose of trying to tear it down. Why they made these comments when there's recorded testimony from dozens of witnesses, there's findings from the Board of Supervisors, that's exhibit one that I submitted to you. They didn't submit you any of these materials, by the way. They acted as if none of it had ever occurred. They all come to the exact same opposite conclusion. They made these claims because they know they can't prevail on the facts of the case. The application, which has now been corrected as of this past April, does not satisfy the 70% criteria under the Planning Code Section 317G6. Doesn't even satisfy half them, in my opinion. These are protected units. So under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and Planning Director Bulletin Number 7, which I also added to your pile, mandates that if a project removes protected units, and I quote, they must provide replacement units of the same number of bedrooms. They don't do that here. They're removing four rent-controlled bedrooms, and they're only putting back two. And so... They're also in direct violation of the planning code, because 317 requires that after they lost last time, they were mandated to file an application to legalize the unauthorized unit. And they have not done that. This is also part of the priority equity special use district that was just created, also entitled to further protection. Demolition of sound affordable housing.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. That is your time.

We urge you to preserve this housing as was done before unanimously. Even Scott Wiener voted to save this housing. Thank you, Mr. Williams.

OK, last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

I have a question for department staff that relates to some of the comments that we received. And I did take a look at the full letter that was submitted. I am curious to hear from your perspective, were there errors in the original application for this that had to be corrected by department staff?

There were. So when we received the application, it said that there was a single family home existing on the property. I will also say a couple months prior to that, the sponsor had submitted a UDU screening and had gone through that process. I personally did the screening. And following all of our... our standardized process that we've had in place for a number of years now, I did not see, and my colleagues did not see when we looked at it, that it cleared the bar for an unauthorized unit. And of all the documents from the past case I looked at, I missed the final motion from the Board of Supervisors. When Mr. Williams brought this to our attention, we immediately, that's when we continued the case before in January, we said, oh gosh, let's investigate this further. And it turns out that the Board of Supervisors did make a finding that very specifically there's an unauthorized unit. And the department following that said, sponsors, please submit new application materials that reflect the status of the property accurately.

OK. Thank you for that. And thank you for your honesty in the challenges of finding some of the history of the site, the experience. So that just leads me to ask Mr. Kevlin, if there was this previous action by the Board of Supervisors, how was that not included in the original application for this project? Or not the application, is it? But still, why wouldn't there be a U2U if we acknowledged as being on the site?

When this project sponsor, the Wangs, approached me a little over a year ago to take on this case, I became aware of the background. And the UDU guidelines have evolved since 2016. And I said, before we file any applications, we need to file a UDU screening form with planning staff today so we can have a clean slate as to what is this use. Because in fact, staff back in 2016 also said it wasn't a UDU. And on appeal at the Board of Supervisors, they disagreed. So the whole purpose of the UDU screening form was to kind of clear the slate. And once we received confirmation that, in fact, it was only one unit, and that was not a UDU, we proceeded based on that determination. The intent of that was for everyone to kind of take the opportunity and say, is this a UDU or not? So we moved forward on that basis. That's the whole basis of whether or not these are rent-controlled units, et cetera, et cetera. So when Ms. Lausch brought this up, I think it was in December, we immediately pivoted. We had a discussion about it. Staff stuck by the UDU determination. And so we immediately pivoted to, identifying the two units on site that needed to be rent-controlled units. And putting aside what's best for the project sponsor, I mean, I think it makes for a stronger case today. So at no point in terms of we're creating two new rent-controlled units, one of which is replacing a unit that really is uninhabitable. So all of that is to say there is some background to this. The intent out of the gate was to try to clear the slate. Didn't quite work out that way, but as soon as our team became aware of staff's position, pivoted, and now you have a project today with two rent-controlled units in it.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

It's disappointing that the initial application would have not acknowledged the prior determination, although at the same time I'm also hearing that staff has now twice screened for UDU and made a determination that there isn't one. Either way, I'm glad this was caught. I think this was a good example of the conditional use process. bringing something to light because as a result of this, if I'm understanding correctly, this is partly why the new project includes two rent-controlled housing units in it because of that determination. In looking at the project itself and the actual findings and case report before me now, You know, I do believe that, to the best of my judgment of the conditions, that I agree with staff's analysis of the situation and, like I said, it's been made better for the input that's been received. What I'm seeing here is, you know, there's this 931-square-foot, one-bedroom house. It's been advertised in the past as having three bedrooms, but if you look at the floor plan, it may be functionally not legally functional as two bedrooms, but you could make it a two bedroom home pretty easily because of the double parlor in the front. But legally, it's a one bedroom house. And then there's also the unauthorized dwelling unit in the rear, which is, depending on how you look at the floor plan there, studio or one bedroom. What I'm seeing here is that the replacement project for this includes two rent-controlled housing units. Those housing units are one bedrooms, but they themselves include additional, not legal bedroom spaces, but additional bonus space in them as well. They are at the same time smaller than the existing single-family home and potentially, I mean, they are a newer product, but they could potentially rent for lower rates just on basis of size. And then there's this three-bedroom unit that's a larger family-sized unit. Not to say that it's necessarily that affordable per se, but it is a larger family-sized unit. So what I'm seeing here is a project that can support. It meets our planning code requirements. It meets objective standards. And I think in the end, you know, we retain rent-controlled housing. We get an additional housing unit. There's a lot that makes sense to me here with this project. And so it does have my support.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun. I'm just curious about this letter that we received from Dr. Michael Wong. Could you come up? Doctor, I want to ask you, you said in your letter that there had been people living there. And I'm just kind of curious, how recently was that?

At least 2018. 2018. There was still people living there.

Okay. Yeah, because on our staff report it said that there hasn't been anyone living there in 10 years.

I remember that is because I was doing a new roofing at my building and there was like debris that actually went over to their property. And one of the tenants came out and let us know that there's debris over there, so to clean it up. And I was there. So it's like February the 15th, 2018, as far as I remember.

OK. Thank you for that. And so as far as the single family dwelling, that is for planning. Is that covered under rent control? The single family dwelling, that's the one that was occupied, correct?

Oh, yes.

Please.

Yes, Kay Connor from Planning. When there is an unauthorized dwelling unit and it's on the same property as a single family dwelling, if the units were constructed prior to 1979, And with an unauthorized unit, the rent board has kind of determined that we will make that assumption, because we can't really determine exactly when it was built. Both units are assumed to be under rent control.

Both units?

Both units, because they are not separately alienable. They are on one property together. Oh, interesting. Yes. So even though they're separate structures, they are both subject to rent control.

Yes. OK, that's interesting. Thank you, Kate, Connor, for that important information. Yeah, so just that I'm clear, what's the law regarding, or I should say, what's the timeline as far as occupancy of a rental unit? and demolition of a rental unit.

OK, Connor again. So SB 330 has a five year look back. And that five year look back really pertains to whether or not there were low income households that were residing in the property. We don't see any sort of evidence of tenancy in the last five years. So then we have to look at other types of protection that could be afforded to those units. And another form of protection is rent control. And so a unit is rent controlled in San Francisco Beyond the five-year kind of look back so it's always kind of going to be subject to rent control regardless of any sort of tenancy so because they are subject to rent control they are subject to the replacement and relocation provisions of SB 330 right Thank You miss Connor appreciate that Those are those are my questions Thank You Commissioner so

All right. Thanks for presenting again. I've got to have to tell you that this project you represent today is prettier looking than your previous one, John.

Yeah.

This property you present is prettier than your previous one, even though it's come from the same people, engineer who drew them. Yeah. But I do hear a lot of concern about this property. It has history predated, wow, like it was like 2016. Like some people came out today, not just one, but many people representing from the community and the neighborhood. It had to do to probably some prior histories of people THE COMMUNITY NOT GET ALONG. BUT BY RIGHT NOW, WITH WHAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH JOHN AND OUR PLANNING STAFF, THINGS ARE UNDER CONTROL THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WILL BRING IN MORE HOUSING AND ACTUALLY TENANTS RENT CONTROL HOUSING INTO THE CITY. So for policy-wise, this is not a place where I will block it. But I also understand there is a trust issue here with the community. And I wonder, with this conditional use authorization, we can add a condition of a monitoring program to this particular property. I am open to, say, maybe monitoring every 18 months or 24 months, if that.

And so with the monitoring condition, what would you be looking to monitor specifically?

Yeah, specifically if these are going to truly use as tenant control, rent controlled, and then the commercial unit do activate it in due time, and then things are fully occupied.

We do have our standard performance conditions for when they can actually kind of take advantage of this entitlement and start construction. And so that does give them three years. With regard to the rent control, this is something where there is a condition of approval that's already within the motion. So that will be also recorded on title that provides a little bit more security around it.

That's more like a... passive approach. I'd like to have a condition of monitoring to make sure that the property owner truly do what they are applied to do today. Because it seems like that's kind of what the concern is for the historically, they haven't been actually allowing the use the way it is permitted. Right.

I think with respect to the rent control, part of what will happen is that being subject to the rent ordinance, the tenants who live there occupy it. They would be subject to the rental increases and all the other aspects of the ordinance.

I understand that. My point is before they, I want to make sure that they actually truly place tenant there.

Well, we certainly can't require folks to rent their units. And so once units are constructed, we could look at it and say if it's rented or not, but we can't monitor to say if it's- That's what I'm trying to say for a monitoring program.

We're not trying to force them to rent it out, but we would have a monitoring, controlling, well, not controlling, monitoring to make sure that once we allow this change of use, they really are using it per what they request today.

I'm not sure how we would set that up, Ms. Conner.

Would there be a possibility of maybe within a certain time frame that the commission suggests to report back with like an informational memo, just providing an update to this project after any sort of approval, if that's what you decide? I think that would be amicable, yeah.

That would be. In 18 months? Or would you say more reasonable?

We could do a milestone base so that could be either, I don't know what the milestone would be, the construction document time or certificate of occupancy and kind of at these different milestones could be the reporting time frame.

And the certificate of occupancy and then 18 months after the certificate of occupancy?

Yeah, I think that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you. I am in full support of this project. The history of it aside, it feels like you're taking this very kind of non-historic single family home with, I would argue, a suboptimal layout and providing a code compliant mixed-use building that maxes out the density. I don't know why we would ever deny a project like this in light of what we're trying to do here in terms of creating more housing. And we take demolition pretty seriously around here. I particularly like the commercial spaces that the project sponsor is creating at the ground floor, it sounds like. that's needed by the neighborhood and will serve it well from a retail perspective. And we can all get comfort knowing that there were no displacements or evictions based on the data that we have. So I'm in full support. I did have one question that maybe is just from my own education from one of the public comments around how we quantify units. Because I think this sort of like one for one that we try to do when we're losing bedrooms, we want to replace the bedrooms. Commissioner Braun pointed out, are these bedrooms? They don't have closets. They're questionable access for the fire department. To me, when I read the two plans, it does look like we're one for one. But can you talk a little bit about how we quantify bedrooms? What makes a bedroom when we're looking at this kind of scenario?

Absolutely. So SB 330 is really looking at bedrooms. And so we have to look at legal bedrooms. And so in this case, you know, the planner definitely looked at the floor plans and ensured kind of what was an actual legal bedroom. We're not able to look at spaces that may have been, you know, occupied by a person or used as a sleeping room. It really does have to be a legal bedroom to require the replacement.

And can you just hit on what that means, that closet and fire department access?

Yes.

There has to be a closet.

I don't know the square footage right off the top of my head. Oh, yeah. You have to have a minimum for the bed, right?

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Vice President Moore.

I'd like to have a little pushback on the request by Commissioner So. I believe that monitoring these types of projects is inappropriate. Particularly, I want to remind us that the original UDU occurred under different ownership. The building was sold in 2014. So burdening a new owner with this type of arbitrary pursuit, I think, is not particularly looking good for the department nor for this commission. We cannot single out somebody when it really defies the normal procedures. But I have one remaining question for Mr. Kevin. Since we are not doing soundness reports anymore, and you'll remember that we used to do that when it came to demolition, have you seen the property? I mean, the staff report describes it as having been remodeled prior to 2016. And again, sometimes people do remodels, and they may be very simple. This means a little more extra thick paint or whatever. But have you seen it? And would you, if I ask you for your good judgment on looking at a building, what did you see? Or what do you see?

Yes, Commissioner Moore, all of this is kind of our own experiences with this building and not having seen anything official. It's a pretty old, rundown, single-family home. The idea that it would have been renovated in the last 10 years would have been surprising based on what I saw, but that's just my reflection in my time in that unit.

So if you would be the purchase of that building, you would probably say, gee, it's not worth doing a lot with anymore?

It could use some freshening up, yes.

Legally speaking. Thank you. Otherwise, I would agree with President Campbell saying that I think the plans are kind of interesting. I think they create better living spaces. I think they create a more interesting house. They create a better use of society itself. And I think it hints a little bit towards densification, because it is a taller building. I mean, Seastore is not a tall building. I'm just mentioning it's taller than what we have. And I have to say, having very carefully weighed into a project description, which left a lot of uncertainty, but that has been answered for me, I would make a motion that we support the project and move ahead.

Second.

I think Commissioner O'Brien. You want to? Yeah.

I can just go after you.

Commissioner So.

Can someone, I don't know, like the owner or the representative, explain to us in public who owns this place at when? And then were there renters there after you become the owner?

Hi, commissioners. I didn't expect to speak today. So back in 2016, my sister was the one who kind of shepherded this project with my father, my dad, Henry. I was too young at that time to even understand this. I still don't really understand this to this day. But I'm the one who stepped up today to shepherd this project, the second go around with my dad. And so from what I can recollect, I personally had a friend from high school who needed a space to stay. She currently has moved to Oklahoma. So she stayed in this house. I honestly can't tell you if there was someone there in 2018 or not. I mean, it's a blur. But for sure, this house was peacefully vacated. Tenants knew at that point in time when we had the CUA approved that we were going to develop this place. So we didn't renew their lease. They moved out. It was all agreed upon. There was alignment. No LSAC, no evictions. To be honest with you, I don't even know. I can't tell you for sure when my father bought this. But I mean, I'm sure it's in public records. This time around, I'm stepping in. I'm leaning in. So I can only speak to what's going forward. I mean, just adding to the room here, when my sister shepherded this project 10 years ago and the appeal actually went through, there was a huge internal divide in my family. And so I've seen what a project stopped like this does to a family financially, emotionally, personally. And so I just hope you guys can allow my father to finish what he started.

OK. Well, thank you. Commissioner Braun.

I do want to bring forward one thing that was mentioned in the staff report. And so this project is not subject to the changes to Section 317 and the criteria for the demolition, for the removal of the unit that was passed. I think it was just passed early 2026. from what I remember seeing that legislation here.

That's correct. That ordinance, I want to say it was 003-26, became effective February 8th. And for this project, we're looking at the controls from August 14th last year.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to get that out there because I think there's been a little confusion about which parts of the, which version of the planning code under Section 317 applied to the project. And so my other just comment is I did support Commissioner Moore's motion without the monitoring component of this. And the reason is, you know, I think that we have processes in place. I mean, some of it is a little bit more sort of complaints-based. But we are going to increasingly have projects that are newer than 1979 but have rent-controlled units under SB 330 requirements and now our locally adopted version of those requirements. And so I just don't see a specific need from my perspective to apply a second layer or a different approach to that sort of tracking and enforcement and application of the rent control requirements to this project. But I do want to acknowledge and appreciate the I think part of the concern, at least the way I think of it, is that it's harder to know if a unit is rent-controlled when it's new. It's a little bit easier when you say, oh, it has two or more units on the site. It's pretty old. It's pre-1979. That's easy. Now we're in this new world. We're going to have more and more new projects that have rent-controlled units. So I do take that to heart.

perhaps just to speak to that quickly we we have also observed that and so we're working on ensuring that um the planning information map it does contain information about rent control for these new units going forward because unlike as you're suggesting units going backwards it's easier to look at the record and things fine like that but if it's built you know, in 2027, 2028, one wouldn't know just by the building's typology that it's subject to that. And so it's definitely an issue or should say it's an opportunity to inform the public and the tenants as we have potentially new rent control units from the many programs that the city offers for that opportunity.

I really appreciate these dialogue and I'm speaking here I'm glad that we brought this up from based on this property project that how the public can actually find out information of who is which unit which property has rent control units that are in place that is readily accessible today as compared to 10 years ago. And so there's a bit more of a transparency here. And also, we need to strike a balance of not continue to cause more undue hardship to families and their finances. So with that, I can accept the motion. But I also want the public who come forward today, the neighbors and the community, This is kind of where you can look into if this property continue to operate the way is being approved to operate moving forward. This is kind of where what we have for now. But I really do hope that you can really build this and bring housing and maybe a coffee shop or something, you know, really quickly on the San Bruno Avenue. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, 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 Moore? And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. Commissioners, that will place us on the final item on your agenda today. number nine case number 2022 hyphen zero one two two five four cua hyphen zero two for the project at 2001 37th avenue this is also a conditional use authorization good afternoon president campbell members of the commission jeff horn planning department staff item before you is a request for conditional authorization Hold on, Jeff. Excuse me, folks. If you could leave quietly, we still have another matter.

Again, this request would be conditional use authorization to modify a recently approved planned unit development seeking a new modification to reduce the required amount of Class 1 bicycle parking. This item was continued from the May 18th hearing without being heard to provide additional time for the project sponsor to conduct outreach with surrounding community groups. Prior to that May hearing, members of the community submitted concerns regarding the amount of Class 1 bicycle parking proposed as part of this application. For background, on November 2, 2023, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to an existing 1960s era plan unit development to allow an expansion of the St. Ignatius College Preparatory Campus The approved project would allow the demolition of the chapel, dining hall, administrative offices, garage, and dormitory to allow construction of an approximately 182,850 square foot building expansion. The expansion would provide a new chapel, dining area, and kitchen, flexible educational spaces, and 30 new classrooms. As part of the approval, the commission granted modifications to the rear yard requirements through the PUD. Under the 2023 approval, the project was required to provide 120 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces based on the planning code requirements of four spaces for every classroom. The project is currently under construction, and the interior design of the building continues to be refined. As a result, the project sponsor is requesting an additional modification to the plan unit development to reduce the required number of Class 1 bicycle parking spaces. The request is based on existing bicycle commute rates among students and faculty, as well as the amount of building area needed to accommodate the originally required 120 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces. The application materials, the May 18th case report and the case report published last week, The sponsor requested a modification to provide 20 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces. However, following the outreach efforts with the community, including the Outer Sunset Neighbors Organization, the sponsor has revised its request, as reflected in the revised draft motion distributed to the commission via email yesterday. The sponsor is now proposing a total of 70 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces. The revised number was requested by members of the community, and the department has received comments supporting the updated proposal. In addition to the proposed 70 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, the project will provide 30 Class 2 bicycle spaces. Combined with the existing 15 Class 1 and 12 Class 2 spaces, the project will provide a total of 127 bicycle parking spaces consisting of 85 Class 1 and 42 Class 2. There's one additional correction that I would like to read into the record on page 17 of the draft motion under condition of approval number six, bicycle parking. The first sentence currently states that the project shall provide a combined minimum of 100 new bicycle parking spaces. This language should be revised to be more explicit and require the exact minimum of class one bicycle spaces at 70 and class two spaces at 30. As such, the department finds that the requested modification will support the continued operation and expansion of the school by allowing a more efficient use of building floor area for academic purposes while maintaining adequate bicycle parking and preserving character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested PUD modification to allow 70 class one bicycle parking spaces per the revised draft motion and edits referenced today. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, project sponsor. You have five minutes.

Hi, Liz Goodrow. I work for St. Ignatius. I'm running the construction project. I don't have a lot to add beyond we submitted our request for a reduction to 20 based upon the number of community members that commute. Shortly before the hearing, learned that the neighbors were unhappy with that number. Thank you for your continuance. We've worked with them this past month, and we think we've come up with a good solution. 70 Class 1 spots, and we found actually a better spot. The Class 1 bicycle parking spots were originally intended to be in the lower level of our new building, and now we have found a room on the first floor of our existing building that can accommodate the bicycles. Do you have any questions for me?

Do you have plans that you could walk us through that show the new location?

I do, actually. Thanks. It's pretty simple.

SFGov, can we have the overhead?

In many years. Okay. So what you see here, this is the first floor. This is the first floor. This is our new building. This is the main entrance to the new building. And this is our existing building. So to get to the original location, you would go in the new building. You'd get on the elevator, take the elevator down to the lower level, come out, and park right there. The new plan, you can just travel along the sidewalk that's in front of the school, pop in the door, and you're right there on the first floor. So it's better for everyone, actually. Much improved. Yeah, it is. Thank you.

OK, if there are no additional questions from members of the commission, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

Hello, my name is Alice Dusdyker, and I'm the vice president of Outer Sunset Neighbors and the chair of our transportation committee. Outer Sunset Neighbors is a community group focused on improving the outer sunset. I'm also speaking on behalf of Shannon Delp, a concerned community member who was participating in this process but had to go back to work so couldn't stay for this item. uh over the last month i have been speaking on behalf of outer sunset neighbors with liz goodrow as a representative of saint ignatius i have appreciated the kindness and honesty of liz and the team at si as we work together to meet the school's priorities while also ensuring that the school will be well positioned to contribute to the city's environmental and mode shift goal for 80 of all trips to be taken by low carbon sustainable modes such as public transit, walking, biking, and carpooling by the year 2030. While our preference would be to meet or exceed the planning code requirement of 120 Class 1 bike parking spots, we do appreciate that SI has engaged with us in good faith, and we support the compromise we have reached for the school's updated variance request for 70 Class 1 bike parking spots at ground level. We look forward to continuing to work with SI as the school builds on this investment in alternative transportation modes. We believe that SI can lay further groundwork to encourage bicycling to campus by conducting a survey in the fall of how students and staff get to campus to set a baseline which can guide the school's mode shift efforts. We also believe that dedicating staff resources to these efforts will be essential to ensuring their success. There are other peer institutions in the city that can offer examples of what this work and dedicated staffing resources might look like. Overall, I'm glad to see SI prioritizing biking to campus by providing 70 Class 1 ground floor bike parking spots. I look forward to working with the team at SI, Shannon, and other invested community members to ensure that this is a meaningful investment for neighbors and the school. Together we can build a greener community that will contribute to the city's environmental and mode shift goals.

Thank you for your time Last call for public comment Seeing none public comment is closed and this item is now before you commissioners Thank You vice president more

I'm delighted to see that the community came together with this goal to find a commonly supportable solution. Congratulations. I like to see people work it out themselves rather than us having to jump into the middle. I thank the community for very, very carefully and eloquently monitoring The impacts and indeed the transportation plan and all the kinds of things that we normally approve for everybody else are finally addressed. So this is a very big win on all fronts. I actually was part of the commission reviewing the project itself. That is a strong project. I'm glad you're under construction. And so moving ahead with this particular last issue resolved, I make a motion to approve with conditions.

Commissioner Braun.

I also want to thank SI and the neighborhood for working together to try to find a mutually agreeable solution. I would say if this was not continued at our last hearing, I probably would have tried to add quite a lot of class one bike parking spaces on the fly because 20 a reduction from 120 to 20 just did not seem appropriate. I know that there's a lot of references to the existing quantity of people who are commuting to the campus by bicycle, but from my perspective, we just can't get to mode shift unless we have really stellar facilities available for people who are biking and having that their end destination. It's the same thing that happens with car parking. If there's no parking, people aren't going to be driving as much and vice versa. So I want to see that supply of really great bike parking in place. And I think that this 70 class one spaces is a great compromise position here, understanding that it's not the school's mission to provide bike parking. The other thing I would say is I think there's some good ideas about looking at studying transportation patterns and habits to the campus and trying to continue to push the mode shift towards more sustainable forms of transportation, including transit and biking. And as part of that, it might just really be helpful to look at how many students, faculty, and staff reside within three miles of St. Ignatius, because that's a pretty ideal biking distance. The city has its own work to do on making sure there's great, safe, comfortable bike infrastructure on the streets, especially for students. But I think this is a good first step in moving us forward towards more sustainable transportation solutions. Just, yeah, no other notes. Just thank you so much for bringing this to this point.

Thank you. Commissioner So.

I have the luxury of our luxury privilege or opportunity to tour the campus a lot as my child was applying for high school. years back, I mean not a few years back. So I know how massive the school is and I'm also pretty excited about the once in a lifetime of expansion of the campus that will allow the Wildcats to continue to thrive, you know, just exciting about having such an institutional school anchoring for the legacy of the history of San Francisco. Many of my friends are alumni of SI, so really appreciate that today you actually took an effort to reach out to the community and understand a little bit more about how we address climate resiliency and encouraging younger generation to use multimodal transportation because you guys, the Wildcats are really strong in athletics and I think you have a lot of amazing athletes that can also be more extra super athletic when they go bike to school. So I think that's really great and it's a first really good way to accommodate and encourage different ways to go around the city and go to school and go to work, and I really appreciate that, even though with addressing the, you're asking today is quite lower than what code minimum require for a class one bicycle parking. You're requesting to reduce from 120 to 70. I think that Jeff, our staff, did a really good job to make, at all the other total combined of bike parking, it's looked like it's more than 120, but I wanted to emphasize that the 120 is specifically, it's like four class one bike per classroom and you're adding 30 classroom, right? So it is a really huge school and I understand that right now it probably hasn't have that sort of the behavior change to actually use different ways to get to school. Most of them are still probably driving and hopefully they're on Muni and some of them are on your shuttle bus. So I really encourage you taking that first step to do this right now so then you can do like go Wildcats on the West Side, you can bike to school and stay fit, right? And I think that being able to work with the community advocacy group, understanding what neighborhood really needs in West Side is very important. You both are, you're all really important anchor of the West Side of San Francisco. I do want to bring up that many of you might not aware of that Our city is actually creating this plan called Safe Schools Connected Plan. That is a collaboration with the planning department with the MTA. The idea is that having children to be able to feel safe, that they're connected from school to school, from primary school to middle school to high school and community college. So we're looking forward to... have SI be part of the game changer for that. And that said, being I think I saw that in the COA application, there is a transportation development plan. And I really want you to work with our staff and MTA to have that in place so then we all are synchronized into knowing how we work together as the demands grow or change. And I am in agreement with my fellow commissioners, but I also want to add one thing to it is to implement a three-year monitoring program to continue to assess the demands of the student. So with this approval, I wanted to amend the approval to have a three-year monitoring program to continue to reassess the demands as the school grow because right now the kids doesn't know that they will have a place to safely park their bike, that they won't be stolen. And then pretty soon when you finish this expansion, they would know that their bike would be safely secure. But I know that it might not have so many, right? So we'll see how if it moving forward, how things are changing and adapting it. Also, you're in a really educational-rich district. Parts of Sunset is like AP Giannini is right next to it, and the library is right next to it, and then the Sunset Elementary is also right nearby. I do want to make sure that we are... making sure that we cover all the considerations today. So if colleagues, if you don't mind, indulge me to add that monitoring program to reassess the demand.

I'm the maker of the motion, but I would like staff to clarify. If that is typically done that way, I'm in support of seeing it, but I do not want to add extra complications to the school as well as to the staff.

It doesn't seem to be adding a ton of operational challenges for us or the school, and so I think it seems amenable.

I think this will be one that actually helped to facilitate a lot of collaborations between multi-agency departments, between planning and SFMTA, and also the local communities to support our ultimate city goal of safe schools connected plan.

Just so I'm clear, is the goal that the monitoring commission or so would be that they're responding to any new demands that may arise because they have this new facility so that if it becomes very popular, that they would provide more accommodations that maybe start to meet the code required by parking? Right. We'll see if Mr. Horne has a comment possibly to help us.

Thank you. Jeff Horne, Planning Department staff. A similar question on my end in the crafting of such a condition of approval. What would be kind of the metrics we're intending to measure? Should this condition of approval be added to the project? Just daily ridership totals or?

I think I'm really open to what works best between you, the planner, and also the SFMTA traffic planner. Because it really is... I think I do believe, like, as an architect or just anyone like that phrase of, like, form, follow, function, we shape... the building and the facility shape who we are. And we are encouraging different multimodal transportation moving forward for our next generations. And part of it is also adapting to our climate resiliency goal. And so however it makes sense to be easier for you to monitor with collaboration with MTA and also the school to track what is the user demands of And I don't really bike myself too much because I have ability to run into things. So I'm not a die-hard bicyclist. I wanted everyone to know. But I do understand one of the barriers to actually ride, to bike to somewhere is we all want to have a nice bike because San Francisco is hilly. And in the west side, things are far apart, right? It's not like you bike everywhere. You have Market Street that has the green magic carpet you can just zim by. So you want to have nice bike. But then having a nice bike, you don't want it to get stolen, right? That's kind of put us in the pickle here. Class 1 is the only thing that could really circumvent the worry. And I love the Wildcats. I actually went to the Bruce Mahoney game. So good for you. Go SI. You know, like four years sweep winning. I'm going to hopefully continue to get invited to watch the game. So I just want to make sure that we're all in a happy place and we all know that further down the road, really soon, this Safe School Connected plan will be happening. And we want SI to sell smoothly with it. And whatever works best for the staff. I actually don't have anything that I wanted to enforce here. I just want to raise the awareness of help our community serve better. and help our city serve the community better.

So Commissioner, so just for the sake of clarity, the purpose of the monitoring program and report, if it were to be added to the motion, would be to allow the commission to determine whether or not there is a greater need and the opportunity to revoke this conditional use authorization and require that the school provide additional parking, additional bicycle parking.

I'm just kind of thinking forward.

I'm confused what the end game is.

It will be assessing the demands if there will be actually students fully using those.

And if there's insufficient parking because there's additional demand, the commission would then revoke this authorization in the future?

Ms. Tanner, do you have some thoughts? I also see Commissioner Moore has a suggestion. Yes.

I would like to suggest that we do not make a condition, but I would encourage the department, as we have basically transportation planners, to actually monitor trends of schools using bicycles. And that, I think, would give us clues as to whether or not the surrounding infrastructure, particularly on larger schools, is sufficient to encourage and support bicycle parking, as to whether or not public transportation or other means of getting there are sufficient. But I would not just single out a single school and say, you've got to monitor just because they're building a new extension to their building. But deriving from the trends, and I'm really picking up on Commissioner Brown's attitudes about bicycling and see importance of, you have to have proper infrastructure, from safe storage to properly identified bike paths, et cetera, et cetera, crossings that are not dangerous to children coming with bicycles. If we can get a handle on that, then we can be like Holland, and everybody will be bicycling and everything will be fine. But singling out a particular school, I think, is an inappropriate thing to do, except picking up on the constructive nature of Commissioner Searle's question. I would suggest that we make it layering in a more informed judgment about bicycle parking and requirements for bicycle parking at schools with an understanding that standards need to be met, but relative to location and existing infrastructure. I think that's a great suggestion. I'm trying to simplify it without burdening a particular school.

I wanted to bring up one thing. I do understand Commissioner Moore's topic of concern, but however, I do want to bring up also just for information to all my fellow commissioners that this is not singling out one particular school. However, you don't see others who come up here in front of us to request a reduction of Class 1 bike parking because they voluntarily meet the Class 1 requirements. bike parking for their new school additions. And it is equivalent independent school that is actually happened in San Francisco recent years that I'm really aware of. So this is not try to single out a school, but if a school or any entity come in in front of asking for conditional use authorization and with the knowledge of also understanding that we try to encourage most shift and the overall city Commissioner Moore, due to all my full respect, your suggestions of having our staff to monitor bike patterns and traffic patterns, I think it's fully undertaking and therefore under the SFMTA there is a Safe School Connected Plan under works. What I'm asking today is not something new. to actually assess, we don't need to, we already have someone, a whole agency to assess traffic pattern for the city. Also school, specifically safe school. It is actually one of my major important piece why I serve on SFMTA board because I want everyone to be safely get to school. I committed myself to make sure that we deliver muni to no kids left behind from one school to another. We do not leave. We actually, despite the deficit, we create more frequency to pick up all the kids during school rush hours. So this is not creating something to, like, this is not something that never happened. We already have a lot of people investigating and studying the traffic pattern for school. What I'm asking for is to make sure that While we are getting our Wildcats acclimated to use bike, I just simply humbly ask, humble request, to add that as a monitor program. We're not single the school out. However, this is the only school that requests to reduce the level one bicycle parking from 120, originally from 120 to 20, and now come back with 70. That's all I am asking. And I have a lot of good openness to how staff monitoring it. This is not going to be resolved by taking over and said that we're just going to let the whole city investigate bike parking and traffic pattern because that is irrelevant in my opinion. To do all my respect.

Perhaps I could suggest if the maker of the motion and seconder did want to add this provision, it could be a report back six months and one year after the facility is constructed and operational on the use of the bike parking in the similar manner of preparing for this hearing, there was a report on the bike usage to date. And that could provide information and insight into whether there is a sufficient space or if all spaces are filled every day. Perhaps, to Commissioner Moore's point, that indicates a higher demand and more spaces may need to be found.

Ms. Hanner, I think that is a soft and correct approach, but I think we should also have the school itself respond because this is a challenge and perhaps a very well-placed challenge to the applicant relative what is your reaction to what Commissioner Soh was asking.

So are you adding that to your motion?

I just would like to hear what the applicant is, are they prepared, institutionally prepared to respond to what Commissioner Soh is asking for.

So just to clarify, it sounds to me like you want to check in with us to see how many of the Class 1 bicycle spots are actually being utilized. So I had every intention. There's a camera in the room. So I'll be able to tell you exactly how many bicycles are parked in that room every day. So yes. We can do that. We also were working with Outer Sunset. I didn't mention this, but we're working with them on a bicycle program trying to encourage people to cycle. We plan on sharing it when we open the building. Yes. We would be happy to report back in 18 months and let you know how many of the class one spots are actually being utilized. Thank you.

Commissioner, so does that kind of hit a little bit of what you were asking? Yes. There is indeed reporting. There is a dialogue that's probably reporting back based on Commissioner, on Ms. Tanner's suggestion that there is a dialogue on evolving knowledge to be shared and also perhaps periodically updated to the Planning Commission.

And if I may, Kate Conner, planning staff, just for the mechanics of how this would work, would a memo to the commission suffice with this data? Yeah, a memo would suffice.

Does that in itself, does that require an additional comment or reference in the motion? Ms. Ionin, could you weigh in on that? Or are we clear that there's an understanding of

Well, that's kind of up to the maker of the motion at this point. Do you want to include that as part of your motion as a condition of approval? Or is it enough for the school to acknowledge the request and to voluntarily provide that report to us?

Director Tanner, what is your thought?

I think it's fine to have it in the motion, just to note that the commission will receive a report at a periodical increments of time.

As an encouragement, as a notion to leave communication all open, including the community itself being informed. Yep. OK.

Thank you. So are we adding that as a condition of approval?

Yes, we're adding it as a commentary.

That's the seconder of the motion. I agree with that, too.

Thanks.

Thank you. It's probably also worth noting that if there becomes a high demand for bike parking, something tells me SI is going to respond to that demand based on the students and the families that attend the school. But I appreciate the self-monitoring and the self-auditing, which I'm sure will... will work well, and I also agree with a lot of Commissioner Braun's comments. I didn't love these quantities when they first came across. I am also a biker, so I do believe if you build it, they will come. I know you only have eight bikes today, but I was pleased to see the new number come through. Would have loved the higher number as well, so. But yeah, and I love the new location. I think the more barriers you remove, the less Doors people have to go through the less hallways less elevators the more likely they are to to use the room So so I think it's wonderful appreciate the new location and this part is a little outside of our purview But I would recommend door actuators the door which is one less barrier to getting into the bike room Take it or leave it. But yeah, this has my full support Commissioner McGarry McGarry

So I got two kids doing Will Kids this week, and basically did it last year. Go Will Kids. They did a great job. I also utilize the baseball fields all around SI out there. And I am aware there's no way I'll get from the inner Richmond, and even my kids, on a bike too. My big concern on bike is basically not around the school. It's getting to the school. I know the school. Basically, you're going to park those bikes. And everywhere around the school will be monitored. People will be looking. But it's from that point to getting home. That's where the real issue is, my concern on it. I have no doubt that SI, if there's 70 spots full, you're going to be up to 100. It's not like many other schools around where if it's built out the infrastructure for 100, they won't let you put in 101 because it's there just for 100. But I have no doubt that SI will basically accommodate their students if we're over 70. I just wish the infrastructure of the city allowed people to bike. So basically, it could be 170. Half the school could be biking to school. But unfortunately, it's just not there. I think that's where our focus needs to be if we actually care about kids biking to school and back, not where they park the bike. So that's why. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include a monitoring component and for the school to report in six months and one year as to the bicycle parking usage. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6-0. Perfect. And concludes your hearing today.

Thank you.