Public hearings include can ten humans hearings and appearance and appeal hearings as well. Last category is the rules around unit replacement and Relocation Assistance in the event of existing units being removed as part of the developing projects. In general, any type of unit, if you have a project that proposes removing these units regardless who is living there, the project would have to produce the same or more units then the project being removed. There is also a definition of protected units in the bill which includes units that are housing household on section eight, housing choice it develop meant, belowmarket rate units, restricted affordable units, rentcontrolled units, units that were vacated by ellis active actions, in any unit that is occupied by a low income household in the past five years that is also a change from what you had in your case report and at that time it was only units that were rented at affordable households. It is regardless of what the rent or rent restriction is. The question is, is there a household that is below that income level which is 80 of area median income. For those protected units, the city would only be able to approve the removal of those units as part of a Development Project that did all of the following conditions. First there has to be replacement units of comparable size and affordability in the new project, in addition to that , there has to be relocation benefits provided to the existing tenants and a right of first refusal to the tenants to return to a comparable unit in the new project. Additionally, the residents would be allowed to remain in those buildings were up to six months before construction begins. It should be noted that these replacement units, according to the bill, would count towards the inclusionary requirement, however, for the new project. That would be significant in San Francisco. Speaking of San Francisco, what are some of the potential impacts . I highlighted some of these, but to quickly go through, one area of concern for the Planning Department has been the requirement for the objective Design Standards. We do have Design Standards, as you all know, that were adopted after generally first of 2018 and they do include the urban Design Guidelines which are generally not meeting the standard of an objective standard. There would be, we would have to look at the way we apply these under the bill. Things like central soma, and the hub have Design Guidelines that are generally leveraging off. The bill could also impact rezoning actions in San Francisco, generally, were not down zoning for housing in San Francisco, however there are times where we might be zoning nonresidential uses like p. D. R. , which does not allow for housing for various planning reasons. We would need to ensure that those actions are balanced in a way that provides for no net loss in residential capacity through that action. The provision about projects thing subject to the law of the day in terms of the zoning regulations of the time the application comes in would be a change in the way we do business in San Francisco. This would obviously provide a greater level of predictability for projects going in and generally speaking, some of the specific grants and sometimes are in rezoning actions may not be applicable to all projects depending on when they got their application in. Again, the project would lose this kind of a vesting if the project grows by more than 20 in size. That includes someone coming in for density bonus application. It would also not apply if the project hasnt gotten under construction within three years. Building code standards are not affected by this. I mentioned the Historic Resource determination. We will have to make that termination within the first 30 days of the Development Application that comes in. That is only for the unknown properties. The limit of five public hearings would obviously be a change in the way we do business in San Francisco, but as i said, this will not apply to a lot of the projects that you all see at the Planning Commission. It would apply to as of right, ministerial, administratively provable projects, conditional use projects, in general state density projects as well. Continuance and appeals would count for the limit. Finally, how would the requirements around replacement units and tenant protection take place in San Francisco . The overall requirement about projects only being approved if they are providing at least as many units as are being lost is not really a changing practice. Through our demolition conditional use authorization, that is generally something we require anyway as some of the findings. So that would be strengthened. Additionally, there would be a number of types of units and cases of unit removal that would now require Relocation Assistance and replacement units that are not currently require locally, however, we do have some controls here in San Francisco around just because and ellis active eviction. The bill is specific. If the locality has stricter requirements or higher payments, for example, that locality roll would still prevail. This would be added to San Francisco tenant protections and we would keep it under we would keep what other local controls that we have. Additionally, when we do have those demolition conditional use hearings, you know, if we do approve the removal of the unit, they would not just be requirements, all these conditions have to be met. With that, commissioners, i am here for any questions, and we look forward to discussing this further with you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . I have one speaker card. Anyone else want to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. Good afternoon, commissioners i have a letter from the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. They oppose s. B. 330 for the reasons outlined here. Im turning the text over to the secretary for inclusion into the minutes and i will not take anymore of your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, my name is ed, im here on behalf of the california renters legal advocacy and education fund. We noticed a small error or maybe just because of the new amendments that were submitted the day after the staff report was prepared, the replacement requirements do count toward inclusionary requirements, but we dont believe it would result in a reduction of new inclusionary units. The other thing to make clear is that the staff board is not super clear on the fact that Relocation Assistance fees dont count towards inclusionary requirements in the bill. Those were previously sort of in the same part of the bill, but now have been completely separated. You can replace a unit, and that can count, but you cant count to relocation relocation systems towards your inclusionary fee. In general, we think that the tenant protection demolition controls in this bill are really fantastic and would be a huge improvement on what San Francisco has currently. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, my name is lorraine. District five Affordable Housing advocate and tenant advocate. I believe the commissioners should speak out very forcefully against s. B. 330 and also urge the supervisors to do the same. I believe it is an unconstitutional attack, even with these new amendments, attendance, small property owners, local planning, and local government selfdetermination. To me, the most onerous and egregious of s. B. 330s provisions is the proposed ban on initiatives and referendum, and also moratoriums. The electorate would be excluded from any redress and from any voice. This bill must be changed along with s. B. 50, and s. B. 592. They are all aimed at delivering San Francisco and indeed, the entire state into the hands of wall street profiteers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am with no Neighborhood Council coalition. I would like to echo the same comment as the previous speaker. I am not a tenant, i am a homeowner, however, i am speaking for real renters, not the fake ones presented by california whatever. The provisions in this bill are absolutely atrocious for tenants these are the same things that we had last year that is noteworthy to remember that even senator weiner had to go back and revise his 827 with socalled protection that looks at tenancy and tenancy status of the building, and goes back seven years. Because he realized that this business of relocation and relocation payment, and the right of refusal is just not working. Lets not kid ourselves. And anybody who stands before you and tells you that they are speaking for the tenants and they are considering this a huge improvement, they are delusional and they are not respecting this body and they are not respecting themselves for coming with such outlandish lies. So i just want to bring that to your attention that these are draconian measures and we, as residents of San Francisco and california, we deserve better. We cannot submit to a bill that is going to render us and our exercise moot, and this body, frankly, maybe, you know, it is all these bills and a couple years we wont even have a Planning Commission. We will be missing you guys. That is its. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners Peter Papadopoulos with the Mission Economic development agency. I appreciate having this informational today. I think it is important and i also do want to say that i think , you know, i havent seen these new amendments that just came out, but i think, overall, we have a bit of a different take on what some of these elements are. Starting with the overall framework again that, you know, when we see bills like this coming forward that to make the bold claim at the opening that one of the principal goals is to reverse historic discrimination, and then turn around and say we have a onesizefitsall market rate marketbased solution that doesnt provide equitable identification of vulnerable communities, that doesnt make sense as a framework, it just doesnt. It does appear to spot zone, but it puts the spot zoning seemingly in a fake way in the hands of the developer. This is the governance and finance committees consultant at the state level quote s. B. 330 provides that a project isnt inconsistent, therefore is consistent with local zoning. If it meets the objective standards for density and other metrics. The thought that this misunderstands a general plans and zoning ordinances are applied. So i believe, at the state level , they are mirroring our reading of the bill, so it asked the department to go back and take another look at that. It is very worrisome. I would also note that is not typically what you base your decisions on. In fact, we have a robust debate sometimes of the general plan is in fact, not the place to look for whether or not you approve a project. They are saying dont worry about the zoning, worry only about the general plan. This bill, by doing a number of things to speed up the process, including limiting the total number of hearings and item can have, removing some items off the table entirely, but you have no voice, no discretion, and it really systematically limits and silences the Community Voice on a lot of important matters, places where equity has really been found over and over again, including in places where we are putting in a see you, we are putting in urban Design Guidelines on mission street. These are things we have all done with you and said, this is the way we are going to make equitable outcomes. And this says, no, none of those things matter. We just go right past those things. I do hope that that is distressing to you, that if we are going to say we have these goals of building x amount more housing, there are ways to reach those goals without any of these items in their, with protecting neighborhoods like the mission, which is already building thousands of units, it is not like it is not building. If those are the real goals, i would say to the authors, lets make those calls happen. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Looking at the amendment about the number of hearings, i want to raise a potential realworld issue, if i may have the overhead. I did mention this last week. The project you approved back in december, it was a second threebedroom unit in the house directly across the street from me where they had the d. R. I wanted the facade preserved because it is a mediterranean revival. That didnt happen. It did not happen at the board of appeals, either. What did happen when we were at the board of appeals was it was discovered by staff that what you thought was going to be a said a threebedroom unit below the garage, did not have proper egress for the two bedrooms. It basically turned into a one bedroom with three studies below the garage. The other thing that the board of appeals was interesting, one commissioner wanted to know whether it will be rented or put into a condo, and the project sponsor could not answer. The second thing was, the board board did say, you have to leave at least two bedrooms, and the commissioner wanted to have another hearing, but they didnt do that. Back to the point about this approval thing, this was approved for ceqa by the staff. This had two rda meetings, it had the d. R. Before you, if the d. R. Had been continued, because if something happened to me or the project sponsor, that would have counted. If i had not saw the appeal, this never would have been uncovered. If it it was not uncovered until we found the appeal. Everyone was very concerned about the fact that you had approved a threebedroom unit, even if it is below the garage, a threebedroom unit and a remodel. So my question, or my point im trying to make is things are things going to slip through like this . When you thank you are densifying, youre just creating square footage. I dont understand a thing about the bedrooms that commissioner richards mentioned, but i think that limitation on the number of hearings seems very arbitrary, and we will see what happens, but that was a threebedroom unit that you approved and it was going to be just a bunch of square footage. One bedroom with three studies. We dont know what the tenure of it is. That is it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Goodnoon im here on behalf of of the housing coalition. S. P. 330 started off as a tenyear bill, it would be in the set for ten years, now it is in effect for five years. So at the end of the day, its goal is to basically say that the rules that are in place when a project is are the rules, that is its main purpose that you cant change the rules, and this , once again, these are setting things in place for five years. It was originally a tenyear bill. It is trying something, so if anything people think its absolutely crazy, and five years , it is gone. I also think it is really important to understand senator skinner and her history of being a strong, Strong Tenant advocate she was one of the strongest supporters of prop ten, so these accusations that somehow she is in the pockets of business, like , look at her history and the work that she has done to do tenant protections, so i think that that is important, you know , i also have to say that every time i come to Planning Commission and i hear people from not my neighborhood who are say the family homeowners, stand up and whack their fingers at young people who are renters, and say that i, as a singlefamily homeowner, i represent renters, not these young people who are actually renters. When that person abuses legalizing apartment buildings in the valley, it is a joke. It makes me it turns my stomach. If we want to be supportive of renters, lets legalize apartment buildings throughout the city. I say lets legalize them on my block right next door to me. Lets build an apartment building, that is how i would support renters. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Recall, cultural action network. I was up in sacramento for the Housing Committee hearing and i was with a group of people that had done a thorough analysis of 330, and if you watch that hearing, you know, basically nancys and Nancy Skinner and several others on the legislature, you know, basically discredited us wrongly. She said, theres the bill. Look, this isnt about backs owning, it is just about helping the city his speed things up. Those were lies. In this next round when we go back to sacramento, we will have backup for our points. Peter papadopoulos mentioned a few things, you know, i frankly find, so far, the plan the Planning Department report here to be, i will call it, understated, you know, basically what is happening is there are several legislators that are incrementing us by making little changes here and there to the housing accountability act. 827 got solved, 50 got stalled, and this little cabal of three legislators, you know, basically are, you know, they have 330 up there, and then all of a sudden, 592 to get and amend pops in right at the same time. 330 and 592, watch how we are being implemented by these people towards statewide by right. That is the objective to make all of our landuse planning go away and it is going to affect all the cities, so i would encourage you to dig a little deeper, look at some perspective at what is going on and do some pushback from a city level. I think is important. They have already written a wonderful opposed letter on 592. I am used to you guys, San Francisco, being a head in analyses. So maybe read that one or planners can start with that one we have to get ahead, not behind and we have to be deeply critical of what is going on, not jus