them throughout the site. >> supervisor tang: because the basic concept of hope which started in chicago was to actually have market rate, moderate and low-income units together. my understanding in chicago is they were mixed within the same buildings. >> right. so we're not able to do that here in california because of the tax credit program structure. >> supervisor tang: oh, the tax credit structure is different here than in illinois. >> right. >> supervisor tang: i'm just curious how it's different in the mix. like, if they can't be within the same building envelope, i'm curious to see how it would be mixed. when you say moderate income, there's income restrictions placed there? >> no, i'm sorry. it's just that we -- given the area, that we think it would be mad rate. >> supervisor tang: i think it's important that you state that those are moderate income

units, but i think that it's very misleading to tell us that you're building moderate income units when they're unrestricted units. i think it's fine to state that that's what we are building, because the whole concept of hope sf is you have mixed income communities, but i wouldn't state that they're moderate income unless they're deed restricted. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah. you said -- what hole would the housing authority play? i know that the -- the major goal of this proposal is to -- i mean, these are going to be -- this mercy is going to be essentially managing the property for the remainder of the development. is that -- is that correct? >> right. so the housing authority, as you know, owns the improvements, the buildings, and the land that

makes up sunnydale public housing. so their role is to basically provide over sight to make sure we're providing the public benefits. we have a master development with them that in some ways copies the development agreement we have with the city. but their role would be basically to maintain ownership of the land underneath the affordable housing developments. we would execute a language-term lease very similar to the mohcd and the o.c.i. structure. so the housing authority would maintain ownership of that land, execute a long-term lease with us so that we could build new affordable housing on that land. in regards to the market rate sites, we would be assisting the housing authority in selling those market rate sites to interested developers for development of market-rate housing, and so they would no longer own those sites. and they would also -- prior to

that would also be executing a long -- or excuse me, short-term ground lease with us so that we would be able to construct the new streets and utilities on a certain area of land. and then once the streets and utilities are constructed in a given phase and accepted by the city, then, the housing authority would convey that new right-of-way to the city. >> supervisor safai: no, i understand all that. what i'm asking is why are we the city claiming the quitclaim interest to the housing authority? >> because when the area is vacated, it's going to create a portion of the development site that we need to combine with the rest of the area to create one parcel for development of block six, for example. so what's not really clear in these diagrams is if you imagine we have a segment of the

existing block sale right-of-way coming, and it's literally sitting on the block six development site, we need that portion to be vacated because we're actually going to be building a new set of streets to serve that block six and other portions of the area. so we need that to be vacated right way to be quitclaimed by the city to the housing authority so it can become part of the block six site, and then, the housing authority can lease that site to us for development. >> supervisor safai: okay. so who can be -- is the city going to still be responsible and have ownership and responsibility over the streets and the sidewalks? >> once they're vacated, no. >> supervisor safai: so the city will no longer have any control over the streets and the sidewalks in this proposal? >> once the d.p.w. director approves the vacation within a phase -- >> supervisor safai: no, i understand the vacation for the necessary land for the development, but i don't understand the vacation of the streets and the sidewalks.

what's the necessity for that for this development to go forward? >> so the existing rights of way, it's a little hard to see, but the diagram on the right, there's a certain gray area that shows existing rights of way. there's about four within sunnydale site. they actually under our master plan would become new housing sites. >> supervisor safai: i get it. i understand you need some area that's under the city's right-of-way to build on, but what is the city's interest to vacate its interest over the streets and the sidewalks. you don't need that for this development. >> since i'm not successful in answering this, i'm going to invite up javier to answer this. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> so they will go over what are currently existing streets. those streets go away, they will create new streets.

those streets will be offered for ded indication later in the future, which the city will have control over those streets, like any other streets in the city. >> supervisor safai: the city will have the control over the new streets and the sidewalks. >> at the end of the day, yes, sir. >> supervisor safai: that's what i was trying to determine. because if the proposal was the city was not going to have control over the streets and the sidewalks, i would not be in support of that. >> no, they will. they will have to go through the warrant period, and they will be dedicated to the city at the end of the period, just like any other development that creates new streets near a right-of-way. >> supervisor safai: so that spelled out in this resolution, that the new streets will be dedicated -- will be handed back to the city? >> you know, not to my recollection, i don't think, but i do believe there's a development agreement that does spell this whole plan out.

>> supervisor safai: i understand, ybut i wouldn't wan this resolution to conflict with this development agreement. i think it should say we're vacating this for the purposes of development. but it should state clearly that the streets and sidewalks are going to come back -- the new streets and sidewalks that are going to be constructed will come back to the purview of the city. >> okay. we can make those updated. >> i don't know. maybe the deputy city attorney can answer this, but i do see on page one of the resolution, lines 17 through 20, it says that this street vacation procedure shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of california streets and highway code and such revisions as adopted by the board of supervisors. does that essentially refer to the d.a. then. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. it doesn't sound like what

supervisor safai is an explicit mention of the plan going forward in the d.a. i think what might make sense as an approach here is to pass the resolution which just sets out the time lane for a future committee of the whole to consider the ordinance. the ordinance has more detail. on january 15, when the board considers the ordinance at the committee of the whole, perhaps then you could amend in a new section, explaining the provisions in the d.a. regarding the streets. >> supervisor safai: i amy fine with th -- i'm fine with that. i'm just, from having worked at d.p.w. and been in the role as supervisor now, when we're trying to deal with streets, right, and we had a situation in this chamber where there was some private streets that were not under the purview of d.p.w., and it caused a lot of confusion and problems. so i would not want there to be any confusion going forward that

the city is responsible for maintaining the streets, has ownership over the streets and sidewalks, so on, so forth. >> yes. i think there's sufficient time to add it to the ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. and i saw that supervisor cohen's office was still here, so we can -- i think that they hear that loud and clear, and the ordinance will come in january , at the committee of the whole. so i just wanted to point that out. thank you. sure. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, any other further questions or comments on these two items? okay. seeing none, then, we're going to go to public comment on items 4 and 5. any members of the public who wish to speak in okay. seeing none, public comment on items four and five are closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: it sounds like we're going to send item five to the full board for the

meeting. -- >> are you going to take a motion on the amendments that were offered? >> supervisor tang: oh, yes. and so the amendments as was stated by supervisor cohen's office earlier apply to both -- no, it's just the ordinance, i believe. >> and the resolution would have the committee of the whole date inserted into the blanks? >> supervisor tang: okay. so we'll insert the committee as a whole date for item four, and for item five, it would be the amendments as previously stated. can we get a motion on those two? >> supervisor safai: as -- so moved. >> supervisor tang: okay. so we'll adopt the amendments to both items as stated. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: and then, let's see, motion to send item four out to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: all right. sure. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: item five to the full board without recommendation pending committee

of the whole. >> i'm sorry, to the january date. >> supervisor tang: to the january 15, 2019 date. >> supervisor tang: all right. we'll do that without objection. okay. madam clerk, item six. >> is an ordinance amending the health code to revise the regulation of massage practitioners massage establish, massage out call services and sole practitioner massage establishment. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. so i am sponsoring this item on behalf of the department of public health, and they will be up here to present on this item. over the years, the department of public health, i definitely want to commend them for trying to get a handle on the massage business here in san francisco. i think over the years, the department has amassed a couple of largely technical cleanups for our massage program here in

san francisco, so with that, i'd like to bring up jennifer calward with d.p.h. >> we are cleaning up article 29, striking out some old code, clarifying our director's hearing procedures, clarifying some language on transfer of ownership. in addition, we require background checks by the san francisco police department. our department is looking in to do this, as well, so we've added some language about what that would look like. in addition, we are proposing that the health department no longer permit massage practitioners have the sunset, the california massage therapy council is the primary permitting agency for all massage practitioners, so we

would be sunsetting that at the end of the year. in addition, we will be changing a little bit of the enforcement language to eliminate loopholes which have allowed illegitimate massage establishments to continue operating, going from one neighborhood to the next. these -- there are instances where illegitimate massage establishments refuse to discontinue, there fore adding in enforcement language by the city attorney was added. the ordinance places the burden of compliance on the permit holder, the business owner. we have partnered with the community health equity and promotions branch to develop a program for massage practitioners found to be in violation of the article and help assist the practitioners

with resources around housing, legal assistance, and possibly finding other jobs and employment. many practitioners have gone through this program, and we would actually like to see this program grow. and i'm here to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and before you go, we did have some amendments that we would like to make. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: and they are highlighted on pages 1, 8, 20, and 24, which committee members should have in front of them. but one of them came up in light of conversations from some of the community stakeholders, and under the fore site of that, we have in this legislation, it authorizes the director of public health to deny a massage establishment permit to any applicant who has been convicted of any charge of prostitution or any solicitation of prostitution unless they can show the victim

was a victim of human trafficking because we don't want to further punish those who have been victims of human trafficking. and then, on page 24, there was an amendment regarding the language in terms of what the hotline phone numbers for noticed are offered, and that's just, i believe, align with the city's language access ordinance. >> correct. >> supervisor tang: okay. colleagues, any questions or comments on this item? supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to ask about instances where convictions are vacated or not. so are there instances where the individual's a victim but the conviction is not vacated? >> i can't personally speak to that. i don't know if the department has any information that they're able to share. >> yeah. as far as i know, we haven't had anybody apply for a permit that

has been in that situation, so i'm uncertain. >> okay. >> all right. >> supervisor tang: all right. so seeing no other questions or comments at this time, we'll go to public comment, then, on item six, so if you're here for item six, please come on up. >> hi. my name is cesar, and i'm here to oppose this ordinance. i believe this ordinance still negatively harms sex workers, those that do -- that perform -- that work in sex work voluntarily as an occupation, and we're also perpetuating the stigma towards them, as well. so as i mentioned, it could be

consensual or it could not be, and so i -- i agree that we must do more to eliminate forced sex work and workers from being exploited in every industry. one step that we could take was the -- in 2008, we had proposition k that got 40% of the votes that would have stopped enforcement of prostitution laws in san francisco. next, at the root of sexual trafficking with political, social, and economic forces. for example, in our current state of emergency with homelessness, some turn to survival sex work, having sex in exchange for shelter. we have a chance this -- this year to protect the homeless residents by supporting proposition c. people -- not having shelter makes our homeless residents extremely vulnerable to sex trafficking. we must work with state law

makers to decriminalize illegalized prostitution. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item six, please come on up. >> hi. my name's leah. i'm speaking on behalf of st. james infirmary. it's located in the tenderloin district. it's a pier based occupational health and safety clinic run for and by sex workers, including everyone in the sex industry and people who trade sex. i have a statement. so we believe that records of prostitution and sexual acts and businesses are not grounds for workers to fall deeper into poverty by deprieving them of an accessible skilled trade. these workers are often migrants of color and have limited job

opportunities. they will be provided on the basis of their assumed engagement and gives agencies more power to revoke permits, issue harsher fines and shutdown businesses. as an organization that promotors the safety of those who practice sex, we believe that massage practitioners will be greatly harmed by this ordinance. these regulations will be decrease trading sex in massage businesses in order to address human trafficking, people must have access to resources that can pull them out of poverty. increasing regulations that restrict this opportunity will force the trade underground and only increase the situations that are more susceptible to trafficking and exploitation. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public, please come on up. >> i'd like to speak strongly

against this ordinance. i'm from the u.s. prostitutes collective, and we've put together some points. you know, the city's been cracking down and harassing massa massage parlors for the last 20 years. they haven't gone away, and this is just another attempt to put a strangle hold on them by any means necessary to shut them down. we and others are very concerned about the dire impact that this will have on the women working in the parlors. we don't feel like that is addressed sufficiently. many are mothers working to support children, families. what's going to happen to their livelihood? this is their means of surviving. how will they support their kids when these parlors are shutdown. the crack down will push the industry further underground making women more vulnerable to violence and less likely to come forward to the police to report

assault against them, and we wonder in this time against heighten heighten heightened attacks of immigrants, why are we pushing legislation that promotes more harassment. are more women going to face deportation of this? it's he a disaster, and many see this as part of the ongoing gentrification policies that are pushing people of color and low-income people out of the city. this is going to impact the ordinance, so please vote against it. it's going backwards, not forwards. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other member of the public who wish to comment on item six? thank you. item six is closed. i want to thank all the members of the public who wish to speak on this item, however, i think there's some confusion around what this ordinance is trying to achieve. a large part of it is conforming our local laws with state law, so for example trying to get

d.p.h. out of issuing individual massage practitioner certifications because the state will be doing that. i think that is something that, again, should not be harming massage therapists. there are other requirements here, such as requiring applicants to submit to a floor plan -- to d.p.h. a floor plan and proposed types of coverage just clarifying the permitting process. again, i think that's a good thing that we want to provide clarity for people applying for these permits. anywhere that we touch upon convictions, we have really tried, not just in this legislation, get away from further punishing any potential victims of whether it's human trafficking, sex trafficking or

whatnot. it's about what kind of a business certification are you holding and how are we holding you to the standards of that business. we are not here to pass judgment on sex work, consensual or not. this is about the fact that if you are getting a land use approval and in conjunction a d.p.h. health permit for massage, that massage is the use that is going on, that is the practice that's happening in the business. just like when we issue permits for a small business that's selling clothing, for example, a retail use. that is what is supposed to be sold in that business versus something else. so we are not here to try to punish sex workers, absolutely not. this is where if you are performing massage as your busines business, as supposed to be doing, really, the pieces of legislation that we've passed over the years and today should not actually affect you. so again, i just wanted to provide that clarification. we're very, very mindful. in fact that's why we have the amendment here today of those people who might be victims of

sex trafficking or human trafficking. the other thipg is thng is thate years, the d.p.h. has started a program to try to help people who might want to in fact seek either -- maybe they want to continue in the massage industry, maybe they want other skill sets for other jobs, and they have certainly try today help them with that, and i think that's a positive program that we should continue so that people can be independent and have the skill sets they need to succeed. so again, i just want to emphasize that these are just simply items that department of public health staff came across over the years, felt that they needed to clarify things, conform our local laws with state law. this is not at all to pass judgment or do anything further around sex work. so colleagues, with that, i'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you,

supervisor tang. i think that this is -- as you said, this is a real issue: i mean, san francisco is a targeted area for sex trafficking. i know -- i understand the characterization that there are immigrant and in particularly immigrant women that are involved in consensual sex in this industry, but at the same time, there is a significant number of people that are impacted by sex trafficking in this trade at no choice of their own and are duped into offerings to come to the united states to do many different things not related to this industry at all and are trapped because they are immigrant, undocumented women. and so i commend supervisor tang for putting this forward. i think this is about a land use practice, as she said, about tightening the rules. if this is a massage parlor,

this is what it's been designated to do. people have been consistently involved in criminal activity that is then shutdown, and then, they refuse to stop practicing in that manner. so i commend supervisor tack for her tightening up of these rules and working with the department of public health, and the community and victims of this crime, as well. i know you spent a lot of time working overall on this piece of legislation. so thank you, and please add me as a could sponsor tang -- cosponsor. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor safai. so if we could get a motion on the amendment and then on the overall amended item. >> supervisor safai: motion to approve the item as proposed. >> supervisor tang: okay. so the amendment is adopted. and then, on the underlying item as amended. [inaudible] >> supervisor tang: thank you. and we'll do that without objection. okay. madam clerk, item seven, please. >>clerk: item eight?

>> supervisor safai: seven. sorry, madam chair. >>clerk: item number seven is an ordinance amending the planning code to provide the temporary close you are of liquor store in the north beach neighborhood commercial district as the as a result of a fire is not an abandonment of such use, and the relocation to another location in north beach does not require another conditional use permit. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and we're joined by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair tang. colleagues, thank you for scheduling this item today. it is a very simple ordinance that is aimed at allowing one of the displaced businesses from the march 17 fire in north beach to temporarily relocate without the benefit of a conditional use while that building is being rebuilt. and insofar as liquor stores require conditional use, because this is a temporary use, this

legislation would allow them to temporarily relocate around the corner on powell street, and this was heard by the planning commission october 4. they had some small technical amendments which the deputy city attorney who authored -- who wrote this was not able to incorporate, but i understand that she is back and will be able to have those technical amendments that are not substantial, substantive for introduction at the board tomorrow should the committee forward it out as a committee report. and i know that diego sanchez is here from the department of city planning. >> good afternoon, supervisors. diego sanchez with san francisco planning department. as supervisor peskin has said, the commission -- planning commission heard this item on october 4. the commission was very much in support of this ordinance and sees it as a common sense way to maintain a long-standing character contributing business

within the north beach neighborhood. also, as supervisor peskin has said, they are proposing a few technical amendments, and those should be -- will be found in your packet, and that concludes my presentation. i am here for any further questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item seven, please come on up. >>. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john elberling. well, as an almost 50 year customers of coit liquor, its loss to the fire has been a terrible blow, and it's always been a main stay of the neighborhood. great place. great selection of items, and i urge you to support this so they can keep going for another 50 years. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> teresa flandrick, also of north beach. i've not been going to coit liquor for 50 years, but a good portion of that. so i'm really glad that supervisor peskin has actually brought this up. i ask you to support it. i think it's a great idea, and coit liquor folks are part of the community, so it's not just liquor, it is the -- the owner and the people that work there. so thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item seven? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: madam claire, colleagues, if you have no further questions, i respectfully request this be forwarded to the full board for recommendation so that coit liquor can open up as expeditiously at possible. >> supervisor tang: all right. and we'll do that without

objection as a committee report. all right. item eight, please. >>clerk: item number eight is a resolution urging bay area rapid transit or b.a.r.t. to add a bus note at the 24rth street b.a.r.t. station in san francisco during the transbay ii seismic retrofit. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and do we have someone from supervisor ronen's office today? okay. let's skip over there because i that i enthusiast going to be someone to speak on this. let's go to item 9 through 13. >> is an ordinance amending the general plan by adding soma area plan, making conforming amendments and making appropriate findings. item number ten is an ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to create the soma special use district and make other amendments and making appropriate findings. item number 11 is an ordinance amending the business and tax

regulation codes. item number 12 is an ordinance amending the administrative and planning codes to give effect to the soma plan and make appropriate findings, and item 13 is an ordinance amending the special tax financing law to allow certain tax financing laws in the soma plan. >> supervisor tang: supervisor jane? >> supervisor kim: i will be making a motion to continue all of these items to the following land use committee items, next monday. we are working on a number of items and just for the -- number of amendments, and just for the sake of transparency, we are working on an amendment to tweak the community facilities district, one. two, a number of technical fixes throughout the plan. three, we are still engaging in a number of community asks that had been made to preserve or

ensure as much housing and affordable housing as possible throughout the plan, as well as some mandates around child care facilities on-sites at large key sites and ensuring that within the design guide, that we include family and children facilities. so we are working on those amendments -- we are working on those amendments as well as considering a potential requirement for key sites to provide housing on -- as part of their -- as part of their plan when they do later come to the full board for their approvals. so we are hoping to get this all drafted throughout the week, and submit our final set of amendments next monday. it will sit in land use committee for a week before it is then transferred to the full board for approval, but i do want to thank everyone, all of our project sponsors, all of our

community leaders, the planning department, lisa and josh in particular, as well as our city attorneys, peter and mark for all of their tremendous amount of work. they're literally living at our office, but we do hope to get this all through. so at this time, i would just open up for public comment on these items, and then i would make a motion to continue all of these items to the following week. and el actually, i just see lisa and josh from the planning are here to answer any questions if there are any questions from committee members. >> supervisor tang: thank you. public comment is open for item 13. please come on up if you have anything to say. >> good afternoon again, supervisors. john elberling. i wanted to focus today on essentially the need for land banking affordable housing sites in the central soma and all of

south of market because without that, the goal of 33% overall affordable housing and all of soma as an out come of the central soma plan will not be possible to achieve. it's going to take a dozen or more affordable housing sites over the next 20 years to achieve that goal. and while some progress has been made and several sites have been identifies, and several have been secured, it's only a small number, four or five or six, compared to the 15 or 20 that we will audibly need in the long haul. to do that, it is essential that some of the housing fees paid by developers -- and i'm thinking specifically of the inclusionary housing in lieu fee, the fee outs by the luxury towers that are planned for soma, that those funds, some of those funds be allocated to a land banking fund by m.o.h.

m.o.h. can't do that, and without that, it won't be possible to ak require those sites. thanks to amendments that this board legislatively approved, sites can be approved, and that should be targeted and done as quickly as possible. so i'm here to urge you to do this and to look for every opportunity to have developers provide sites, as well, for which they will be reimbursed their cost. but without those sites for the long haul, the promise that we're making to the community actually will not happen. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gina lejo, and i work at somcan.

the plan states as one of its main goals accommodating housing demand and addressing such demand to alleviate housing prices. the plan, however, does not provide any further studies or figures that support the claim that the new development will drive down housing costs. as a result, the goal of the plan of maintaining the diversity of residents here in terms of socioeconomic background appears empty. many cities are now realizing the impact of the push to build without adequate controls and enforcement in place, s.r.o.s in soma will not continue to be used as open and accessible affordable housing options. new condos will be used because they are not occupied by the investors and as short-term commercial rentals and student

housing instead of residential use. the city needs to balance the missive displamt by having restrictions on s.r.o. and developments in the plan to only allow transitional housing or senior housing. that's all. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. david wu with the south of market community action network. this was adopted by the board of supervisors in january 2009 with the purpose of expanding the stock of affordable housing as well as protecting and enhancing the health and environment of youth and families in the south of market by encouraging uses that support their lively hoods such as employment, workforce development, open space, community based organizations, schools and pedestrian safety. planning, however, continues to ignore the priorities and intention wz of the youth and

family special use district and this extends to the central soma plan, as well we demand that planni planning devise and strengthen the controls of the special use district, and apply it to the whole plan. there are three new hotel projects that are in the central soma plan that are not be considered as full sites. all three sites are within the family full use special use district, and since one of the uses is to expand the stock of affordable housing, we urge you to not support these projects and instead consider them as sites for affordable housing to address the huge jobs housing imbalance in the plan. thank you. >> hi. my name is norman dagleman and

i'm a resident of district five and neighbors united. and i'm concerned about gentrification in this area. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is lee ann ladia. i work in the field of art, history, and design. i work at somcan and soma filipinas. i usually work in community engagement, creating community planning workshops with youth, seniors, and parents, and i urge you to take note of this process whenever you design something in the south of market so that the designs and the feedback that you will get will be culturally

competent. in terms of the central soma plan, the reality of global warming coupled with high concentration of automobiles in the south of market lead to an urgent need to take proactive steps to address greenhouse gas emissions and poor air quality. there is such a lack of green space and greenery in general in the south of market and just last week i was in a community planning workshop with seniors from mendelsohn house, and they were complaining that there's such a lack of green space in soma. and they would actually going to washington park at kearny street, take the 30 bus to exercise, to do their daily exercise. and i also urge you to think about, you know, these seniors who were a result of the past redevelopment planning events that happened in the past years. mendelsohn house and wolf house

were in existence because of the redevelopment plans that happened in the south of market. we will see an undeniable increase in automobile traffic due to the resulting of the plan and living rooms must be required. in addition we have said in previous hearings that -- [inaudible] >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you. [inaudible] >>clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is erica martinovic, and i'm with somcan. there's no additional affordability currently required, allowing this developer benefits that come

with it monetary value, whether that value has been quantified or not without additional public benefit is a complete give away, there must be at least a 10% increase of the affordable. the exceptions being allowed to private outdoor space -- [inaudible] >> -- highlight a larger issue of the reliance of this form in the plan. there are no controls in place to require that popos are actually designed and programs to be community serving and actually function like true public open spaces. this further cements that they are not public open 135iss and the strategy for providing

public open space under this plan is inadequate. p.d.r. replacement requirements must be applied to all types of developments regardless of use. for example, p.d.o. replacement requirements must include residential developments. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i feel like you've heard these comments from me a few times. i'm in support. perhaps some more density equity in the city would be helpful all the way around. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items 9 through 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: can i just ask planning staff to respond to some of the concerns about pupo that just came out of the recent comment that ensure that we put design standards in that allow

the public to feel welcome, so when they're -- and i know that planning shares these same concerns, but when we allow pupos under cantilevers or if we design them a certain way, they don't feel welcome. >> josh switzky with planning staff. yes, supervisors, one of the i thi think -- things that is recommended by the planning staff was to add an additional criteria in the design review process to include that the design should be attract tiive a broad array of the population including families with children and seniors and so forth. the plan already has an sne incentive baked into the plan if

the developer provides parks, dog runs, and other amenities that are more atypical of popos. the department is also commit today moving forward with a new set of guidelines, which the department was already going to be undertaking to guide developers and the community in terms of looking at the pupos in the future, and that is starting to get underway, skb so we hope that that will be completed and adopted in the next few months, as well. >> will there be any dedicated meetings with the public to ensure that their feedback is included? >> yes, sure. >> and finally what is currently in the plan today? >> so the -- the -- the -- the planning commission did recommend some minor amendments

to actually put more bounds on the potential exception that's could be given to the rules that the ppos must be open to the outdoor sky to allow some very minor space to see count towards that if they are not very -- spaces to count that if they are not very deep. so generally, we are skeptical of spaces that are not outdoors, or otherwise use index a very limited way. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: so as i mentioned earlier, we are currently still drafting a number of amendments for next monday. i did hear you loud and clear. i know that the mic turned off, but a request from the community to request the new jobs housing fee nexus study that was undertaken by the mayor's office

so we have an understanding of what those would be, understand the last one was done in 1997, and it is clearly outdated. so i will be pushing for that, and the community, i know, will be continuing to push for that, as well. at this time, i'll make a motion to continue items 9 through 11 to the land use committee of next week. >>clerk: i'm sorry. 9 through 13? >> supervisor kim: yes. 9 through 13. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. and now we're going to go back to item eight. >> would you like me to call item number eight? i'm sorry, would you like me to call it? >> supervisor tang: yes, please. >>clerk: a resolution urging b.a.r.t. to add a bus note at

24th street b.a.r.t. station in san francisco during the trans bay two seismic retrofit. >> okay. thank you very much. we have amy binart from supervisor ronen's office here. >> and i have some amendments that i was hoping that -- thanks very much. amy binart here, legislative aide here to supervisor hillary ronen, here to speak about a resolution that supervisor ronen introduced on september 24. it's could sponsored by supervisors rafael mandelman and valerie brown, and it's urging the board to add a b.a.r.t. note at 24th street station to indicate a later start time

before the retrofit which is scheduled to start in february and take three years. many minimum wage workers have been displaced in the city and continue to work in the city where they're required to begin their day as early as 5:00 a.m., and they depend on the public transit for their daily commute. this change in hours would disproportionately affect people in color, two thirds of b.a.r.t. riders in the first hour of service are people of color, compared to just over half throughout the rest of the day, and this would disproportionately affect low-income commuters. while temporary, the change is not short-term, we cannot have workers arriving late for 3.5 years and expect them to retain their job. the change of service is a critical issue for our hospitality, construction, and janitorial industries, low-income, early morning workers who provide essential goods and services for our economy and daily operations of our city's residents and

visitors. these industries have already been struggling with massive worker shortage, and any reduction could hit them hard. we appreciate the effort to date by b.a.r.t. and m.t.a. to work together to plan for this construction. there's been a lot of negotiation and planning going on. we were at the b.a.r.t. board of directors last thursday, and since that time, there's been some progress. we want to urge that to continue, and specifically, we're asking that they confirm and enter into these agreements for the 24th street bus node, which is a central locus from where a lot of low-income, low wage workers find their way to work close by. we want them to settle on a route that takes them from the transit center to 24th street without stopping at civic center and powell street and embarcadero because that will

slow down this -- what's already going to be a fairly slow surface ride, and we want to ensure that they get to a bus schedule that's going to match a current b.a.r.t. train. so there are some amendment -- one amendment that we proposed to the kurccurrent resolution, we're hoping to see that move forward today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and did you want to state for the record exactly what that amendment is? >> sure. on the second page, lines 10 through 13, it's now shown that the resolution states, further resolved that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the b.a.r.t. board to implement a morning route that will allow riders to arrive at 24 street as the current arrival of b.a.r.t. at 24 street tappi.

>> supervisor tang: thank you. and how have your conversations been going with the b.a.r.t. board? >> so the b.a.r.t. staff came to meet with us today. b.a.r.t. board has been very interested. i know they've been hearing this from -- local 2 have been speaking with them. they've been hearing it from the golden gate restaurant association, and they've been working to figure this out. it is a tangle to unravel. there are eight bus line services that they do have would work with, and they want to make sure of the critical mass of one bus node and bring them across. the progress that they've made -- the significant progress that they've made at this point i think is in planning to -- to skip over the -- the -- the other spots -- the other nodes between transit center and 24 street, so it would go straight

from transit center, 16 street, 24 street, glen park, balboa park, and so that kind of jumps over the downtown area, and there would be a separate line which would take people to the downtown area, which seems much more efficient. i think it's in progress. what we want to do is make sure that they understand that we're really serious about this, we're watching it, we're watching it from our end because they've got a big map to look at. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just so i understand this a little bit more, this -- you're saying in this -- the resolve on page two, b.a.r.t. implement 24 street as part of their mitigation strategy to offset later a.m. start time, to those who use 16 street -- so how does the 24th street then help the balboa

b.a.r.t. station. >> very good question, supervisor, and i can see where you'd be particularly interested in that station. so they would be -- so the 24 street station is -- or actually, in this case, probably we'll end up with the 16 street station will be the first stop along the way to move people south ward. so rather than having folks brought across the bay by buses to transit center and then starting to go to each of the -- each of the nodes along the way, each of the b.a.r.t. stops along the way. we'll get an express bus that goes to 24. it may be 16, but we're work og 24 be the first one, and then south. >> supervisor safai: but it would still hit all the other -- >> yes. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. colleagues any other comments or questions on item eight? seeing none -- sorry. we're now going to go to public

comment on item eight. any members of the public who wish to speak, come on up. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we first get a motion on the amendment on item eight. we'll do that without objection, and on the under lying item as amended, if approximate we can get a motion on that? >> supervisor kim: motion to approve with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: all right. as amended, so we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. madam clerk, if we can now go to item 14, and we are joined by the sponsor of that hearing, supervisor cohen. >>clerk: yes. item 14 is a hearing on the cleanup timeline and disputes between federal regulators and the united states navy on the percentage of parcel g to be retested and the mestology for retesting soil at hunters point shipyard and requesting d.p.h., ocii, u.s. navy examine the united states environmental

protection agency to report. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i'm going to turn the hearing over to president cohen. >> president cohen: thank you very much, madam chair. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. let's wake up and get excited, because we're going to talk about the hunters point shipyard. we need everyone's full focus. i just want to reframe about what we're doing and why we're doing it. may should, 2018 i called a meeting of the regulatory agencies specifically to the hunters point naval shipyard cleanup. so today we're requesting an update of the timeline of the testing of parcel g. i also want to clarify the roles and the responsibilities betwee

bayview-hunters point. so today, i want to make sure the public's concerns are addressed and that we continue to hold people accountable for the work that they're doing in and on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. so with that, what i plan to do is to use this hearing to ask questions and obtain information on the retesting of the land on parcel g and also at this time acknowledging that this is just the beginning of the process to earn and to build trust in the city for those agencies that are

responsible for the health and the well-being of the community. so that ends my open remarks. i wanted to just recognize kim atroski, who we will be inviting to speak first. she and her team from the navy. following her will be mos mosin nazimi from the department of toxic substance control, and then, we will heart from the california department of public health, and then followed by the e.p.a., we will also have a presentation from the san francisco department of public health. as you begin to share your statements, please indicate two things: your agency's roles, and the responsibilities in the parcel g work plan. your agency role, and then, your responsibility in the parcel g work plan. all right, kimberly, you're up. come on down. good toe