>> good afternoon. welcome do the february 28, 2022 weeing meeting of land use and transportation of the board of supervisors. i am joined by supervisor preston and peskin. i would like to acknowledge and thank the good folks at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. >> the minutes will reflect committee members reflected to video as if present.

public access is essential and invite public participation. public comment is available on sfgovtv across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes. comments to speak are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting id24887850521. press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the discussions and you will be in listening mode only. when your item comes up dial star and 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices call from quiet

location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment by e-mailing myself land use and transportation clerk. sfgovtv. if you submit via e-mail it will be forwarded to the board of supervisors. you can send it to city hall. room 244 san francisco california 94102. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of march 8th unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. we will call item 7 out of

order. hearing on review and status of the mayor's office of housing and community developments below market rate program, including inquiring about the number of participants, what area medium incomes are currently being serviced and the program's funding availability, participants demographics. call 415-655-0001. if you have not done so and would like to speak for item 7, press star 3 and it will indicate that you would like to speak. madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: the sponsor of this item has asked

we continue this item. they are not quite ready i will make a motion we continue to the call of the chair after we take public comment on the item. we have nine listeners but zero in the queue, madam chair. >> chair melgar: public comment -- >> one caller just popped up. >> chair melgar: let's take that caller. >> affordable housing advocate for seniors and people with

disabilities. i am not sure am i speaking for continuation? is it going to be heard today for sure? >> it is going to be heard today for sure. >> chair melgar: it will not be heard today. you are commenting on the continuance. we will continue this because the sponsor has asked us to. you are commenting whether or not you are okay with continuing it. >> i am having a great deal of trouble with the transmission today. sorry about that. yes, i don't want it tipped. if it must, i will speak when it

comes back up again. >> we have another caller in the queue. take that caller. >> this is peter war field. i have had trouble getting in. the system ignores one of the digits i dial to get into the meeting as the meeting id when i dealed in. i dialed 24887850521. twice the system repeated back what i entered omitting the 0. i have gotten in through the clerk's office. i want to report that and ask what item are you on item 1 or what? >> this is for public comment on

item 7. if you have comments for item 7. >> i would like to comment but not on 7. are you up to that already? >> we are at item 7. if you do not have comments we will move to the next item. >> i don't. thank you. i wanted number 1. >> that completes the queue. >> chair melgar: public comment is closed. i make a motion to continue item 7 to the call of the chair. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. that motion passed. please call item 1. ordinance amending the planning

code to designate 1801 green street golden gate valley carnegie library as landmark under article 10 of the planning code and appropriate findings. members of the planning to speak for item 1 call 415-655-0001. id24887850521. pound and pound be again. please press star 3 to line up to speak. >> chair melgar: we have ms. donovan to share a few words on this item. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar and good afternoon, members of the land use and transportation committee. i will be brief. i am happy to be here before you owe behalf of supervisor stefani in support of the golden gate

library. opened in 1918. one of the seven carnegie libraries and last to be landmarked. there was an administrative oversight. golden gate valley library is a loved institution and the community is eager to see this be recognized along with the other six libraries. i am happy to turn it over to melanie with planning for the presentation on the item before you. i will remain on the you have any questions. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. we have melanie bishop here from historic preservation. welcome. >> good afternoon. melanie bishop planning department staff.

bear with me as i share my screen here. before you is the ordinance recommending approval of landmark designation for golden gate valley library. 1999 the preservation commission added this library to landmark designation work program with 6 other libraries in san francisco. due to an error this landmark designation was not final as part of this effort. they prepared the report for the property in july of 2020. after consultation and approval by library staff, the h.p.c. voted to initiate the landmark designation of the carnegie library at the november 3, 2021 hearing. the commission heard comments in

support of the designation from six public comments. golden gate valley library is on the south side of green between laguna and octavia streets. [ inaudible ] >> maybe you want to turn off your camera. we can pull up your slide if it is a connection issue. >> so sorry.

>> turnoff your camera. >> the golden gate carnegie library has functioned as library since construction in 1918 by master architect. the library underwent reb novation in october 2011 including seismic upgrades in addition to façade restoration. small addition was constructed at the western façade to house an elevator to improve accessibility. it preserved character defining features and did not impact

architectural integrity of the building. recommendation for landmark designation was heard on december 1, 2021. at this hearing the h.p.c. voted unanimously to recommend approval of the lanmark designation finding the golden gate valley carnegie library is significant under national register cry tearia a1. patterns of social and cultural history in san francisco. the association with the carnegie library grant program. it is also significant under a3 architecture. as example of institutional building that displays distinctive characteristics of neo classical style with city

beautiful movement. it is 1918. it encompasses construction and association with the specific patterns of cultural history in san francisco. the consultant be produced the report and thank you to marine and staff with the san francisco public library for support of this designation. thank you. this concludes my presentation unless there are questions. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: please list me as a cosponsor. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor. if there are no other comments or questions, let's take public comment on this item. >> we are checking for callers in the queue. if you would like to speak press

star 3 to be added. if you are on hold wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. maria we have 14 listeners. i believe mr. war fold wanted to speak. press star 3 if you want to speak. >> thank you. this is peter war field executive director of library users association. i did mention earlier i had trouble getting into this meeting. i called a number of times trying to get in and the system ignored one of the digits of the meeting id. the zero in front of the 521 at

the end. fortunately the clerk's office put me through from the front office. with respect to this designation, this is one of the most beautiful libraries in san francisco. it well deserves landmark designation. the only thing that makes me a little nervous is that the legislation talks about the preservation of certain particularly important elements or a possible replacement in kind. i understand sometimes there may be an impossibility to preserve things. it makes me nervous to think the beautiful open space and many of the features that may being a beautiful library that any of those might be replaced in kind. in any case, as i said, this is

well worth landmarking and certainly we would support a landmark designation. thank you very much. >> that is the last caller in the queue. >> thank you so much. public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin, did you want to make a motion? >> so moved with recommendation. >> on that motion supervisor peskin to recommend this item. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk. item 2. ordinance amending the planning code to designate 447 battery street as a land mark consistent

with the standards in article 10 of the planning code and appropriate findings. members of the public to comment call the number on the screen. 415-655-0001. id24887850521. pound and pound again. if you would like to speak press star 3. >> thank you very much. thank you, supervisor peskin for introducing this item. would you like to make opening remarks? >> supervisor peskin: i want to start by thanking and acknowledging the work if you have the time to read in whole or part the 23 page fact sheet is really a fascinating well researched and easy to read document. that speaks not only to this but

to the history of coffee, history of tea, dating back to yemen and china, history of the produce market, history of coffee in san francisco with names i remember. hills brother and folgers south of market. this was unique as a marcan tile building in the coffee industry. it is fascinating. i want to extend appreciation to planning department for the work on that. it has been recommended with modifications by the historic preservation commission in unanimous vote. i have one housekeeping amendment on page 215 to add to

subsection 2 the little cup let which is incorporated here in by reference to the end of that sentence. i will also note that while there was a pending application to demolish this building and there is a letter in the file from the attorneys for the property owner dated a year ago, all of those permit applications have been withdrawn and there are currently no permit applications pending for the building. with that i will turn it back over to you, madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. thank you for your excellent work as always. please make your presentation. >> thank you. if the clerk's office can pull up my presentation. i have technology issues,

unfortunately. thank you, supervisor peskin and good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. as you have heard before you is odder nance for landmark designation 447 battery street. preservation commission's resolution recommending approval of the designation. 447 battery was constructed in 1907 as a coffee roast, store warehouse, packaging and manufacturing facility of the jones coffee company. jones dear box occupied this building 1907-1967. the board's resolution initiating land mark designation of 447 battery street was heard

by historic preservation on august 4, 2021. there was one public comment in support and comments of the property owner representative in opposition of the designation. the commission voted 5-1 to approve with modifications a resolution recommending landmark designation of the subject property. the commission found the subject property is eligible for designation as san francisco landmark under national register criteria 1. for association with the san francisco coffee industry. significant commercial sector in san francisco during early decades of the 20th century reconstruction of downtown san francisco following the 1906 earthquake and fires. the commission found further that battery street did not appear to be eligible for

designation under c for architecture. not representative or historically significant example of the building type of brick store and warehouse nor did it appear to retain sufficient physical integrity for architectural significance. that completes my presentation unless you have questions. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: i want to apologize for my inaccurate statement. i noticed one person was recused. i did not know there was a person who dissented. almost unanimous vote. >> chair melgar: thank you supervisor peskin. if there are no other comments or questions, madam clerk.

public comment on this item, please. >> we are checking for callers in the queue. if you would like to speak press star 3 dobadded the queue. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have 14 listeners with zero in the queue. >> chair melgar: with that, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. you had an amendment you wanted to get approved. >> that is in the record. i believe you have it is a very small one. page 295 which adds the words incorporated here in by reference referring to the pc resolution. i would like to make that amendment and move the item as amended with recommendation to the board.

>> let's call. >> the amendment on page 2 the 5 speaker peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. on the second motion. supervisor peskin to recommend as amended. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: that motion passes. please call the next item. item 3. resolution urging the planning department in partnership with the mayor's office of housing and community development or other city agencies to create housing development incentive

program for homeowners that supports san francisco residents to build new housing. if you wish to comment on item 3 call 415-655-0001. id24887850521. pound and pound again. if you have not done so and would like to speak press star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair. >> he lost supervisor melgar.

>> hopefully she can get back on quickly. in the meantime let's hear from our sponsor of this item. welcome supervisor mar. the floor is yours. >> supervsor mar: thank you so for this opportunity to hear this today. i know you have a long agenda. we will keep this as concise as possible. >> virtual gavel back over to you. supervisor mar is just beginning his presentation. >> supervsor mar: colleagues this will create the housing development incentive program for homeowners. new strategy to address housing

affordability crisis. incentivizing small scale development in low density neighborhoods. the goal is to support homeowners to expand homes to meet workers. i want to thank you, chair melgar for cosponsoring this legislation and your leadership as well. the program specifically focuses on homeowners rather than speculators as developers. it will target low and moderate homeowners and prevent displacement in the sunset and hunter's point which are working class people of color and immigrants. the intent to stabilize the homeowners, support community asset building and afford home ownership opportunities in these neighborhoods. the program will include greater financial incentives for

homeowners who rent or sell to moderate incomes at an affordable level. the housing deficit has been especially acute at the moderate family level. we have seen production of 41% of our goal in the current period compared to over production of above market units of 150% of our goal. incentivizing the production of moderate income family housing is important because it is neighborhood goes like the sunset and bayview-hunters point that are places where working class families and immigrants and people of color have bought homes. today market rate units created by speculators are not affordable even to middle income families. in the sunset new units in small

developments are representing for $5,500 and selling $1.5 million for three bedroom units. the proposed incentive program for homeowners is an expansion of a very successful affordable a.d.u. program with the planning department and community partners over the past year which has provided technical assistance to district four homeowners interested in creating accessory dwelling unit. this new program to be created through legislation would expand the scope of this program city-wide and offer a full range of technical assistance including predevelopment and construction and property management and exploring streamlined permitting through pre-approved plans and offer financial incentives such as grantses and no interest loans that would be tied to

affordability requirements for 100% a.m.i. households. i want to thank chair melgar for working with us to make these financial incentives a key allowable use in the new housing innovation fund you have championed. i do have a few presentations for context. we are going to hear from lamar haystack, executive director of asian inc and the planning department, senior manner working on the a.d.u. program. >> thank you so much. before we bring you up i want to thank you for your leadership in collaboration on all issues.

the unique needs of the residents because the housing stock is different, population is different. i want to say thank you for the collaboration. i appreciate that. >> good afternoon. i am with san francisco planning. managing 2022 updates. thank you for the opportunity for the proposed housing development program to align with policy directions of the draft housing in 2022 update. in the past two years we completed the outreach and engagement as part of the

housing element. these specific directives i would like to highlight. low income households and homeowners of color strongly call for opportunities including opportunities for additional income from rental. we have heard strongly from residents of neighborhoods such as sunset and richmond for more housing for moderate and middle income households. we have heard from many communities of color to build the type of housing needed in their own neighborhoods bayview or excelsior or neighborhoods with higher quality. [indiscernable] the proposed housing and development incentive program would respond to these

directives of the goals of the policies in the graft housing element 2022 update. this program could serve as stabilization tool for low income homeowners, predominantly people of color to help expand small and multi-family buildings and it would support our affirmative housing goals by increasing housing in low resource units to serve moderate and middle income households. the policies i would like to highlight. emphasizes importance of small multi-family knowledge building -- buildings for the future of housing in san francisco. 26 focuses on the various ways

needed to facilitate this type of housing to be sure it serves moderate and middle income households and also in another policy 27 we talk about importance of this type of housing and these types of programs to support keeping in place. i would like to specifically highlight a couple actions in the draft. proposed incentive program could help implement. draft calls for low construction loan programs for eligible homeowners or assistance in outreach and education programs. low income homeowners to help build small family units through a.d.u. or through other units to

properties. these are components of the development incentive program. those are what we consider resource neighborhoods i want to make sure that it is clear which areas we refer to. lastly, similar to the resolution that talks about calling for the housing development incentive program. targeted investment. this shows the areas of undergoing gentrification as areas as well as displacement that would potentially be subject to targeting of investment for these types of programs. that concludes my presentation. i am here for any questions.

>> chair melgar: thank you so much. any questions? with that welcome lamar. >> thank you very much. thank you for having me. thank you for your leadership. i am president of the asian inc. i am a renter here in san francisco. i thank the subcommittee share melgar, preston and peskin for allowing us to speak. i will be brief. as supervisor mar said asian inc. has worked with his office and planning department on implementation of district 4 pilot program. we thank supervisor mar for his leadership to make this pilot happen. there is a map of district 4 with the homes served as part of the pilot. it supports low to moderate income with focus on the english

proficient homeowners. supporting a.d.u. construction for living and as set development. this picture is supervisor mar visiting with the first household served through this pilot program. the 30 homeowners served received the following services. in person site visits that is significant. we did this safely throughout the pandemic in a way and time when it was proper to visit. we provided conceptual design rendering. we had extensive conversation for their review with their vision in mind and with their goals at the forefront. we provided checklists. adapted materials to be able to provide rosie to read information as to how to adapt the home for design and

construction of accessory dwelling unit. we provided cost estimates. we provided information how to access funding, capital to make the realization happen. we also went be over in pot post sight interviews virtually. we were able to meet the needs of homeowners trying to get better information with high touch service in mind. some of the key take-aways. quarter of home owners concluded after receiving assistance they could now proceed with a.d.u. development. that is not just taking the idea and policies into consideration but taking action. we have streamlined these applicants. they are ready for the warm hand out. the planning department is eager

to serve the homeowners and a.d.u. needs. outcomes as part of these homeowners includes housing multiple generations of family on site and building of asset for low to moderate income families. over a third of those surveyed with definitely access city incentives to develop affordable a.d.u.s. example could include property tax credit, no interest loans. asian inc. has been around for 51 years. we are happy to have taken part in this program. unless there are questions i am happy to tend to the rest of the items. thank you, mr. marfor your leadership. >> thank you so much. supervisor mar did you have any

closing remarks before we take comment on this item? >> yes. just briefly i want to thank lamar and asian inc. and the planning department for work with us on the pilot program. the pro polhe pow sal -- proposal city-wide. i also say that there has been a lot of discussion and planning and work that has happened to increase housing production in our single family what used to be single family neighborhoods. now that term is no longer meaningful given the a.d.u.s. duplexes to quadplexes. i just want to say that the difference of zoning changes statewide allowing more housing density in single family

neighborhoods have happened. we are considering further changes locally with the quadplex that is proposed by supervisor mandelman and safai. these housing is not going to be produced by these zoning changes by themselves. especially if we look at homeowners as developers versus speculators. the incentive program is looking at supporting homeowners to create housing to meet the needs of multigenerational families and housing needs of the community. to use incentives to create the housing that we need in our community. that is particularly housing for families and moderate and middle income families. i want to add that as part of the context. thanks again. i do have a couple non

substantive amendments that have been shared. i can talk us through after public comment or now? >> chair melgar: if you could do that now. we would be happy to move it. >> there are two non substantive amendments we shared. first is omitting the word multiplexes which is a vague term. being more specific what we mean. page 2 line 20. homeowners city-wide to build instead of multiplexes delete and say duplexes and triplexes and quadplexes in rh neighborhoods. next is clarification of sensitive communities that would

be the focus of the targeted outreach. the planning department has clarified to us the language in the ordinance or resolution where it says page 3 line 13 and 14 sensitive communities that is no longer used. by the planning department. we would change to instead of sensitive communities. to areas vulnerable to displacement as identified in the displacement and gettrification map for the project. i request the committee adopt that. the city attorney clarified they are non substantive. >> thank you. we are checking for caller in the queue. if you would like to speak to

item 3, please hit star 3. there are 12 listeners with two in the queue. first caller, please. >> i am jerry radler with the land use. this results in higher land prices to make it more expensive for non-profits and government entities in affordable housing. without community benefits this is a gift to speculators and developers. supervisor mar's ordinance has the value capture component. we support his proposal. least dense neighborhoods in san francisco are minority and low

income neighborhoods. the owner of single family home in bayview can't build without government assistance. supervisor mar's ordinance has permission for technical assistance to make this available to low and middle income san francisco residents. please support and advance to the school board. thank you. >> next speaker. >> to follow my written comments i oppose this item and urge it be tabled. i focus on the legislation regarding the following. ab68, sb9. multiplexes. regardingmohcd participation in this program the bla completed

the management audit ofmohcd. the audit sites numerous issues. follow up financial audit is in progress. there have been significant issues withmohcd regarding 2550 irving street which is supervisor is aware of. there are issues with the city-wide affordable housing loan committee which reviewed the funding requests before being sent to the board. the committee consists of four voting members. one is director ofmohcd. the director votes to approve funding for its own projects. the community also keeps no minutes. it grants loan forgiveness. $10 million and $20 million. i would urge the board to expand the scope of the bla financial

audit to include the city-wide approval housing loan committee and that this not be forwarded asmohcd is already in a situation that it has issued and it should not be given additional responsibilities. thank you. >> 13 listeners with three in the queue. next speaker. >> this is district 8 tenant. this resolution is well-intentioned to lead to ordinance. we have to get it right. first of all, when you say that it is the housing development incentive program for homeowners you need to be specific. you need to say that it is for owner occupiers. we don't want speculators coming in, buying places and saying i am the homeowner. please be specific and say that

it is for homeowners who are owner occupiers. how are they going to pay back the loan? these are cash poor people wanting to develop their property. i think it should be a grant program. thank you. >> good afternoon. peter popadopolis. we want to thank supervisors melgar and mar for bringing forward this important resolution to solidify a framework for programs to focus on assisting the low to moderate income homeowners who wish to add units to their lots.

this directive will make sure we create wealth within our existing low to moderate income homeowners and serve in the neighborhoods through the city as opposed to speculators to serve the larger neighborhoods as they undergo larger housing changes in the coming decades which supervisor mar alluded to. affordability incentives are critical stabilizing these neighborhoods over time during these changes. very importantly insuring that low to moderate income families and workers are able to stay and live in the city. particularly to the areas predevelopment instruction and financial assistance are going to be what is required to allow them to fully participator and benefit families and this opportunity in a way we don't feel they would be likely to.

we want to thank you for bringing this forward and we hope you move it forward today. thank you. >> next speaker. if you would like to speak press star 3. >> i am with affordable housing and people with disabilities. i support the resolution for the incentive fund. i would offer changes. i think the program to succeed in getting people to use the program two factors have to be present be. one, it must bring the benefits of density to ordinary people not just professional developers. two. low income and people of color have been denied these benefits. this should be reversed.

it should be fully accessible. the program has to offer grants for construction of new homes to primarily low income and middle income owner occupiers who otherwise would not be able to participate. if we can grant for purchase down payments or grants for rehab we should offer grants for building these units for those denied these opportunities. such construction grant program could be coupled with administration by the san francisco public bank. plus board determined a.m.i. restriction on the new units. operation, maintenance by the owner occupier themselves. such reimagined program would greatly reduce costs, eliminate bureaucracy and ensure the widest and most accessible and successful participation by all.

thank you very much. >> that completes the queue for item 3. >> chair melgar: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor mar, if it is okay if i could ask her to come back up to talk about the amendment that you proposed about the community map. after supervisor chan has floated around this idea with that map we did get some communication from the uc berkeley folks about the methodology. i want to make sure what we incorporate into this is what we need to incorporate. if you could speak to that, i would appreciate that. >> thank you for that. we have been working with the uc

berkeley on different projects. they have in the past couple months they retired the map as analysis that will now be updated in the future. they could not stand behind. however, the identification analysis map is on the rough side undergoing major update. it is an analysis they would like us to use when we are talking about the vulnerable displacements. update to the map i just showed you is in progress and will be published in the next month or two. for the amendment it is the

correct reference. to the updated map that will be published soon or map on the website now? >> the map is on the website now. what is being referred to as resolution and updated map will replace that and would be under the same title. >> i understand. thank you so much. i appreciate the clarification. colleagues any other questions or concerns for staff or supervisor mar? >> with that public comment is closed. i would like to make a motion we adopt the amendment read into the record by supervisor mar. then move the motion as amended forward to the board.

>> supervsor mar: i did request we send forward as committee report as well as amended. >> chair melgar: yes as committee report. thank you. >> on that motion to amend item as stated by supervisor mar. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. on the motions to recommend as committee report. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: that motion passes. thank you so much, supervisor

mar. madam clerk next item. ordinance l ordinance amending the administrative and public works codes to limit until august 1 the issuance of fines for violations of shared spaces requirements except for the fiscal access rights for persons with disabilities or first responder personnel affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. caller call 415-655-0001. the prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. [please stand by]

. . . . i don't want to use today's agenda item to rehash the admittedly bumpy path that led us here other than to say that i think that the legislation that

is before us will address some of the confusion that small businesses have experienced and will provide a greater amount of predictability to their operations during what we all know has been a rough as heck two years. to that end, this legislation will do something that initially we were told wasn't possible in which mr. heppner pushed for until the parties agreed to extend the existing permits for another 13 months to the end of march of next year. that other key piece of the legislation would allow the city to continue to enforce for key disability and access life safety violations but would otherwise suspend fines and fees until, again, the end of march of 2023 and the notion here is

that we don't need to further imperil small businesses with $500 a day fines from deviations from design criteria when that capacity to enforce really should be focused on what is most important at this critical juncture and that is life safety and disability access. i do have a host of amendments that i have circulated to all of you, colleagues, beginning with the long title. and i can walk through those if i can put my hands on them.

and page four, lines 18 to 19 amending to provide that permit application review no longer than 30 days which is not in and of itself binding but i think this is to hold itself so and is worth mentioning there. at page five and again on page 7, i am proposing to amend the enforceability criteria as i previously mentioned that would be to have the language before you included access to the sidewalk and maintenance of the successable route and the provision of the appropriate platform threshold and ensuring visibility and which is what we call daylighting at intersections at the zero high entry network and removing -- requiring removal of abandoned

structures which we have been already experiencing. and i have taken out the words unnecessary which are unnecessary and then on page six we extend the expiration of permits from july 1, 2022 to march 31, 2023, and i note this is a substantive amendment that the city attorney has advised and will require a one-week continuum. and if we make the amendments, i will ask for a one-week continuance. and with that, i want to thank lee heppner, seniors with sda and the mayor's office of disability as well as all the small business owners and merchant groups that have helped inform this and of course, particularly in my corner of the world, north beach business association as well as numerous chinatown businesses that have

weathered the storm. i have a few questions for the shared spaces program director bob who is with us today to check in and see how things are going as a program. to use this item to check in as program continued to evolve. are you -- i saw you on the participant list before. i don't know if you are still with us.

>> and over the last -- [inaudible] and has worked closely on tracking compliance issues that we have noted and that have been reported to us, for example, by citizens through c11. >> relative to abandonment, i brought one case to you where the business is out of business and for lease. i was wondering if that happens to be one particular example, but i was just wondering how the dealing with cases of abandonment is working.

>> thank you for asking, supervisor peskin. [inaudible] and parklets thrown up in the public health and some folks have closed shop and meeting the liability of the parklet. out in the public realm. and with the two-tiered approach to dealing with this eventuality and this likelihood that we would see a population as large as the one we have and first for pandemic park lifts is the sponsor is unreachable, have become bankrupt and perhaps fled town t city is going ahead and removing this blight from city streets. and however, we want to reiterate and emphasize for all the parkletiers out there that parklets are the responsibility of the sponsor.

if they are feeling unable and are responsible and the concept and the legislative, codified and we will have more tools to cover the fines and fees and the suite of tools to expand and more aggressively deal with the blight and abandonment. the good news is it's actually not a built out structure and is just a few -- and it would be

very easy to clean up and people are anxious to see it cleaned up including the adjoining business owners because this is over the 516 green street. and the next thing i was curious about is what what we might expect if the emergency declaration expires to march of next year and how we expect to provide certainty to businesses that on march 31 date is, in fact, a real and predictable date. i say that because of the language that we had to include which does note that if the mayor chooses to sunset the shared spaces provisions that all of this is out the window. i want to get your thoughts on that. >> yes, can everyone hear me okay? i got a note that i was cutting in and out.

thank you for the nods. the board this past july 2021 did establish june 30, 2022 as the sunset of the pandemic program upon which the out of state five program and what you are contemplating here is to extend that out to march 31, 2023. and in both cases the legislation says that if the pandemic program or rather f the state of public emergency ends, then the pandemic program goes with it. to anticipate the sunset of the pandemic program to help everybody get onto a functioning legal permit. so that is the whole other ball of wax in terms of administration and permanent administration and our teams

have staged and are prepping for both contingencies. and that is to help make sure that everyone is accounted for that is out there and approved in a safe manner. >> thank you for that response. anything else you want to add? >> just thank you to supervisor and for consulting and collaborating with program staff and the mayor's office to fine tune this. and we have really good common sense amendments here that are going to help folks get past omicron and create more certainty and stability as hopefully we wind down this pandemic. >> thank you, madam chair, and after public comment, i will make a motion to adopt the amendments and then given the substantive nature of one of those amendments from july of 2022 to march of 2023 and ask we continue the item for one week. >> thank you so much, supervisor

peskin. madam clerk, let's go to public comment on this item please. >> thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. please press star 3 to be added on the queue and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. maria has noted we have nine listeners today with zero in the queue, madam chair. >> awe madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. supervisor peskin. >> i will move the amendments and a one week continuance. on the motion as stated, to amend supervisor four, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> aye.

>> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> melgar, aye. you have three ayes and on the motion to continue to the march 7 meeting next week, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. you have three ayes. >> thank you. that motion passes. again, thank you very much for all that hard work. >> and please call the next item. >> item 5 is an ordinance amending the planning code to revise the definition of group housing. and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa. members of the public who would like to provide comment on the screen and that number is 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. today is 2488 785-0021 and press pound

and pound again. and if you would like to speak and have not done so already, press star 3 to line up. madam chair? >> thank you very much, madam clerk. supervisor peskin, would you like to make any opening remarks? >> thank you very much. i appreciate your hearing this today. and i want to thank and acknowledge my co-sponsors thus far president walton and supervisor mandelman. and really thank my chief of staff who has labored long and hard on and long overdue piece of legislation that really addresses a definition that has been way too muddy for way too long and we have experienced it from time to time at the board of supervisor. i want to particularly thank planning department staff for their collaboration with my

office and the community throughout this long drafting process as well as deputy city attorney with the great sounding board and drafter. that muddy definition of residential use has long been confusing and to give community members as well as developers some level of heart burn and group housing has, as we all are very aware increased in popularity and use in recent years and given the financial benefits of building more microunits designed to house transient populations who don't have significant expectations

around space size, amounts of storage, and amenities that other long-term residents would expect at similar price points. and my office was approached by community members in a number of different neighborhoods including chinatown to help clarify many of the gray areas that have existed for a long time and explore the best practices for healthy and livable group housing models that encourage stewardship and aid social community life. and i think we're all familiar with what is in my wheelhouse the last 20 years which is a substet of the residential use of group housing which i have been legislatively tweaking and working around which is the youth characteristic of single resident occupancy residential hotels which are historically

occupied by very low income work force housing members that in recent years have faced a lot of pressure to convert to dorm style living for millennial worker who is can pay higher rents and not looking to have a permanent residence in this time of housing and rather use it as transitional housing. so which with the work around ilo's is there can and should be a role in the city and in the housing tool box that serves a certain demographic. so we are not making group housing harder or prohibiting it. this clarification to the group housing update that utilizes data and research on best practices both by planning staff and research graduates at the

california model for the arts and to make the definition clear and with the hundreds of pages of research from the past year and a half to inform the strongest models of group housing that encourage shared commune cal stewardship, socialization and activation for permanent residents including the minimum length of stay with the tenants of the other codes. we have been working with planning staff and the city attorney's office in advance of today's hearing to prepare amounts that address further clarifications and you are in receipt of those, colleagues. those are to the section 102 definitions and recommended by the planning commission which, by the way, supports this legislation and i will say it correctly this time, unanimously

with modifications almost all of which we have adopted in the amendments before you. so increase the common square space for every foot of private square space. and this is based off the final recommendation from california college for the arts. and recommendations and models in the group housing best practices. to require one kitchen in 15% of the common space versus what we originally proposed 50% and this is also based on mcaa's recommendations. and third, to revise the minimum number of kitchens for every 15 housing rooms versus the 20 that was originally proposed and again, based on cca's recommendations and fourth,

clarifying that no, ma'am permanent residency housing providers such as ronald mcdonald and with the intermediate with the primary residence elsewhere are exempt from the proposed definition and this is based from our ordinance that exempted the ronald mcdonald house which, supervisor melgar, you will remember from your time on the planning commission. and i know that members of the community may have heard or i believe you may have heard from developers lobbying around various aspects of this legislation and i just want to address the main point of convention and the only outstanding source of contention is the concept of limited kitchens. the zoning administrator came back afterwards and issued the uncodified interpretation that

limited kitchens which were basically one of the only things that differentiated and that resulted in no small amount of confusion on the part of planning staff and community members and developers who not even able to find this requirement in the code which was never codified. and we all experienced that a few months ago. it was a rather tortured interpretation at that. one of the fufl things about the legislative process is they are dynamic, not static, and can adapt and evolve with time and input and analysis from experts and city staff and after lengthy

conversations with the community stakefolders and the city attorney's office, and it become abundantly clear from the loophole already created would create more of a problem. a snowball effect and the precedent that undermines the entire goal and gape clarification and carve out from family house from the ratio requirement started to get messy and wordy. at some point you have to insure that the standard is the standard so there really is certainty and predictability and clarify for developers and community stakeholders alike. and i also want to make clear that student howeding and 100% affordable housing are already exempt from others a pecks of the proposed definition update

including the communal amenities and kitchen ratio requirements and part of the thinking there is that higher education campuses already have full service cafeterias on site that will serve the needs. the university of san francisco hayes dorm is an example of a building with a ground floor communal kitchen already on site. so it really leaves that to the discretion of the institution that is adding the housing. if higher education institutions want to provide more amenities on site in the unit, that they can charge for and increase what is paid for, they can build dwelling units. that is the entire point. if they want apartments on campus, they can still build apartments and i will not be

supporting amendments to make dorm rooms into apartments. the sros and with the overall city wide and hold off until the second trailing piece of this legislative package and the group housing special use district can come to the committee in the future. at that point we will be exempting sros from the prohibition and that requires any demolition and conversion of sros into one for one comparable unit replacement. with that, colleagues to make a motion to adopt the four amendments i described which i have been advised by the city attorney are not substantive.

with your concurrence will forward that to the full board and with the planning department staff and the city attorney as well. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, supervisor peskin. >> madam clerk. >> thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already and would like to speak, press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, you will hear that you have been unmuted and may begin your communities. there is 17 listeners today with 7 in the queue. let's take the first caller please. >> good afternoon, chair melgar. and representing the sro hotel coalition and numerous individual owners of sros and

developers of group housing. we filed written objections earlier this afternoon but not given notice of the hearing. supervisors, it is unclear whether the ordinance's restrictions are intended to apply to existing group housing units or only to newly proposed group housing units. and we would respectfully request clarification of this issue today. to the extent it is applied, the ordinance will take away the client's family businesses without compensation and harm the city's most vulnerable residents. there is no amortization period, not proper ceqa review and the ordinance violates sb330 including government code section 66300, subsection b1a. and this ordinance also violates the holding of san francisco's superior court with the case number from the doctrine.

and in conclusion, we would really appreciate your clarification today of whether the proposed ordinance is intended to apply to newly proposed units or whether it also applies to existing units as well. i would assert that the proposed amendments we would like to see them on paper and i think from what's been described it does sound substantive and changing significantly the allocations of space within proposed projects. and which will impact the next round. >> let's take the next speaker. we have nine in queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me? >> we can hear you. thank you for this opportunity

to speak. >> i am the master plan manager at the university of san francisco. i am calling today to ask that the planning board take that recommendation to allow group housing units and also qualify as student housing units to provide limited cooking facilities on campus housing and including the completion of the residence hall usf houses about 46% of the underground to 90% with plans in the institutional master plan to expand the aspects of student housing.

providing affordable student housing is a critical part of usf's mission and the campus culture and the continued violate and increasingly competitive educational marketplace. in addition, when they provide student housing for the student, it relieves pressure on the city's rental housing stock to be available to the city at large. the proposed planning code definition in particular and to prohibit group housing from in-unit limited kitchen facilities. this is with the unique nature to have access and seeks the flexibility to vise and provide limited kitchen facilities within group housing units.

for students who, for whatever reason -- >> thank you so much. your time has elapsed. >> let's take the next caller please. we are at a two-minute time limit. the next caller please. >> my name is mark macey. can you hear me? >> yes. we can hear you. >> great, thank you. i am an architect in san francisco and i have worked on a number of group housing projects. i think that this legislation doesn't appear to be reform. it is really something anti-group housing and the cost effective and as far as i can tell i didn't see any economic analysis done by planning or cca

or anybody regarding the feasibility of what is being proposed here. i have thoroughly read the cca blue book. there are copious research which is fantastic b u the takeaway was the exact opposite of the authors of this legislation, the planning department. the takeaway is let 1,000 ideas bloom not to try to codify it into something that doesn't allow to have people have their own private bathroom with private limited cooking facilities. i don't think anybody listening to this would not prefer that than having to wait in line for a kitchen. i think that if one does not provide limited cooking facilities as presently allowed in the code, it is fine to have the kitchen ratios that are proposed. if one does have that, it doesn't seem that will be necessary and practical and infeasible ultimately. with the studios and the project that comes to mind that i am working on and got unanimous

approval on 468 turk has 108 group housing units. and without cooking facilities and midway through and propose that the supervisor and city reach out to actual developers of the projects. and this needs a lot more legislation needs a lot more work. >> thank you. >> supervisor preston, i will point out that you can still have a private bathroom in an efficiency unit and in group housing. >> thank you, supervisor. let's continue the public comment. >> we have 16 listeners with 7 in the queue. and you may begin.

>> this is dave vid elliott lewis and i have lived tenderloin and the sro for 13 of those. i know what it is like to live in small spaces and the neighborhood has suffered group legislations and this is well thought out. with the definition that i support and i am against any carve outs and again, if universities want to build student housing and they are not prevented and there are lots of ways kitchens and bathrooms in the dorm rooms and build student housing. please no carve outs. and peskin's office has done an

excellent job in designing this definition. and i highly support it. i give it my full support without changes and david lewis, longtime tenderloin residents. next speaker, we have 15 listening and six in the queue. >> caller: hi. i work at central city collaborative of housing clinic with the sro residents and the market in the land use committee and we are grateful for supervisor peskin's office with the community for a long time to

clarify and define it and play out where to support supervisor peskin's office and to work closely to redefine how this group housing project will be to support this legislation. >> next speaker please. and we are the developing 351 turk and 145 lattimore and the existing occupancy zoning. and not to be confused with group housing. the models are not the models being dealt and unfortunately the supervisors have not had the opportunity to actually observe

what this product offers to the community, which is one of the only vehicles to privately finance work force housing in san francisco under current code. so many of the aspects make good sense with nuances that would allow us to continue to create the housing and clarifying the issues raised by people like david lewis and the development of work force housing that is defined by the zoning administrator as suitable for groups of people from studios to three bedrooms within group occupancy. and accidentally living and to create a working group and professionals to help you with this one. and to give us the six-month

moratorium with a stay on the group occupancy while we do this, which would address your immediacy and sense of urgency to double as effectively that is being done in the city. and is repeatable and crafted to suit the needs of the throwing the baby out. we ask you to take a look at this. >> thank you so much. next caller please. and i want to oppose this ordinance because defactor by physically reducing that with the group housing and violates

with the violation and the apartment suburbs to defactor prohibit. with the good unit and micro kitchen is better than a room without any private cooking facilities at all. my mom lives in an sro and asked me to buy her a hot plate so she doesn't have to use the shared facilities. i think most people would prefer to have a full kitchen and i think the developers would be happy to provide a full kitchen. the question we ask is why are they choosing the group housing units instead of residential units? they are not trying to give people rooms with no kitchen, but is maximizing density which is also the city's policy. the reason they don't like the units with kitchen is because we have dwelling intensity limits

and so don't down zone group housing without legalizing residential units to build at a similar density and with what zoning code and residential units with the developers with the codes we should be focus and reforming. if you pass this law as it is, ds a defactor down zoning. done pass it if you are up zoning at the same time so developers are allowed to put in kitchens. thank you. so with the 16 listeners in the queue and to speak, press star

3. i work at central city collaborative on the land use commit and currently live in the tenderloin and now live in an apartment. we have been working with aaron pes kin's office for some time on this definition of group housing and we support his legislation on this definition of group housing. thank you, mr. peskin, for all your hard work and effort to pass the legislation and we appreciate you. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith with the opportunity to speak here today. we completely concur with community members and supervisor

peskin in the need to update and clarify a lot of the group housing definitions. that is what is the sort of confusion is absolutely awful when it comes to creating new housing and this all needs to be reexplored. with the feedback from the members t proposals will have the group housing infeasible and is a moratorium and to appreciate clarifications with the grandfathering clauses and projects in the pipeline. there are a couple mentioned earlier and others that have applied and we respectfully request that the rules be locked in as are today for all projects

that have submitted a pta. and the other piece we have had a number of members who do the group housing not only in san francisco and around the entire country and would really welcome the opportunity to see through that legislation. and and i quite often think about group housing as a good solution for seniors. we have many older adults in san francisco who are going to need different options to continue to live and stay in the city as many countries around the world that utilize group housing. >> thank you so much.

>> i am a planner at the community development center and express full support for supervisor pes kin's legislation with the group housing definition. and i want to acknowledge the planning department's work and commitment around ambiguity and around 450oharrel street. this is a large group housing project proposed in tenderloin that raised a lot of questions around group housing and magnifying the need for legislation you see before yourself today. following the community process at 450 ofarrel street, the planning department worked for months to define the definition. and community had the opportunity to sit down to cca and learn about the work they were doing that influenced the

legislation. we ultimatecally developed a definition that brought it back to the original intention with group housing. the language is strong and the community understands the difference between the two housing sites. and does not conflict with sb330 and only applies to new macintoshing rates and we are in full support and thank peskin's office and the planning department for hearing community concerns and putting forth a definition that will improve all newly proposed group housing projects going forward. let's take one last caller. >> this is sue hester. i wish to thank supervisor pes kin's office for struggling -- supervisor peskin's office for struggle with this issue. group housing is a major part of the housing provided in the 10th

ward and china town and south of market for decades. and it's been abused of late because people have stars in their eyes that are market rate housing developers and are thinking about, oh, we can use this because it has more generous provisions than providing housing that is called housing under the planning code. and planning code has had to be updated and they are sorting with this in this definition and i thank them for doing it and urge the board of supervisors to support the legislation and i don't know when the s.u.d. is coming back, but i look forward to the s.u.d. as well. thank you very much. >> bye. >> thank you so much, ms. hester. that concludes the queue, madam chair.

>> thank you so much, madam clerk. supervisor peskin, because i understood there was no formal presentations, i failed to call up mr. sar from the planning department. and who was going to give a few remarks about what happened at the planning commission with this item. is that okay if we let him go? okay. >> sure. >> hi, mr. sar. welcome. if you can tell us a little bit about what happened there. >> sure. thank you, supervisor. the manager of legislative affairs and the planning department and heard this item on february 10 of this year and voted unanimously as supervisor peskin said to recommend the ordinance with modifications. in addition to the modification, supervisor peskin has added to his ordinance and we thank you for adding those two them. and they are thai also proposed in addition to student housing and 100% affordable housing and also units protected under the

hotel conversion dormants from the common open space requirement and allow institutions to provide limited cooking facilities and the carve out that people are talking about and define metrics for communal metrics and exclude the single room occupancy for this specific legislation and to continue discuss this in the future. and for the department to consider a working group to further discussion grouping housing and best practices and future legislation. and with that, that is all i have for you. i am happy to answer any questions that i have and i think supervisor peskin covered the intent and the substance of the ordinance thoroughly. thanks. i awe thank you so much. supervisor peskin, do you want to address any of the issues brought up in public comment? >> the only thing that i would say is that, number one, this is not a down zoning or could not legally be before us.

the city attorney is clear it is not down zoning relative to contentions about lack of public notice and they are absurd on their face. and not only was this meeting notice in accordance with the law, but it went to the planning commission as mr. star said. and it was the subject of, as i said a unanimous approval and recommendation with modifications and most of which we have adopted. and i want to say that i think it is right. it is time to pass it. but i would like to inform you, colleagues, that the city attorney actually has reversed and believes that this does need a one-week continuance, so what i would like to do is adopt the amendments and continue this item one week. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. madam clerk -- and public comment is now closed.

madam clerk, supervisor peskin has made a motion to amend the legislation and continue it for a week. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. you have three aye's. and on the motion, made by supervisor pes kin to continue it one week to the next meeting, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. thank you so much madam clerk. that motion passes. next item please. >> item 6 is an amendment to amend the planning code for increase density on lots with

auto-oriented uses and housing is permitted but do not have residential use or legacy businesses. and to change from the automobile service station or automotive use to use and and the item with the legislation and the number on the screen. and 415-655-0001 to call and the meeting i.d. today is 2488 785 0521 and press pound and pound again. and this is the system prompt that will indicate you have raised your hand once you pressed star 3 to line up to speak. >> madam chair? >> thank you so much, madam clerk. we have the policy director for mayor breed here to present. and we also have mr. scott from the planning department after to share a few remarks. welcome, mr. power. >> welcome, chair melgar and member of the board of supervisors. i'll be brief.

but today before you is an ordinance that makes it clear that in this time of existential crisis tied to climate change and also the housing affordability crisis that is caused by our historic underdevelopment of housing, that we can move in the right direction and addressing both of the crises. we can do that by reducing our car dependency and making it clear that housing for people is a higher and better use of storage of vehicles. and aaron star is here from the planning department to speak on a bit of a presentation on the details of this measure. but really at the highest level this is about saying that housing is a better use than parking lots. and so with that, i really would encourage your support today. and respectfully request that aaron star speak a bit on the details of the measure. thank you. >> thank you, mr. power. welcome, mr. star. >> back again.

good afternoon, supervisors. aaron star, manager of legislate v affairs for the planning department. and so the purpose of the proposed ordinance before you is to encourage housing development on parcels that are being used for auto-oriented uses. with the goal of meeting the city's housing shortage and addressing the impact with climate change, pedestrian safety and visibility. to do that, they remove the arbitrary density limitations and the hr zoning districts that allow projects to qualify as form-based zoning. many of the zoning districts rely on a unit per lot ratio such as one unit per 800 square feet of lot area. and there are hr zoning districts to allow up to four units. and form based owning is that a building site, setbacks and informed based owning is further restrict bid other planning code requirements such as open space, dwelling unit mixed requirements and exposure,

to qualify for the program, anything defined as the automotive use in addition to any use that is an ak accessory parking lot and parking lot, gas stations and the like and retail businesses like banks or stores with accessory parking. properties that would not qualify for this program are properties that currently have housing or warehousing is not principal or homes because they have a garage and general industrial zoned properties. the ordinance also excludes properties with a legacy business and properties that have a legacy business and have had a legacy business in the last four years. and properties that have a pending legacy application. projects would be limited to .25 spaces per dwelling unit with the ability to go up 2.5 parking spaces with the this requires

the property owner to prove that the service station is no longer financially feasible for the use to be converted to another use. and as a city and county to the best ways to combat climate change are reforming the land use policies to allow for greater density and deprioritizing the use of private automobiles in the city. and this ordinance does both of those things and with the inform-based zoning to allow greater density within the existing height and bulk limits and encouraging the conversion of autoer to oriented uses to deprioritize the automobile in our transportation network. and the planning commission heard this item on december 9 of last year to recommend approval with modifications, most of which have been incorporated

into the ordinance before you today. and that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions that you have. thank you. >> thank you so much. do we have any questions? >> thank you to the mayor's office and mr. star. i think there is substantial nugget of good public policy in here. with this over the past couple

of weeks and i totally get that the rhetorical premise here is very appealing and while i will resist calling it a little -- cars to casas, which is a little too cute, but this is an environmental imperative and to discourage sprawl. and what remains are a couple of concerns that i think we should address. and the first of which is the labor and work force implications of removal of automotive serving uses. and if we can agree that we can -- i think we should agree that we should take further steps to disincentive the use of fossil fuel burning automobiles like in converting parking minimums to maximums and other types of similar pieces of public policy.

i think we have to contend with the concerns coming from the community about what it means to imperil blue collar jobs and what our answers are there, which isn't unlike the concerns that we have had around the loss of pdr of production distribution and repair space and zoning. the other concern the is that we are effectively providing streamlining and financial assistance, if you will, to developers on sites that are already ripe for development. and if we're going down this path, i would like to see and incorporate higher commitments with regard to the threshold for affordability and as we have done and when we are looking at

parking lots and garages separate from and i asked the

attorney for the amendments to the legislation to have the higher affordability to work with the mayor's office and there is underlying and very good public policy and intent here. i have a few questions for mr. power and mr. star and i can take those offline if we choose to continue this with what maximum density means in areas where density is controlled by

form only. that requires maximum intensity which i am getting ready to make the board permanent and perm density and so let's see what people have to say and circle back to them and what the sense of the committee.

and i see the coordinates and really in two main parts. and not just me and it at no time two main parts and is the title. and the proposal to remove the conditional use requirement. if one is changing from automobile use to a discrete issue and to agree with the intent and the reasons stated as a policy matter. i am not why we have that restriction. but certainly make sense to

revisit that half of the ordinance. the other half of the ordinance is to remove intensity limits and allowing greater number of units and i am open to that concept but as i expressed in our meeting around this legislation, with the mayor's office and planning, i am concerned that there is no increase in affordability requirements in exchange for the density. and we have had this discussion so many times and as a city, when we have decontrolled the sensety to allow projects to be significantly greater number of units and is obviously a more profitable project and we

generally speaking step in and require some heightened affordability requirements. we had a huge disagreement where we have decontrolled density without increasing affordability and so we did what i think is envisioned here of removing the density controls and to move to form-based intensity and in some cases allowing the significant increase in the developer and no heightened affordability requirements. that is a subject of quite a bit of dispute and 2016 and 2017. in the zoning to where the point that the then planning director acknowledged that it should have been included. that it was a mistake for planning to not include that and

that we typically do that and i thought that was a point of consensus. and so i am disappointed that there isn't some heightened affordability. and with the part of the experiment and where the public comment and i would be open to acting on the conditional use portion of this. and which i think in some ways is the heart of the naming of the casas and not cars and to me at the hard of that is the conditional use requirement. and interested to hear other

views and with the density change and potential and heightened affordability there. do you want to address the issues that supervisor preston brought up? and thank you and briefly, supervisor preston, and to be clear this ordinance does only remove two ceus and one of them is for the conversion of the gas station. and that is a stand alone thing and with the code in the 90s. and the other thing it does is removes a ceu for housing

density. and what this does is address that situation. and so your suggestion about dealing with that will only address the gas station snare year and wouldn't address the secondary issue and also to be just as obviously we can debate this as we want to debate it and with the end of the parcels and as a principally permitted use. many of the parcels could have turned over for housing but haven't because the economics

don't merit that, and what i say as the conversation around increasing inclusionary beyond the 22% that is required for projects and city wide, at some point the projects become infeasible. and whether they are zero opening to have that conversation and we can have that conversation and it seems like the committee may want to continue this. it is about feasibility and projects are not happening now even though they are allowed to happen. just so density is the only trigger that gets them to move. and then if you take too much of that back as an extraction, the projects don't happen again. >> thank you, mr. powers. through the chair to have a response to that, the conversation will be open to the

feasibility and the path with the increased inclusionary and make it not and differing views on the amount of the increase and i understand currently that the position is also the opposition to this legislation and that is the additional amount of legislative rates. and the first point around clarifying conditional use and my impression and initially to misread this ordinance to be a removal of conditional use entirely for these projects. and i appreciate and i think it was mr. power or mr. star in our conversation that can correct me that it was focused and the conversion as you just noted.

the conversion of the gas station and the conversion of the automotive use to something else. and that the second part of that, though, is the ceu for housing was not part of the discussion and to be removed as if i understand that right, that is right. so if with the ceu part. >> and just a gas station with a subset of automotive uses. not automotive uses generally but the gas station and the language and the ordinance with the conditional use requirement is a change of use of an

automobile service station or automotive use to another use. that is with the gas station conversion and on the housing density ceu and whether to raise that or not should be part of the discussion around affordability as well. so that is one is exiting your automotive use. and the other is what is going created there and not wedded to this but one possible path that i am curious if there are responses and stick together to move forward the issue that i don't know if it is controversial. i would hope it isn't to get rid

of that so with what will go in its place and reconvening and talking through the density ceu and the if there is a place for heightened affordability. >> thank you so much, supervisor preston. i don't know if you are suggesting duplicating the file. >> that would be not wedded to it but one path if the committee is inclined an what provisions to strike the stuff we want to continue discussing but move forward the cu for the gas station change. do you want to address anything that supervisor preston brought

up? >> an i wanted to clarify the cu for increased density. for my knowledge there is only one place in the code that has that and to cover the density limits and don't want to require ceu if there is a threshold in that zoning district for it. that is the only there as the way to say other cus still apply, but if there is a cu to make this with a large lot and need a cu to go bo density with

a couple of points which is very different than district three and district five. i support the building and with the bubble and the reservoir to work on affordable housing and with 22% inclusionary is 100% more than we have seen in decades. and as far as i am concerned, this is great. and i would just do support making sure it works for all districts and that is our responsibility as a city. i would like to work on this with you, supervisor peskin to have this work for my district

with lots of opportunities to rethink huge parking lots around churches and spaces that are available with the housing and racially exclusionary pattern and with the housing development and i encourage us to think about that. and i would also like to support if the mayor's office is amenable to duplicate the file and move forward to continue the parts that need a little work and i just will say that i am supportive and very interested in working on it to get this done easily. supervisor peskin.

>> thank you, chair melgar. and i would like the opportunity and not throwing the city attorney under the bus, but they weren't able to get the amendments that i spoke to in time to have the opportunity to explore those so that hopefully this week that will be done and so that some of this is working out language to make clear and i think the mayor's office is on the same page with the desire for maximum density. and that in zones where density is controlled by form only that

this doesn't conflict with the zoning controls with a way to do that through drafting and i would be happy to work with the mayor's office and the city attorney's office and planning to do that. so i also wanted to explore what the definition of accessory parking garage is. does that mean a restaurant with the with the accessory garages included in the map that was in the planning department staff report and do we have a list of ebl jibl sites that are available for our and the public's review that include accessory parking. i just wanted to delve into that issue a little bit.

>> sure. the map that we generated isn't perfect. we have to go by the data that we have and we made some assumptions on that with the list of from the layer and created a gis list and that will list the properties and the supervisor districts they are in and inincludes garages. anything with accessory parking and a lot of businesses with no parking. and this just targets those accessory parking. >> got it. and i would, by the way, love to see the case studies and as it relates to feasibility, i went along with then supervisor kim and way down that road. this is after unfortunately, the 12% was put in the charter and where it did not belong. and there was a long, drawn out thing in 2016 to take it out. and then we did exactly what we said we were going to do.

we had an independent study and a fair working group that landed on numbers and meant to be dynamic and not static. that process will be re-evaluated actually quite soon. and so to have supervisor melgar for you to know there are conversations that took place relevant to different geographic realities to inclusionary which was too much to bite off at that time and what is feasible and that is a complicated conversation with a grandfather conversation and what have you that it may be a conversation that is right and are right relative to land costs and

various parts of the city and this is what we are shooting for. so i want to get this right with the feasibility and with the rent control with the str prohibition and where world cup and subdivision restrictions to have that opportunity to do that next week to be able to track at it and to think that if they can be ready. >> we have a very full agenda for next week, supervisor peskin. but if you want to make a motion to continue this to the call of chair, we can schedule it as soon as it is ready and

feasible. but next week we are doing four packages. >> i suspect that the mayor's office would probably -- and i don't want to put words in their mouth, prefer to do it right than duplicate and create a mess would be my guess, but i won't speak for the mayor's office. and i will take this offline with the mayor's office relative to some of the issues relative to form-based density. >> i would like to say, yes, i would agree my reference would be if the committee will to decide to continue it as a whole as opposed to duplicating and getting it confusing. >> okay. >> did you want to make the motion, supervisor peskin? >> don't we need public comment? >> i am happy to make that motion, but i think we need public comment first. >> madam clerk, let's go to

public comment. >> thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you hear the system is indicated and communicated and in the queue. >> my name is milo trout. and the proposal and to interact and exactly from that. and i wish it would be approved. and it's good to hear if there is so much agreement on shift from car and land use and

residential and i think that we should really focus on the feasibility component and the mayor's office and from that area. and how they dealt. and built in a way that is affordable and only tinkering with the density component. and the taller and thins and it's just the density part. and so and better and thank you

for your for your consideration and thank you to the mayor's office. and my name is murray and i would share and boy, do i hear the housing. if your purpose is to accelerate gentrification quicker than you can say bob jerhandkle, but if you want thoughtful planning of places that are gas stations and auto body shops, reject the knee jerk proposal. go back and really talk about it and think this out. as to cars to casa, it is the definition of pander. to provide gratification for others' desires or the field is

to pimp. anyway, thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. >> hi, my name is karen chen and i am going to interpret for two sro families. [speaking foreign language]

my name is sammy chiu and my husband, myself, my mother-in-law and two young kids live in a tiny room with a bathroom and kitchen. we share with our neighbors. you can imagine how bad the living conditions are. and several years ago we were notified that we got picked for an affordable housing. however, the reality was my family had to committee with 10 other families for a unit. you all know that the outcomes. i lost. we were so disappointed. with regard to today's legislation, converting the garage parking and auto body shop into housing, we have anl

opinion we hope you will consider. it provides families like us with more housing opportunity. secondly, the city could use this legislation to build 100% affordable housing but not market rate units. chinatown is the first destination of many new chinese immigrants and this legislation will make housing more affordable in chinatown and many families could become homeless. we all see enough market rate housing in the city now and with affordable housing being built, they are open for op i willcation and sever thousand families apply for it. you can see the need for affordable housing in my neighborhood and in the city. please consider the best interest for low income families and continue the discussion and let the community and the mayor's office have more time to coordinate in order to decide

the legislation that is truly beneficial to our community. thank you and we have another sro family that is prepared to speak. >> hello. [speaking in foreign language]

good afternoon. we are a family of four living in an sro unit in chinatown for 10 years and my two kids don't have space to do their homework not to mention a space to play and exercise. my kids are young and i have limited income. my husband and i work very hard, our incomes are not enough to reach the minimum requirement of affordable housing. we don't even qualify. my parent live in the unit because of their age they are not healthy and there is no elevator. we must accompany them out and stairs are high and narrow and is dangerous for them and urge the city to build affordable housing and the auto body shop for market rate housing. and if this is about converting lands into 100% ar fordable

housing and we want the city to listen to the demands and opinions to build more affordable housing and which feeds the needs of our communities. the sro family and elderly will live in a better environment.

>> after we both paid our share of the rent, we could afford to go out for dinner once a month and all of the other apartments i've lived in san francisco have been apartments with root mates with longstanding rent control and where i've been able to pay below market rates and this is a normal story. we should not be the normal story. someone with out a sister's couch to sleep on or a large network to tap into find a deal. someone who is from san francisco or into the city have had housing options that are clean, livable and affordable. the only way to lower the market rate is to build more housing and we are hyped our housing goals and we need housing desperately and quickly and i support this. >> thank you, next speaker.

by provided needed housing, for residents and our children and thank you your time. >> thank you so much. we have 27 listeners and 12 in the queue let's take the next caller. >> caller: until we see the real momentum of housing shortage we should build housing and reduce

the exclusionary barriers that got us into this crisis and our most vulnerable citizens end up on the streets and living in their cars and many of themrd live in overcrowded housing and they may not be able to support the people that they want to live near here i support it as written. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker. >> peter with the mission economic agency we agree with a number of comments and made earlier and supervisor discussion and we appreciate the discussion and we would very much concur, how do we find a

way to make this prioritize adding incentivizing affordable housing and how do we build some levels of value, capture here and particularly if we're thinking about losing more blue collar spaces and we do have a number of questions about the legislation and a number of them have been mirrored so i appreciate if it sounds like we may have more time we'd love the opportunity to ask some more questions and see some more data and we concerned the automotive service station windows a ploy to quite a number of blue collar jobs through the kind of jobs like break and lube stations qualify and again we'd love to have that clarified. as was stated these blue collar jobs are a great source of our better-paying jobs especially say for recently arrived

immigrants and folks without a college degree and people like that can really use that as a leg up and having those better-paying jobs. the mapping as well, it sounds like i would love to see that underlying data set, i was a little confused about the mapping and compare it with mission lots. if we had time to review the data that would be super helpful. we like where the conversation is headed and thank you for this discussion today. >> thank you so much. let's take the next caller. >> caller: hi, my name is rachel and i am the (inaudible) for in for(inaudible).

[ speaking foreign language ]

[voice of interpreter] hi, my name is wayne and i am the president of community tenants association. it's a grassroots tenant association with over 26,000 members. we all know san francisco has housing crisis but our crisis is not like all housing but affordable housing, i've seen 15% to 30% has 6,000 applicants and there were 18 units only. no wonder some people winning a housing lottery is like winning a million dollar lottery but it's an affordable and decent

housing are human rights why would be luxury and unreachable like a lottery and i remember three years ago there was a low income, there was a low income senior housing open for applications in chinatown so applications was distribute at 9:00 a.m. in the morning, however, many seniors lineup at 9:00 p.m. the night. i felt heartbroken. we support to build more housing but it's not (inaudible) and they would oppose this legislation if it condition guarantee the housing built is 100% affordable housing. we kindly request the committee to table this item and allow time for community to fully understand the implications of this legislation on the chinatown community. and give us the opportunity to work with the mayor office to ensure that we are interesting

equity and low income communities. thank you. >> thank you so much. and rachel, that's the last caller that you have? >> i think we might have hung up. let's take the next caller we have nine in queue. >> caller: my name is jim chapel. i'm a 45 year resident of san francisco and an urban planning by training and a member of the housing action coalition. in 2014, the city adapted vision zero to eliminate traffic deaths. in 2019, this board of supervisors unanimously adapted a resolution declaring a climate emergency and just last year you adopted targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transportation is the largest contribute or to carbon dioxide

emissions in san francisco and we have a severe shortage of homes which is reflected in ouren u. clues able level of homelessness and the obscene price of homes to rent or buy. one partial solution to these three use is the ordinance before you today and it eliminates the bizarre requirement of the cu to replace a gas station with homes. those of us who were around in 1989 recall that the genesis for that ordinance was one supervisor who was peeked because his favorite gas station closed for construction of homes. mind i, we're talking about gas stations that were constructed without a c.u. and now a c.u. was required to close them. bizarre. in districts other than our age and more efficiently using the limited land area in our city

and increasing the number of homes that can be constructed in the same envelope. third, it chips away at the severe down zoning from the 1970s that is part of the cause of our shortage of homes today. specifically, for eligible sights in rh districts and a principle permitted use and. >> it's harder to imagine a

change that lots for cars into shelter for people. san francisco has a choice and there's no time to waste.

>> there's developing surface lots of parking garages. our cities should not create financial incentives on high opportunity sites for eye low standard of development and rapid visions and works for planning that puts the expertise of our community to solve issues of displacement on affordability

and i object equality and the legislation before you today works against this vision and it will only further tip the scale towards intensifying the affordable housing imbalance and erode blue collar job opportunities which are held by people of color in san francisco. we urge you to table this legislation so the board can repurpose sites for affordable housing and new opportunities for environmentally sustainable blue collar jobs. this would be an interesting approach that would move this conversation and policy discussions forward. towards centering the affordability needs and the environmental issues and the needs of blue collar workers. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's take the next caller. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is zack wisenberger with young community developers ex we're a member organization of the race and inequity and we urge to you table this

legislation to work together on an approach that makes these available for 1 hunt% affordabl. with diverse communities and stable affordable housing and equitable access to resours and opportunities and the legislation as pro prosed weeks against it and it would be an interesting approach that would make this conversation and policy discussion, that would move this conversation and policy discussion forward but we need more time to explore what this looks like and they're important from a workforce perspective and these are important blue collar jobs and we create people who are at risk of becoming homeless and these are held by communities of color and feeling more displacement and creating a bigger divide between the poor and rich and we must do better and i want clarity around the applicable ability of this legislation and the sites are not in zoning districts and how does the density bonus apply and most

auto uses are could be sen straighted in directing 10 and does it remove the conditional use for removal of the we have five in the queue. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors, my name is kenneth russell and i live in district 7. i am speaking in the legislation. our city needs more homes of all types and fewer cars and we should enact this so it's easier to make homes for people than it is storage for cars. and we need the support, san france's ability to turn car storage into homes.

please support the legislation as written. thank you. >> thank you so much. ledge take the next caller. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is robert buckman and i live in district 5. i think i support this legislation particularly it's timely given that the housing element is coming in the it will be required and san francisco has been assigned a target of 82,069 homes by 2021 transforming the car 46 based uses into housing a great play and i like to comment on value capture and that this bill would increase the value of lots and would make development more

profit ability and we're seeing auto based uses being converted into housing where it's already a principally permitted and i think there's kind of a misconception here and value capture only works when it's -- when we're going from a condition where it's already profitable to build housing where it's more profitable and we're rarely seeing housing developments on auto based lots because it's not profitability and particularly on the i am conclusion ary feasibility study that study actual low recommended decreasing the inclusionary rates on both fill more streets and i'll know specific low that study so that fill more street con support a 20% or higher inclusionary rate

it was closer to i think 12.5% so i think maybe we should have inclusionary feasibility study but i think the results might not be what everyone on this call would expect. thank you. >> thank you so much. we have three callers left in the queue. >> caller: i think my line was unmute but i've already spoken. i would be happy to give my remarks again. >> thank you for your honesty. let's take the next caller. >> caller: hi, thank you so much. my name is atib and i do know iw my district. i'm supporting this.

i think it's clear everyone wants more housing and more affordable housing and grown house gas emissions and transit. i've heard, i'm relatively new to this and i'm calling in because i think that increasing the availability of housing in our city for all the reasons that have been stated by everyone on the line today and would this government pass legislation to make that happen and if so, let's just red tape this today and not table it and come back with legislation to make the housing affordable and there's no real excuse for delay in providing affordable housing for our community and reducing greenhouse gas emissions so i hope that everyone here is just working in good faith to make sure that we reach those goals.

i'm just a guy who lives in the city. thank you so much. >> clerk: let's take the next caller. maria. >> caller: my name is ryan and i work for architectal firm. i call in support of the legislation has drafted. i spoke to so many san france and they don't know if they can come back to the hometown. there's access and room and these aren't enough to mitigate the housing shortage at all levels of affordability. it's a real crisis that you guys see on a regular basis and when we see those big flat lots with no housing we get jealous because there's an opportunity there and it's cree rating

housing and it's helping people who were asking you to block it and it will help everybody so i urge you to adopt the legislation as drafted, thank you. >> thank you so much. we have two left in the queue and if you have not spoken already and you would like to, please press star 3 otherwise we'll take the last two callers. let's take the next one, please. >> hi, this is alan. i'm from eureka valley. long-term resident of the city. i strongly support mayor breed's legislation as proposed. i've seen too many really solid projects really get bogged down in the approval process for years that are on either gas stations and car wash or parking

lot sites ex it's a shame. we need housing badly and it improves the enabled and i also feel we need housing of all types. it would be nice to say let's just do all affordable housing but we don't have the funds to do that on all sites in the city. so, where does that money come from? inclusionary housing on market rate housing so i very much support that we allow market rate housing but with the inclusionary requirements as currently under law. thank you, very much. >> thank you so much. let's take the next caller. >> hello, my name is christopher roach. i'm an architect and a 23 year resident of san francisco. i'm calling to give my full support to the legislation as

drafted. our city is in a housing emergency and it's no longer just a crisis. and we need this kind of innovative, experimentation across the city. let's not water down this legislation. let's let it move forward without amendments, current current proposals for ordinances or requirements for in conclusion ary we can always let perfect get in the way of good with you we ned this legislation to allow us to experiment with different types of because we badly need housing. >> we have one last caller in the queue. let's take that caller.

>> i am in strong support of the proposal and ask that you continue to most legislation forward as is and earlier today, i also sent a petition that we were co-sponsors and that's over 300 petition signers in support of the legislation here in front of you. and saying something i know you all snow, that the burden for a conditional use permit is necessary and desirable and we certainly believe it is both necessary and desirable to be converting these auto sen tick c spaces into homes for people. also, just genuinely believe that with legislation like this, we do get additional sites and additional opportunities for below market rate housing and market rate housing across the

city and mentioned by a number of speakers earlier. winning the lottery is difficult in this city and so every bmr unit we can add, especially when it is at no cost to taxpayers, is the opportunity to be a transformative light style, life changing event for individuals and so, rather than focusing on the percentage of below market rate homes relative to market rate, we want to maximize the number of each and we believe improving this legislation as is will do that. at this for your time. >> we have four callers that pop up into the queue so let's take the intersection caller, please. >> i'm in a planning community development center and we're

calling to express our concerns as it pertains to affordability. i feel like the chinatown residents who called said it best but in our initial analysis we identified 24 locations and it was be targeted by the legislation and considering the density and vulnerability of the chinatown neighborhood, available to develop on is very precious so we want to ensure is that we are pushing for legislation that takes into consideration the needs of sensitive communities. there's no language in the current legislation that promotes our insen ta voiced affordability housing so we hope we access and take a little more time to slowly investigate the implications of this legislation to not just chinatown but other sensitive communities across the city and if we chose to push forward legislation to up zone residential on opportunity sites we should consider how we're interesting equity and increased

affordability. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you, let's take the next caller. three in the queue. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is eric and i'm the manager for glide and we are a member organization of the rights and equity with 34 member organizations city wide. the coalition slide have legislation so we can work together with the board of supervisors on an approach to make these sites available for 100% of affordable housing development and retention of pda, blue collar uses [please stand by]

by the public with this legislation comes back to you. there's a lot for people to do really expensive housing in the city. that's what we're getting. we need housing for the workforce and for low income residents and that's what supervisor peskin and supervisor preston are aiming for so give us enough time to git more input on it and have it before us in writing. thank you, very much. >> clerk: thank you, so much. and we have one last caller in the queue. if you would like to speak and have not done so already express star 3 unless we'll take this last