>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. my name is scott wiener. i'm the chair of the committee. to my right is supervisor jane kim, the committee vice-chair and to my left is supervisor david chiu. sfgtv staff who are recording today's meeting are jessie larson and nona markonian. thank you to sfgtv. ms. miller, are are there any announcements? >> please make sure cell phones and electronic devices are. completed cards [speaker not understood]. items acted upon today will be on the march 19th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated.

>> thank you. madam clerk, will you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance approving exceptions to requirements of the seismic safety loan program under the administrative code and the sslp program regulations, regarding a $2,379,464 loan for an existing affordable housing project at the hotel isabel located at 1091 mission street. >> thank you. and supervisor kim is the author of this legislation. >> thank you, chair wiener. this is basically -- we are asking for an exception to our seismic safety loan program -- deferred extended loan program. hotelies isabel is one of our affordable housing units here in district 6 on the south of market. currently has 72 units affordable housing and it's owned by the hotel [speaker not understood] a limited partnership with who is general partner is todd koh who is here today and we're just ready to ask for an exemption from the loan to value ratio requirement and other underwriting criteria set forth in the san francisco administrative code for a number of reasons that i

believe the mayor's office of housing can explain in more detail. so, we'd just ask for your support today on this exception . so, we'd like to bring up a staff member of the mayor's office of housing to talk about this in more detail. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lydia ely and i'm a project manager at the mayor's office of housing. as supervisor kim mentioned, we're asking for an exemption from loan to value ratio requirements of the seismic safety loan program. when the city first loaned about a million $800,000 to this project in 1997, the project even at that time, because of existing debt, exceeded the loan to value ratio as required by the sfsd program. so, they secured that debt with a guarantee -- with a loan

guarantee on the property. last year we gave another $700,000 in loan funds from the sflp program to the building for some additional seismic work under the sidewalk which we have not been able to fund in 1997. because of the additional loan amount and because the project now has a new loan with the state, the loan to value ratio was so out of kilter that they had to secure with a loan guarantee on another building that the nonprofit owned which is mendelson house, 30 37 folsom. now the owner wants to refinance mendelson house at the new hud loan and we can't -- we can no longer secure this loan guarantee with that property. so, we're asking to -- we need to remove the deed of trust from mendelson house and by doing so we will be out of compliance with the loan to value ratio requirements. so, that's what this request is today.

: i'm happy to answer any questions about the project itself or the seismic [speaker not understood]. >> i think you need to speak a little bit to the importance of ensuring the affordability of hotel isabel and why we are asking for this exception. >> when it was created by the voters in 1991, it was aimed at market rate housing as well as affordable housing. as you no doubt no, most market rate loans have loan to value requirements that are intended to guarantee the lenders can recoup their investment. in the case of this project and all of our affordable housing projects, what we're really looking to secure here is the 55 year a ability term. -- affordability in our term. that is what we require in all of our seismic safety and loan program. in this particular case we have

achieved that 55-year affordability term and that is really what is of highest value to the city. and the loan to value ratio requirements really are not intended to be imposed on affordable projects. often these projects have multiple layers of debt and their appraised value is limited because they cannot rent to the market. so, the loan to value ratio is not something we typically require at most, but it is a part of the seismic safety loan program. >> and can you also speak to whether you believe there is a financial risk to the city and county by providing this exception? >> well, we will have a deed of trust on the title so we are still in line to -- in case of a default, the city will be made whole. but again, these kind of projects, they tend to refinance every 15 years with housing tax credits or through other public loan programs. and in many cases we are

repaid. in fact, we have another loan with the -- with [speaker not understood] at the end of the month we're hoping to be repaid about $3.6 million on an old loan from 1986. so, i don't believe that there is risk to the city and, in fact, the 55-year term loan will ensure that the long-term benefits to the city beyond the loan to value requirements. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? why don't we open it up for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on aye tell number 1? please step forward. public comment will be two minutes. ~ item good evening, supervisors. my name is ace washington. and you know i'm just doing my regular routine to city hall today. i'm back and forth. having a look in here. and i'm supporting -- i go back

27 some years ago. i'm surprised they're still around. i support them wholeheartededly. i'm also here to show a parallel something that is going on. ~ you mentioned about the city hall interest, would they be in debt. william, i'm just showing a parallel of issues like this in my community in western addition and bayview and all these other housing places in which our population is going down, down so significant, you never hear nothing about us here at city hall no more. but my question is to the city about your loans and for these housing and all of these fantastic places, where is my people as a race, where are we going to be staying in these houses? will we be allowed, will we be available, will we be existing in the next two, three, five, 10 years? i see in the paper here how the city is trumping about how much economically boastful they are

with these houses and all these cranes. my question is, what about my baby's baby's -- these kids? i'm 59 years old and i've been around here at city hall over 20, 25 years. : but i have seen a diminishing of the black community dwindling and ain't nobody saying it. i'm saying it because i'm here supporting whats' going on, but this is the first time i can speak here today. so, i just want to keep that on your ears and find out what's going on when the tables are turned. i'd like to see the same advantages for the disadvantaged. >> is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor kim. >> i'd just like to motion to move this with positive recommendation. >> okay, colleagues. can we do that without objection? without objection, that will be the order. [gavel]

>> madam clerk, item number 2, please. >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes to correctorers; make language revisions and updates; revise graphics to be consistent with text; amend fees to be charged for certain kinds of applications and appeals; clarify the meaning of certain planning code sections; amend the zoning map to remove the incorrect chinese hospital special use district designation from assessor's block no. 0192, lot no. 041; and adopt findings, including findings under the california environmental quality act, and planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan and planning code, section 101.1. >> and the author of item number 2 is our newest colleague, supervisor tang. supervisor, welcome to the land use and economic development committee. >> good afternoon, land use committee. i just wanted to present this ordinance here. it's really just a code clean up and nick cal changes made to the planning code. over time as we noted some clarifications and corrections that needed to be made. before i invite anne marie rogers from the planning department to kind of walk you through some of those changes, there is a nonsubstantive amendment that needs to be made on page 93, line 24. basically refers to section 315 of the code which has been deleted recently and is now section 415. so, with that i want to invite anne marie rogers here. >> thank you, supervisor.

and welcome to the board. anne marie rogers from the planning department and i'm here to go over a little bit of this pretty large ordinance that is before you. as you know, the people of the city of san francisco and the board of supervisors care deeply about the planning code and as a result of that it is amended about 50 times per year. that results invariably in some mistakes and some unintended consequences. as supervisor tang described, there is one ordinance found since the introduction last week, and i do have a couple other changes that i'd like to describe as well as just some of the general overall intent of the ordinance. so, here is a handout for the committee. i have some for the public, too. looking at the handout i just provided, this goes through some of the additional changes that the planning commission

heard the ordinance as well as there are a total of three changes we'd like to be introduced today. the first one has been described. i think if i go over item number 1, that will show you the problem that happens with the planning code. so, originally we had proposed to amend section 102.5 because it had a list of specific districts that is always changing. we know districts are added and sometimes it doesn't get up to date. the planning commission made that recommendation last fall. since their recommendation, another ordinance has moved through the process faster than this and it has already deleted the specific list of districts. and then after that change was made, which we appreciated, we revised the ordinance to no longer make that change to 102.5. and then a subsequent third ordinance just came through that actually reinserted this one specific district, c3osd into that list which no longer exists. so, one of the changes i would

like to request from the committee today is that section 102.5 be amended again to delete that specific reference to a district because we no longer even list the specific districts on that chart. and then as described, item number 2 is being requested by the supervisor. item number 3 is just describing how all of our fees are currently by law indexed by the controller to make sure that they are inflation adjusted. so, we inform the public where they might be able to get this list of inflation adjusted item. number 4 is another amendment that i would like to request to the committee today, and this is our intent was to ensure that moving fund were not allowed in the union square area and this goes through an explanation. this code section provided an exemption from the requirement for moving signs for the union square and we felt that that

was unclear. so, the commission asked for that reference to union square to be deleted. in retrospect, in looking at it in more detail, the zoning add more is concerned that that might lead individual to believe that moving signs are allowed in that area. on this item in particular there are many older referenceses in the planning code that prohibit moving signs. so, this is just a technical clarification we hope will make it clear moving signs are not permitted in that area. and on the backside of this chart, i just kind of walk through a couple other issues to describe the type of changes you see in the ordinance. and i can go in great detail. it would be best to hear from you if there are any particular concerns or interests as a committee. >> thank you very much. yes, president chiu. >> just a quick question. the description of the legislation refers to amendments of the zoning map to remove the [speaker not understood] special use district designation that is

incorrectly listed. could you just describe that for the record what you're doing? >> yeah, let's see if i can find -- do you know what section number that is? >> well, no. that was an description i wanted you to -- >> if i could sit down for a second and find that mistake in the document i can walk you through that. >> thanks. >> thank you. supervisor tang, should we open it up for public comment? okay. if there are any public comment on item number 2? please come on up. land use, good afternoon. ♪ for your map eyes only we'll take a city ride [speaker not understood] it's not very new but go ahead and correct the map just like you do

for your city eyes only fix it, won't you and the passion the city you see make it clear for us to see for your city map eyes only >> thank you. is there any other public comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, are there any other comments or questions apart from what ms. rogers is looking for, colleagues? okay. why don't we, then, before we complete number 2, we'll allow ms. rogers to have time -- take all the time you need, ms. rogers. we'll move to item number 3 and we'll return to item number 2. item number 3. >> item number 3 is an ordinance amending the health code to correct numbering and clarify provisions of the

commercial dog walking ordinance. >> thank you. and this is legislation that i'm sponsoring. colleagues, you'll recall that a little over a year ago we passed legislation that i sponsored to establish a permanent process for commercial dog walkers using city parks and other public property and putting certain rules in place with respect to those dog walkers. we work very closely with the dog walker community and the dog owner community, the spca, various city departments, and came to a pretty strong consensus on the legislation. the legislation will become effective on july 1st. we gave up to 18 months for animal care control to implement the program. i know the department has been working closely with the dog walker community to come up with regulations that the department will then issue.

this legislation today is mostly clean-up language, issues identified by the department as it went through the implementation process. a few notable changes. the legislation clarifies that the maximum leash length allowed for -- since dog walkers are required to carry leashes with them, one per dog, whether or not they are using them at the time, that the maximum leash length allowed is no more than 8 feet. it is a requirement that a million dollars in general liability coverage required by the legislation, that it be in effect for the full term of the permit. there is clarifications around reporting requirements. and several other items as well. in addition, today i am proposing one minor amendment that is not substantive to indicate that for the grandfathering of dog walkers -- back up.

the legislation requires that dog walkers receive a certain minimum amount of training, but if a dog walker has been conducting a business with a business license for at least three years, he or she is grandfathered in and this will change the date by which the three years must have been attained to march 1st of 2013 as opposed to six months before last year. so, that is one minor amendment i would like to offer. and i know that rebecca cuts from animal care control is here. ms. katz, would you like to say anything? ~ >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. as you noted, supervisor, this is primarily clean-up language as the group that was working on this went through it and

determined what areas needed a little bit of clarification. and on that point i do want to acknowledge the deputy director of animal care and control cat brown who has worked hours and hours and had a lot of meetings on this, as you know, animal welfare issues tend to be a little bit of a lightning rod. so, she spent quite a bit of time working on the implementation and what would constitute the guidelines for this, which will be heard before the animal control and welfare commission in may. so, happy to answer any questions you may have, but it really is just clean up. >> great, thank you, ms. [speaker not understood], and thank you for all the work in your department to implement. colleagues, if there are no additional comments, why don't we open up to public comment. i have two public comment cards. sally stevens and gill crizwell. if there are any other members of the public who would like to make public comment, please fill out a card. ms. stevens.

yes, hi, my name is sally stevens, i'm the chair of sf dog. sf dog fully supports this legislation. been involved in it for years and been working with animal care control and i just wanted to thank supervisor wiener for his role in pushing this through and actually getting this legislation after eight years of it kind of sitting on -- nobody doing anything about it. and i also wanted to acknowledge animal care and control in particular deputy director cat brown for the work that she's been doing. i've been involved in the negotiations on how to implement this and have been really useful and everything has been done in a great way. this is how a city should work. i just wanted to again thank supervisor wiener and acc. >> thank you, ms. stevens. mr. crizwell? i don't know if my comments are going to be relevant or not, but i know that it's past. so, i'm here from new district 8 and that's pearl street, elgin park, valencia, guerrero, laguna and market. i'm here to speak about

amending the ordinance to include that dogs be vaccinated and up to date on their shots. and that the dogs also be muzzled, spayed and neutered, especially the pit bulls, rot weillers and german shepherds. and if not the dog walker should be fined or taxed to do so. we don't want another tragedy like dianne whipple. if a dog walker sees abuse on the animal, it should be reported to the police. now, i have a neighbor that has a pit bull and he muzzles it when he takes it out. so, i think the dog walker should do the same. thank you. >> thank you. mr. paulson. ♪ and now you can walk the dog

you can follow the regulation plan walk the -- walk your dog the best friend to man and i know you can and you'll follow the city plan and walk your best friend in the city sun, walk, walk it >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, first on the amendments that i've offered changing the grandfathering date, can we have a motion? >> i'll make a motion. >> and can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> mr. chair, i believe this is coming out of committee report for tomorrow in >> right. and i do understand that amendment is not substantive and will not require a continuance. okay. so, then, on the item, can we have a motion to move this

forward with recommendation as a committee report to be heard tomorrow? ~ and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. why don't we go back, why don't we recall item number 2. ms. rogers? >> thank you. amy rogers from the planning department. excuse the delay. i found another section you're referring to. it's on page 283 of the ordinance and it describes how the error that happened, as you'll recall, the chinese hospital when that project was reviewed, special use district was created. and that special use district is considered to be an overlay district and not actually the zoning district. the underlying zoning district should not have changed. in this case there was a mistake where the underlying zoning districts was listed as the chinese hospital sud and it should have remained the chinatown residential neighborhood commercial district. and, so, this is just removing the reference to the sud which is still going to be an overlay

and noting its underlying zoning remains. >> thank you. that's exactly the explanation i was hoping to put on the erred. >> thank you, ms. rogers. ~ record so, we have already taken public comment on item number 2. so, there are amendments authored by supervisor tang. colleagues, can we take those amendments without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> and can we have a motion to forward item number 2 to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> okay. without objection. [gavel] >> okay. item number 4. >> item number 4 is an ordinance amending the subdivision code, by adding section 1396.4, to adopt a condominium conversion impact fee applicable to buildings participating but not being selected in the 2012 or 2013 condominium conversion lotteries only, subject to specified requirements, including lifetime leases for non-purchasing tenants; and adopting environmental findings. >> thank you. and supervisor farrell and i are the authors of this legislation. it is a request that the item be continued for two weeks given there are ongoing

negotiations. president chiu? >> i was about to reiterate what you just said. six weeks ago when this item was first brought to the committee, i want to thank supervisors wiener and stakeholders on both sides of the issues for agreeing to enter into negotiations over this topic. there have bp a lot of good ideas that have been forwarded and at this time we do need a little bit more time to continue to vet them so i'd be happy to support, i'll make a motion to continue i believe for two weeks. >> thank you. and if there are no other initial comments, we'll open it up to public comment. and it is the intent to entertain a motion to continue this for two week. you may comment today on the underlying ordinance or on the motion to continue, and there will be full public comment when this comes back to committee in two weeks. so, i have four public comment cards. bruce alison, laura guzman, gill crizwell, and ernestine weiss. if i have not called your name and you'd like to comment, please fill out a blue card.

first, someone would like to just come forward. public commenters can line up. bruce alison, port magazine. presently there are 32,000 vacant units that are laying vacant. if they go into these -- some of these are being listed to go into condos. i know of 25 personally from my investigation. why would you leave them vacant to 25 for another year or so to a person buys these units? these people, they left them and they decided to sell them. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. ms. guzman. [speaker not understood],

laura guzman, from the [speaker not understood] also co-chair of the local homeless board. i know [speaker not understood] are going, but we are urging the board to really think thoroughly whether or not to do a conversion at this time in this city. and for reason is the local homeless board, we are really working to prevent any evictionses whatsoever as homelessness continues to rise. as we are doing policies that are driven by the federal government and we're doing as a community the five-year plan, we also would like legislation like this to come to a local homeless board. we are your advisory body. so, i'm going to recommend this item keeps going -- is brought in april to a local homeless board so you can have our best advice about what's happening in the city. as well as the homeless center i can tell you right now the numbers continue to rise, including people who are not getting replacement shelters and, of course, supervisor kim can talk about it because she's helping us with our shelter access.

putting that aside, the prices are going up at this moment, make it impossible for someone who is on ssi disability or otherwise poor to find rentals anywhere else. so, it's not a good time for conversion and i'm coming to oppose it. thank you. >> thank you, ms. guzman. next speaker. and let me call, i have two additional cards. michael lion and marion wallace. next speaker, please. my name is mary wallace and i'm a renter in san francisco, long-time, over 30 years. and i think the rent control is very important in san francisco and any unnecessary legislation which endangers or chips away at rent control is a detriment to the city. now, many people may have prudently not bought a tic due to the known difficulties. people who did buy a tic knew of the difficulties and knew that uninvestment is a risk. there is no reason to put

rentesers in a home to ease those who took that risk. people who buy a renter's home should not be able to move to more easily displace people from their homes. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is ernestine weiss, and i'm here to object to any conversions of apartments in the city of san francisco at a time when affordable housing is priority one. what is wrong with you supervisors? you don't get it? people cannot live here. my grandson had to move to canada. he's a teacher. young man, can't afford to live here. in canada, he has health care, he has housing, a reasonable amount, and he's happy there. why should he have to leave the country where he was born in