>> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors today. i'm the chair of the committee, aaron peskin, joined by dean preston. do you have any announcements. >> yes, due to the covid-19, to protect the city, the board of supervisors legislative chamber rooms are closed. however, members will be participating remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stay-at-home order, declarations and directive. they will attend via video conference. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and sfgovtv a

streaming the number across the stream. comments are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. again, that's 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 1455134299. again, that's 1455134299. press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted. when your item comes up, press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television and radio. you may submit public comment in either of the following ways:

e-mail myself, and it will be forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included in the official file. finally, items will be appear on the june 30th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, and we have been joined by vice chairs safai and with that, could you please read the first item. >> yes. item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to add tourists or transient youth under the residential hotel conversion to set it at less than 7 days to provide a process by which owners or operators of regulated hotels can request that the period be longer on a case-by-case basis,

to amend the definition of permanent resident and affirm the appropriate findings. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, after hearing public comment, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to be called of the chair. is there any public comment on item number one? >> members of the public who wish to provide comment should call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 1455134299. press pound and pound again. can you check if there are any callers in queue. >> i have one caller in the queue. i will unmute them now. >> thank you. >> hello, caller. >> hello. i'm a manager here at san francisco sro and tourist use hotel. i just want to say that after, you know, we've gone to court about this, it's been a long difficult road to get through to

be on board. i just want to invite to the table the owners, the people who run these buildings. i want to say you're making this a little short for me when you buy the business, you have to go and give five years of the history to find out what kind of money they were making, what kind of people they were having, what their average daily rate, five years of business. i think it's short to be taking it one year and it's where everybody purchases a building is a permanent resident. it's okay, but i have permanent residents. it's not that. to get to one end that's meet lee going timmediately going toa permanent resident here, it doesn't work out, they have issues or something like that, don't get along with other tenants, whatever it is, i'm saying, do you know how much money it costs to get a tenant out? a lot. i'm just saying, would you consider that because i think it's really important that you think about those sort of things. it's not just like -- i mean, i

have monthly visibility. it's just i don't have every single person coming into the building becoming a permanent tenant. if that makes any sense. that's my comment. >> thank you for your comment. are there any other members of the public for item number one? >> yes. i have three additional callers. >> next speaker, please. >> linda chapman representing nob hill neighbors. together with nob hill together with chinatown, the original legislation passed back in the day when [indiscernible] housing committee. i would very much like to be able to participate in this and have other people who have maybe

even more direct and recent experience than i do. on nob hill. we have thousands of sros. on my block are three sro buildings with over 200 units. the rest of us in flats and apartments, there are no more than 30 or 32. many of our sros have been lost to unlawful conversions, including at least one and maybe two on my block. only the chinatown one was saved. 1499 california, which used to contain nob hill residents. they became a hotel. now, i see that they are leasing, and in talking with one of the women who actually lived there, she says, well, they were caught and they restored part of it but not all. i have to say that when i -- i

acted as paralegal to the author of the legislation back then, and i have to say i was young. it was an experiment. certainly there are enforcement provisions that could be a lot stronger. now that i have more experience, like enforcement systems, i would make changes there. i would some of those ideas to supervisor peskin for provisions. i didn't comment on this. i didn't know it was coming up. i have called a number of people that i was calling in the past trying to get in touch with chinatown today and freddy martin who is now head of the fda and housing. carl is also interested in this. i'm glad to hear it's being continued. maybe what is proposed now is perfect, but i haven't seen it.

i think all of us who have experience with this, like sue hester, some that were taken, you can't succeed sometimes because the legislation is not what it should be. i would like to help make it what it should be. >> your time has expired. >> thank you, ms. chapman. next speaker, please. >> my name is samantha and i manage a mixed use sro, tourist hotel. this is a family business. we do rent rooms by the week and the majority of our events are san francisco residents. we're able to rent by the week without requiring a deposit plus the full month's rent. many of our occupants also can't afford to pay by the month and they don't have access to that

capital where they would have to provide it. so i suggest no. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. good afternoon, chairman peskin and supervisors. this is an attorney for the hotel coalition and numerous other individual owners. many of my clients are immigrants who have made a life for themselves in san francisco with a family business operating an sro. this is a lawful business renting rooms by the week with seasonal tourist rentals as allowed by law. the ordinance would take away their businesses without compensation. simply wrong. the worst time is inflicted on the people who the city is trying to protect, the sro occupants. they are unable to pay a month's rent let alone a security

deposit. while it may be well-intentioned, resulting harm is obvious. it will be on the city itself in the inform of environmental impacts which has not been evaluated in a proper ceqa review. it's illegal for a number of additional reasons. the am oartization period is insufficient and the hearing process is vague. the building inspection commission is not empowered to hold them in the first place. they have certain powers and serving as a quasi judge is not one of those powers. the board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power as it was created about i a vote roinishivetive. we're talking about a judicial function. it discriminates between sro owners, hotel owners, and the owners of other uses. lastly, as we're discussing a land use category change, a rezoning, it needs to be referred to the planning

commission. we submitted a letter to you detailing these objections and others. this ordinance is being pushed through at break neck speed. we would reflect as the previous caller did, previous time to review it, make comments on it more fully and to engage with your office. we urge you to please vote no on this proposal, thank you very much for your consideration. >> counselor, perhaps you missed what i indicated at the beginning of the meeting that this item will be continued to the call of the chair subject to public comment. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? >> mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> okay. then i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> on the motion to continue to the call of the chair.

[ roll call ] >> you have three aye. >> next item. >> a resolution on behalf of the city and county of san francisco to apply for accepted extend $1.5 million in local early action planning grants program, funds from the california department of housing and community development for citywide planning projects. >> back from a two-month dsw stent putting up a field hospital, james lick on behalf of the department of city planning, the floor is yours. >> thank you, sir peskin and supervisor safai and preston for hearing this item today. i'm james with the planning department. my colleagues and i are here before you today with a resolution to allow us to apply for a grant that would help fund two planning projects, the housing element environmental impact report and planning for

housing and priority development areas or pdas on the west side of the city and county. the grant will be part of the city's budget process and it will go before the budget and finance committee as part of the planning department budget. the california department of housing and community development is looking to support citywide planning projects that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. the state requires that the city and county provide a resolution authorizing us to seek a grant for this work as part of the application. we request that you approve this item in committee today to allow us to provide that resolution to the state. if you have any questions about the housing element update, the housing element eir, or the website pda projects, my colleagues are here to address them, and, again, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. glick. are there any questions from the members of the committee. >> yes. >> supervisor preston.

>> thanks, chair peskin. can you just explain a little more the purposes of the grant and particularly i'm curious when we talk about the analysis of streamlining as well as incentivizing development, whether we're talking about housing generally or any priority on affordable housing in the context of this grant. >> yes, supervisor peskin. i can direct you to my colleagues with some of the specifics, but let me talk to the general intent of the grant. it is not specific to affordable housing. in fact, encompasses a lot of different potential rezoning, environmental clearance, general policies that accelerate housing production, preapproved site and

architectural plans or objective design standards, and there is a specific components which we are sort of using to address the housing element eir, which is the funding allows for the meeting with fixed cycle regional housing needs assessment or allocation goals. a huge portion of that is our housing element eir. if you have specific questions about either the housing element portion, i can direct you to the proper person, and they can speak to the project if you have specific questions about that. i hope that answers your question and explains a little bit more the scope of the grant. >> yeah. that's helpful. i think i'm trying to understand, though, if that's a choice we are making in terms of it not being specific to

affordable housing or if that's the criteria for the grant to keep it broad in terms of the criteria that you just described applying for. >> it is not a specific requirement that we focus on affordable housing. we have actually specified it in particular in the west side pd as housing for persons with special needs, developmental disabilities, the intent, i believe, on the west side portion is to certainly explore all affordable housing opportunities that we can. there was not a specific call in the grant to focus just on affordable housing, though the planning department obviously intends to focus as much as possible on that.

>> well, i'm just getting up to speed. this is not one we were briefed on before. i don't know to which extent the supervisors were involved in this. obviously with limited funds, i would like to see the prioritizing of affordable housing in this context. now, maybe that can happen. i understand they are planning grants so maybe there will be more consultation as they move forward. but i did just -- one other thing, trying to understand the timing here, so is this -- i understand there's a deadline on this coming up for this to be submitted, is that right? >> yes. the deadline for submitting the application with the agreement to apply for the grant is july

1st. however, as we go forward and refine the process as we did with the sb-2 grant, the prior grant we applied for under similar program from acd, there was some refinement of our process and our projects as it went along. so we are going to get the application in prior to july 1st, and it will probably be subject to negotiation with hcd and potential changes as we go through sort of a technical assistance and consultation program with them. i'm sure that our planning staff would be happy to work with your office and with the committee however possible to address any concerns in terms of how we've specified or scoped the projects before a final grant agreement is signed. unfortunately, this was a bit of a scramble to pull a draft

together so that we could both submit it to you and get it submitted in time to hcd. >> got it. has there been any consultation with the west side? obviously this is primarily impacting part of the west side. wondering if there's been any discussions with either district one, district four, or district seven about the scope of it. >> let me ask paolo or mary ann to speak to -- if they've had any conversations with supervisor moore or any of the other west side supervisors, please. >> sure. >> supervisor, i'm with the planning department. let me address, first, the affordability component. the housing element is different from previous elements, different from previous updates. it's based on racial and social

equity the center of this update. this grant will support environmental review addressing some of the social indicators that we need to include. on the west side, we've been working for more than a year with supervisor moore, president yi, and fewer. the work on community engagement and housing strategy is on district four. we have partnered with one of the community organizations to carry that coordination. we're working very closely with preston on family friendly housing, and there's a proposal for a pilot and a sketched proposal by the end of the year. there's also a commitment to collaborate strategy that the planning department and supervisor yee will be agreeing upon with supervisor fewer, we're starting the work. there is some focus on the transit corridors and we're starting the engagement process.

the three of them are under the west side strategies, and as you know, you approved the extension of the priority development on the west side of the neighborhoods and there's a commitment to support those neighborhoods in terms of addressing some of the community planning needs as well as some of the investment strategies. they are part of an overarching framework called homes housing outreach media and engagement strategy where we're starting the housing strategies with engagement process. we also have on the line paolo who is planning manager for that effort if you have more specific questions. >> supervisor preston. >> i still -- my only remaining question is, as i understand the general concentrations have occurred, i guess i'm trying to understand how this particular

grant -- and i confess. i don't know the flexibility that you all have in how you can define the scope and the terms of this agreement in order to carry out the work and whether there is a roll for supervisors of the impact of districts in shaping how this 1.5 million will be applied for and the condition on which it will be received. i'm just trying to understand if there's been consultation about this specific grant or not and frankly if not, you know, whether it's more appropriate to, you know, look at this week, you know, when after that consultation has occurred or maybe it's already occurred. that's what i'm trying to find out. >> supervisors, may i answer the question? >> yes, please. >> please. >> we have been working on them in shaping the scope of this grant as well as some of the additional resources that the planning department needs to

allocate in order to carry the work in these three districts. >> thank you. >> all right. supervisor safai, any comments or questions? >> seeing none from supervisor safai, why don't we open this up to public comment. >> thank you. i don't have any questions. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 1455134299. press pound and pound again. operations, are there any callers in queue? >> mr. chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, if there's no objection, i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee

report. seeing no objections, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> on the motion as stated. [ roll call ] >> thank you. could you please read the next and final item? >> yes. item number three is a motion to approve [indiscernible] for unnamed streets located on the san francisco park commission property within dc lot 337 and mixed use project area. members of the public who wish to provide comment call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 1455134299. press pound and pound again.

if you have not already done so please star 3 to line up to speak. >> thank you, ms. major. we are joined by rebecca from the port of san francisco. i understand you have a short powerpoint you want to share. the floor is yours. >> hi. thank you. thank you, chair peskin and good afternoons preston and safai. a presentation for you, and just a background i direct the waterfront development projects. give me a frown face if my voice is cutting out. i'm here before you on the mission rock project. this is the official naming -- a motion to name the unnamed streets in this development site. you're probably familiar with mission rocks from previous actions. a bit of a background, we've been working on it for 12 years, the city, the state, the voters of san francisco, and we're on

the cusp of construction and phase one and then occupancy in the next 24-month construction schedule for phase one. overall, mission rock is about 28 acres, including that pier 48 site you see on the right-hand side jutting out into the bay. it's 2.7 square feet, 1200 new homes and apartment buildings. some affordable. and then office, retail production, and then that pier 48 site will be developed in the next maybe decade or so. we also have 8 acres of parks and open space site-wide. on the phase one final map back on june 2nd allows development of the first four buildings. you can see in the picture here, it comprises -- phase one is comprised of two office buildings or exactly two office buildings, two apartment buildings, delivering 540 units overall, 200 of which will be

restricted affordable, and the china basin park is a major open space in phase one. the project has a number of elements that you can read on the slide here that we can talk about if you would like to in the future. the motion before you is on the -- specifically they come along with the final map. they would have come along on june 2nd, but this trailed a bit due to timing. so it's before the committee today. there are six streets total at the site. we are proposing that four be extensions of the nearby street grid. you can see that on the far right. we would extend this from the south and it would terminate at that beautiful park in the north end of the site. lawn bridge, bridge view and not ha he will would be extensions. long bridge and bridge view would come up -- bridge view would come up north. long bridge would come from the

east and channel street would come in -- i'm sorry. my directions are off -- from the west. there are two new names proposed at the site. one is blank road, this blue street, and the other is spur street. the two names are back to the site history. spur makes reference to the site as a long time rail yard dating back to the late 1800s. you can see the picture of the spurs and the rail yards. plank road is an homage to mission plank road which was a toll road that operated in san francisco from about 1851 and connected parts of mission bay over to mission delores. the process for naming new streets that we've gone through just briefly noted here, it began in community meetings back

in 2019 when we were discussing what different public space features should be. during those community meetings, we heard names that should reference the site's history. we proposed three names to make sure spur, plank, and the extensions were fine through emergency standpoint. they were compliant. then we presented the names to our advisory groups back in december. the port commission had a hearing on the street names and adopted or proposed we bring these to the board in january, and we're now seeking that approval from the board. the motion before you is for the six names, four extensions, two new street names, and i think we have folks available from vsm, mr. james ryan and bruce torres may be able to answer questions about process. i'm here for any questions you may have. >> thank you.

are there any questions from committee members? >> yes, supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair peskin. in this moment where street names and other things are very much on our mind, we're taking a close look at various names in our district of street names, and i realize this process started quite a while ago, but i am curious, especially with the new streets, not the extension streets, but with the new ones, there's obviously a lot of interest in naming streets after civil rights leaders, other activists and folks. we are in the process tomorrow of bringing back before the board of gauge junior resolution to name the street after the first african-american firefighter. there are many more folks who

have been underrecognized or not recognized. yet, i realize you are well into this process. so i wanted to understand just what -- is there an opportunity potentially on the new ones, particularly on plank and spur? if there were alternatives, would there be a way to potentially consider other names on those without slowing down the many other aspects of this project? >> thank you, supervisor, for the question. i'm sure that our port commission executive director appreciates what you're talking about. the sentiments are well discussed. as i mentioned, the process we've gone through to come up with different names, we go through that process again. there would be some concern there with regard to timing.

our real mandate from wanting to get this project started is to start construction in july and then we would be starting the vertical construction in september, october. so perhaps i could defer to the city attorney as to whether or not this sort of integration of a new process starting issuing with permits and starting construction on those buildings, if that's appropriate. >> deputy city attorney jensen. >> good afternoon, chair, and board members. i have been informed by my colleague and the city attorney's office that there would be no slowing down of construction if the committee and the board do not push through this item right now, that the construction can continue on its current track. so that is my understanding. >> so subject to public comment, supervisor preston, how would you feel if we continued this

item to the call of the chair while we work together with the port and the port works with the project sponsor and the various committees and folks that you had vetted this idea with. >> supervisor preston, that would work well for me. potentially, continuance of however much time it needed for those discussions. >> i'm throwing that out to you for your response and thoughts. >> okay. wonderful. my thoughts are a couple. we have other streets at the port we might want to do a quick survey of potential future projects if that is of interest to supervisor preston and others. so perhaps we could provide that information and have a discussion and figure out whether or not there are other opportunities. the only concern with these is that going back through the process. i understand if that may be the

desire. perhaps a broader look at port streets is a good way to provide information. >> sorry. go ahead. my apologies. >> no. go ahead, chair. >> i was just going to say that we could also potentially -- and i'm looking at the verbiage in the subject resolution, maybe approve this in bart without spur or plank, but with the extensions of the existing named streets. so maybe that would allow you to go forward in part, and then the other two new ones could be part of the more global look that you're suggesting. >> that's a potentially good route. those streets intersect the first phase of instruction. we would have to get to those in the nearer term.

we have other projects. i think this global look would actually be a good opportunity to look at what streets are coming before the board in the near term as well that hasn't gone through the process just yet. >> thank you for your willingness to have that conversation, and i think it would make sense to separate out the new ones. approve the ones that are extensions and then maybe it would give more time limited so we can have that conversation about the broader look at names and then it may well be that these particular ones should just move forward as is and there are other opportunities that these should be rethought out. i apologize. we raised this just initially just today, so i think in a period of time we should have that conversation. >> that works very well for me.

>> thank you. anything you would like to add or subtract? >> yes. i have my name on the roster. thank you, chair. so i was going to say something similar to what both of you all said. i think we should definitely move forward with the names that are extensions of the existing streets. i think there's no debate there. i think it makes sense to have a conversation if there's other projects upcoming or other projects to name new streets. i think this would be the time to have -- looking through an equity lens. i do think that, you know, when i look at what the port -- what the port has presented in terms of the reason why they chose spur and plank, there's some history there, but it's not anything really of super significance. i think that since this is a mission rock, this is a san francisco giants, i think it will be worthwhile to include

them in the conversation and see if there is some historic athletes or current athletes that we could incorporate in. i know if i lived in that area, it would be pretty wonderful to have someone that had significant history with the team but also with a homage to where we are today in terms of our african-american history or other history, you know, in terms of the commitment from the team and the name. so i would definitely like to see that. but i certainly would like to see that the current streets that are not up for di for debas straightforward. i think people know that he was the first african-american supervisor of the board, and i think that's a wonderful history to kind of, again, reaffirm. those are my comments. >> thank you, supervisor safai. before we go to public comment, deputy city attorney jensen, as i'm looking at the subject

resolution, all of the names are set forth in the public streets and port open spaces lift. so i think if we were to move forward in part and remove plank and spur, that lift would have to be amended or we would have to add another moved clause that specifically deletes those two names. what is your advice? >> i think probably the cleanest way to do it would be through an amendment, but it's not your only path. you could -- i suppose you could split the file, but it seems like a great amendment would work just as well. i think i cut off the port representative. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i'm getting notes from staff that it may create some confusion to take half the legislation. so if it would be possible through the chair, can we

continue the item and not try to split it up? i'm hearing this might cause confusion with some of our permitting and whatnot. >> okay. we can certainly do that. supervisor preston, it looks like you wanted to say something. >> nope. >> okay. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there members of the public who would like to comment. >> checking to see if there are any callers in i in the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. >> mr. chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> okay. public comment is closed. why don't we -- >> sorry. i'm sorry. one second. one caller just popped up. >> all right. then we'll open it up to public

comment. >> my name is -- >> hello. go ahead. >> i don't know how to push -- unmute it. >> you've been unmuted. >> okay. my name is bill graziano. i live in the bayview. we have a street called bridge view. so i'm wondering if there will be some confusion. i notice that it said bridge view way, but bridge view street is in the bayview. so it's just a comment. >> that's a helpful comment. thank you, sir, for the comment. >> are there any other callers? >> that completes the queue. >> we will close public comment. we can -- i can schedule this on

any thursday by 10:00 in the morning for the following monday. so what i would suggest is that we continue this to the call of the chair so that we don't put it on multiple agendas. when we have figured this out to everybody's satisfaction, i think we all know what we're doing here, plus we just got a very helpful comment that may not have -- you may not have heard before from the member of the public. if there's no objection, i would like to make a motion to continue item number three to the call of the chair, and on that motion, a roll call, please, madam clerk. >> only the motion as stated. [ roll call ] >> okay. that motion is approved. item is continued to the call of the chair. i look forward to working with you and, of course, feel free to

work directly with my colleagues as well. with that, the land use and transportation committee is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you all.

>> before we begin, as i have been doing, i would like to enter the following into the record that on february 25th, 2020, the mayor declared a state of emergency related to covid-19. therefore, due to the health, city hall is closed. there are emergency orders to boards and commissions making it possible to hold meetings remotely. we received authorization from the mayor's office to convene through the enter of the shelter in place. this will be our 14th remote hearing. i am requesting everyone's patience in advance. the platforms will not perfect, and at times, may seem clumsy. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. do not use