>> all right. everybody welcome to our land use and transport committee meeting october 15, 2018. my name is katey tang, and i am the chair of this committee. to my left is supervisor ahsha

safai, and i believe supervisor fewer is on her way. madam clerk, do we have any [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. can we please call item one. >> item one is an resolution establishing new -- [inaudible] >> -- and establishment of new sidewalks authorizing real property transfers and waiving provisions of administrative code chapter 23. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have brad benson here from the port. >> good afternoon, chair tang, supervisor safai. brad benson representing port director elaine forbes on behalf

of the pier 70 project team. today, we're talking about an implementation step for the buildout of pier 70 that was envisioned at part of your project approvals last fall for the pier 70 28-acre site and the 35 acre special use district. so this represents -- this slide represents the 35 acre special use district at pier 70. what is shown in -- outlined in red is the 28 acre site that will be developed by a subsidiary of forest city. we're here today about the box in blue which is the future parcel, one of the first sites that will be sold for market rate housing development at pier

70, and it generates much needed proceeds to pay for project entitlement costs. specifically, we're here today to vacate a 12-foot strip, excess strip of michigan street, which would remove the street designation, allow for a larger development parcel and pave the way for a new street and sidewalk. so on left, before the straeet vacation, we have an extra wide michigan street, which will be a one block straight with parcel k on one side and a historic core on the right. after the street vacation and a subsequent action by the board to approve a transfer map, michigan street will be narrowed. part of it will be conjoined with parcel k north through the transfer map, and part of it will be added to the historic

core. there's actually a historic building that encroaches a little bit out in the street today. following -- if this committee recommends the street ordinance and the board approves it, after that action, a final transfer map would come to the board of supervisors for your approval, and then sale of parcel k north for market rate housing development will also come to the board of supervisors for your consideration. so we're at october 15. in december, the street vacation ordinance would become effective. in january , the board of supervisors would consider the parcel k north transaction, and in february , the transaction would close. and with that, concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. benson. the diagrams were very helpful,

and colleagues, any questions or comments? okay? no? seeing none, then we're going to open up item one to public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we get a motion on item one? okay. so we'll move it forward to the full board with a positive recommendation without objection. item 2 [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have representatives from the p.u.c. here today, i believe. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm jamie sidell. i believe you have my presentation in your packet. i can go through it if you'd like me to or jump to questions tappi . >> supervisor tang: sure. why don't you go through the presentation. thank you.

>> so the way it is now, sfpuc has owned solar generation, and we have over three megawaits throughout the city, 23 project locations, and all of those systems have interconnections agreements with pg&e in order to energyize the system and to connect to their grid. the board has historically approved those agreements, and we were given ongoing authority to enter into those agreements. form 79973 with pg&e with ordinary unanimo ordinance 14414 several years ago. and so needs have changed for us. there are two main items that have changed. one, our customers are starting to install their own solar generation as a result of the better roof ordinance. and additionally, sfpuc is

operating under a different agreement with pg&e under the wholesale distribution tariff. so we're coming here today, asking for authority to sign two different agreements with pg&e under the customer owns solar generation. there'll be two different forms. one for our customer to sign, form 79988, and then, a form that p.u.c. would sign, the customer generation agreement, 79992. and in addition to that, we're asking for authority to sign the whole sale distribution tariff agreements for our own solar generation, and we have several upcoming projects that would fall underneath that with a high school and opera house. let me see... so that's basically it.

let me know if you have any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i know that the other piece of legislation -- i think we might have -- i don't know if you just touched upon it or if it was skipped over very quickly, but just the delegation of authority to the other departments, do you want to explain that? >> yes. so in addition -- so additional departments we expect installing their own solar over the next few years, so rec and park, police department, airport, various other departments, we expect to install their own solar, so they would need to sign the same agreements. so the first test case would be sfmta, where they have a system coming on-line shortly. >> supervisor tang: okay. so -- all right. so just to confirm, we are delegating our board of supervisors's authority under the charter to allow the m.t.a., p.u.c. and other departmented to enter into agreements with pg&e to exceed ten years. and i have seen this type of

waiver frequently before, but just to point it out that we are waiving some of the competitive bidding, first-source hiring and some other requirements, just given that they are not feasible. >> yeah, i guess they wouldn't apply since they're not competitively bid, the projects. >> supervisor tang: okay. so -- all right, colleagues, do we have any questions, comments on this item? okay. thank you. seeing none, then we'll go to public comment on item 2. any members of the public who'd like to speak on this item, please come on up. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. colleagues, any recommendation for item 2? [inaudible] >> supervisor tang: okay. and we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. item three please. >>clerk: item number three is an ordinance amending ordinance number 1061 entitled regulating the width of sidewalks to change the official sidewalk width of certain locations fronting

assessor's parcel block number 3718 and adopting and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i'll turn it over to sponsor supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. this is actually just a simple work item -- trying to find it. my apologies. i actually don't have my points before me, but this is a request of the project sponsor at 250 howard, and it's just to cleanup language around the sidewalk with changes. sorry. i don't have the actual notes in front of me. from my understanding in reading

it, just improving pedestrian safety in midblock, pedestrian access for this project, and it's part of the transit center district plan. >> yeah. the project is 250 park street howard tower. it memorializes the portions of main street, beale, and mission street, and parts of the streets will be widened, except for mission, which will remain the current width. this is an ordinance that our office has been working on with the:00 john buck company to widen the sidewalk and get the traffic back to normal and get tenants back into the building. they submitted their sidewalk legislation in september 2015 and received an at-risk street improvement permit application on may 9, 2017, so it's been about three years that this project has been waiting to get their sidewalk legislation approved. they're also going to get their temporary certificates of occupancy on october 24, 2018.

we do have allison owens here who is representing the project sponsor if you have any questions for the john buck company. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, any questions, comments? seems pretty straightforward to me. okay. let's open it up to public comment. any members of the public wishing to speak? seeing none, public is close the. >> supervisor tang: colleagues, any motion for item three? >> supervisor kim: i move to move item three to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. we can do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. next item, pleasitems 4 and 5,

[agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. i believe we have philip wong here from the office of economic and workforce development. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to invite sophia keller from president cohen's office to introduce an amendment for your consideration. >> supervisor tang: would you like to talk about the items first before the amendment in general? >> yes. apologies for that, chair tang. what we have before you, supervisors, today, is consideration of a major street vacation that would allow for start of construction of this 50-acre public housing revitalization project in may of next year. i think when we have the presentation, we'll go over some

of the main objectives and public benefits of the legislation, and then, i'm going to allow ramy dehr, the housing development lead from the codevelopment team, mercy housing, to go into more detail with the project site and also the intent of the legislation. and then, of course, representatives from public works, the mayor's office of housing and community development and myself representing the office of economic and workforce development are available for any questions that may arise. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> thank you, chair tang, supervisors safai and kim. i'm here today on president cohen's behalf as the or of this legislation. this is a necessary street vacation that will allow us to move forwato -- president cohen introduced this resolution and the ordinance before you last month, on september 4, and today we

seek your authorization that memorializes a future s.f. public utilities action that they're meeting which will allow for public utility easements to be determined surplus and vacated, and following that, staff will be available to answer any questions. these are for the colleagues. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is remy dare, and i'm have mercy housing california, representing the development team. i'm going to give you a quick presentation. just to refresh your memories, sunnydale hope s.f. is the existing revitalization of the housing site into a new development with all new housing, 17 -- over 1700 units

of affordable and moderate income housing, 60% of which are affordable, including replacement units for existing households. the other public benefits of this development will be that we'll be creating an all new utility and street infrastructure grid, new services to serve the community, and 30,000 square feet of neighborhood space and mixed use buildings. we started our first building the master development plan in january on an infill site that we purchased across the street from the development, and we are now in predevelopment and permitting for block six, affordable housing development and the associated infrastructure of five acres. we are hoping to start the construction of the infrastructure portion next spring, spring-summer and then follow that immediately with the construction of block six. so we are requesting the board of supervisors' approval for a master street vacation ordinance that would allow us to come at

this time in the next couple months for one-time board of supervisors' approval to vacate all existing rights of way within the sunnydale master plan development area and then as we embark on the phases of development, the d.p.w. director would be authorized to review each phase of development and allow us to enact the vacation of those rights of way within those phases. the conditions that we would have to meet would be reviewed by the d.p.w. director. we're also seeking the city's authority to allow for the necessary conveyance of those vacated rights of way to the san francisco housing authority so that the housing authority can then execute long-term -- short-term or long-term leases for us to be able to develop those sites with infrastructure housing or community benefits.

there is also something that would allow us to have sfpuc maintain existing public utility easements so this would give us new time to build infrastructure, allow the city to test that infrastructure while we're still operating the existing infrastructure in the rights of way, and then those older utilities would be abandoned after the new infrastructure's accepted. so on the left diagram, you can see how we have divided the development site into phases and how the master street vacation ordinance would allow us to get a one-time approval and then come back through the city d.p.w. director to obtain approval for vacating rights of way according to these phases. on the right side, you see a diagram that shows how there will be all new streets, realignment and street grid overlayed on top of the existing site. so the schedule that we are here

today for the committee's approval, and then we're intending to go to the board of supervisors next week for the resolution of intent. we will go to the sfpuc commission for approval in december, and then come back to the committee in january and finish the process through the board of supervisors in january . we're available to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? >> supervisor kim: i'm sorry. could you just go back -- >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry. that was my question, the expected timeline on sunnydale hope sf. >> this was the other legislation wher legislation where we're asking -- we bought a site across the street. it's on the corner of handwritthahy and sunnydale. we're targeting to complete that in august of next year. we are currently working on the

design and permitting of the next phase, which, on this diagram, is the kind of red and then, the green above that, we actually combined two subphases into one phase, so that is our block six affordable development, and the five acres of infrastructure. and so we're actually working with the housing authority to vacate that area of existing residence. those recess dents are moving to other vacancies within sunnydale right now. we're hoping to create a site by the end of november , beginning of december, and then conduct the building demolition in that area and then follow that with -- in may, following that with actual new construction of street and utility infrastructure. we'll be back before the board of supervisors for that public approval agreement and others like map actions for that phase. so we'll be able to start that construction in may, and then follow that with a vertical block six construction in august of 2019.

>> supervisor tang: and what is the expected completion date for the vertical construction of block six? >> february 2021. it's a large development. >> supervisor tang: oh, wow. wow -- so -- and during that time period -- sorry. this is a project i'm not as familiar with. between 2019 and 2021, those residents will be at alternate units for about -- >> right. they will continue to live in the current vacancies in sunnydale, and then, we've organized the sites into groups so figure out who would move into parcel q and the unit in block six. >> and six is the -- >> block six is 1 00% affordabl, and it'll be primarily

replacement units for sunnydale households, and then, there'll be some general, as well parcel q is 55 units in toting and block six is 167 units in total. >> supervisor tang: and then, the site you said was mixed income. >> sorry. i think i spoke too fast. the whole development is mixed income. the way we designed our blocks, we have 14 affordable units or 14 affordable blocks. so when we say affordable, your typical tax credit affordable. and then, the next block, next door, might be a moderate income development that would be developed by another developer, but we would assist the housing authority in identifying those developers. >> supervisor tang: when you say moderate income, what do you -- >> what's the range?

we haven't done a study in a little bit, but could range anywhere from 60% to 120 or 130% a.m.i. we would need to figure that out with the city. >> supervisor tang: and there will be some market rate units here, as well. >> right. >> supervisor tang: and when will that get phased in? >> we actually -- probably see it a little bit on the diagram on the left there to the right of the red area. there is going to be a market rate or moderate -- >> supervisor tang: ask sfgovtv -- >> if you look on the right side, that's half of our first development phase. so the right of it, you'll see a small rectangle. that's a new site that's going to be created through the segment of blythedale, and that will be a moderate income site that will have frontage on hahn

street, and we think that'll support about eight units. >> supervisor tang: only eight? >> yeah, because this is a small infill site. >> supervisor tang: oh, is it's that -- oh, it's very tiny. >> yeah. that's our very first market rate site. >> supervisor tang: so when you say 60% affordable, you mean, throughout the entire project. where is the 40% that will be unrestricted? >> it'll be located in different blocks, so the majority of the blocks actually -- so if you look at the diagram on the right side, it's a little hard to see, but you can start to see some of the outlines of the new housing blocks. so 14 of those -- i should say 13 of those are affordable, and then, the rest -- then there are four open space blocks and one community center blocks, and the rest are the market race-moderate income blocks. >> supervisor tang: and how many is that and where are they

located? >> i don't have a diagram here, but we've tried to intersperse 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