compatibility has been tightly interpreted. we want it creativity and innovation to be part of the process. i know there's one word change from character to expression and character is part of every building but has to do with the durability, detail, quality. we want people to feel like they belong and the architecture needs to speak to that as well. we >> we need to look at the

terminology expression and we need to provide predictability to developers and architects resulting in reduction of delays and costs in getting costs moving forward and will be reassuring to neighbors to know though they may see increased density and height in the neighborhoods on the western side objectives need to be met that enhance the neighborhood. maybe you could speak a little bit to where we are in the effort that started with sb9 about working with the a.r.a. architects to come up with more objective standards. >> there was a hearing and the design standards are a yes or no answer opposed to guidelines which can be interpreted by

staff and folks on the outside. so there's a change at the state level and also because of sb 330 we cannot adopt and use design guidelines at this moment in time. we can do objective standards. that process has been ongoing and folks have been albertaive in the process and they anticipate to bring that back in the beginning of may more adoption. there's shift in objective design center. we expect it will continue as a process. we want to make sure it look at how new projects come in. some change in variation is good. dramatic change in scale and feeling is obviously something that's very jarring to people but that's the transition in terms of how the department's going overall beyond just sb9. i'll say the notion of changing into the objective nature of this really will help a lot of people have a sense of certainty

and uncertainty has been a major reason why our housing has also been unaffordable. creating some determination that helps our communities and the architects and developers and also helps home owners that want changes and make it easier and more affordable for everyone. >> it's not clear enough document. we'll make it clear that's where we want to go is pursue objective design standards like we talked about and you passed a portion for sb9. that's where we want to head and we're looking at proposals and having subjective design discussions with neighbors and project sponsors. we can make that more explicit and it's a good guide but we have to do more on that to make it applicable city wide to other

projects as well. >> thank you. i think it would be helpful if you could clarify that further as people read and hear about increased density and height, i think doing that in conjunction with objective standards and still trying to have consistency, predictability while allowing for creativity for architects is a tall order but you're aiming in that direction and should make it clear that's what you're aiming for in the document. thank you. another question raised by speakers and there's reference to the availability of setting up for infrastructure on the west side, utilities in particular. and are you looking at it so the

infrastructure doesn't hold us back. >> sfpuc have a phased approach in updating the pipeline. and have infrastructure framework and community facilities framework for the southeast part of the city as the plan does call for expanding analyses like that to and the

well-resourced neighborhoods are identified based on their access to higher quality parks and schools. >> sewage pipes are being replaced as sink holes develop and then being patched. i want to make sure we will not let that get in the way and as

we talk about building the additional whatever it is, 20,000 units, the sewage capacity and water is efficient. it feels like if it isn't specifically addressed, needs to be taken up at the same time. does that make sense? >> yes. >> more to note on that as part of the e.i.r. being done a lot of that will also be analyzed in mitigation measures coming where we do need to mitigation and water will be addressed in the e.i.r. >> and just a shout out. i was happy to see the subject of older adults and people with disabilities being addressed as a separate subject. and we have housing

inappropriate in many ways for older adults as far as many are stairs and i saw a policy that calls for a policy assessment. every two years is too ambitious but critically important and was happy to see that as a distinct policy. and my last question was of the audit being done or was done about the state how they came up with the rena numbers. do you expect them the numbers to change as request of the audit? >> this is planning department staff, the rena numbers have been adopted. there's no change possible at this point.

the appeal process have concluded. the state has certified every reason in terms of the regional numbers and city numbers. those are the numbers we have to work for the site. >> what's the significance of the report we got where the auditor showed there were shortcuts and how the numbers were drafted? >> we'll have to review the audit. there are a lot of questions regarding the method but at this point we don't have the specific analysis of those numbers to share with you. the cycle rena was taken into account for the future and cycles in the past and there were questions about how they were analyzed and with the pandemic there's been issues raised but at this point it is

not possible and the legal definition of the regional housing location to change the number but we'll review the audit and get back to you on that. >> extremely challenging to come up with this housing element plan in the midst of the pandemic where we are thinking we're seeing changes in how areas are used and wondering how you're addressing the uncertainty in the housing element itself? i saw it referenced an few places to the pandemic and how things might change but for example, is it possible that we could see owners of office buildings downtown wanting to convert them to residential? i know i've spoken to director

hillis and told me previously it was permitted and our zoning would allow it but i'm wondering if we're creating incentives for that to happen and are we planning at that at all and should we be planning for that? how do you think about that subject? >> we have been addressing the impact of the pandemic and as direct hillis remarked at the beginning, we're taking into account the impacts of the pandemic. we're taking into account the racial tensions. given all those factors, if we are proposing that we increase the stability on the east side and we open the opportunities, now, the work on how the city will continue to change because of the pandemic, because of the change in technology, because of

the change in commute patterns and work patterns, that's something we'll continue to address. at this point what we are seeing in other cities say return not to where we were but a return to very active downtowns with more mixed uses and we seem to be lagging a little bit behind. we'll be tracking that on the recovery analysis, on the assessment of downtown and potential mixed uses and there's also a lot of collaboration with oewd on how the city will change in the next few years as a result of all the changes that we're experiencing. we think considering all that, the housing element is proposing a solid foot print but plans are not static at the same time. plans need to be dynamic in order to be functional and appropriate.

we'll keep you posted if we see shift in direction that merits substantial adjustment. and again, the recovery work will continue. >> okay. i would just throw out there that i think we should consider whether we should be creating incentives for a conversion of some of these link downtown that maybe is not where office space may not be as much of a demand given a shift in use so we have a 24 population to better support the retail down there. that's a policy i'd like to see us explore and it seems there's a significant shift in thinking in how we think about our downtown area but it may be

forced upon us and it's striking the housing element is a place where we should have conversation around that or at least discussion. i'll close with that and i want to thank staff for an incredible job in pulling the data together. >> i'll make a few comments and questions and then commissioner imperial and then commissioner moore. i want to share thoughts and ideas commissioner diamond touched on and will hope to build on some of that. we're striving towards our values and realizing those are compliant with the state rule and we hit aspiration out of the park with many goals and objectives but i'm concerned about some of our compliance and i don't want us to face what others are facing.

to some degree that may be impossible. we have this article staff graciously provided and said in southern california, 6 of 196 housing plans have been uncompliant. it gives me curiosity will we offer the face of most the cities saying you're not compliant despite the best effort to put forward a compliant housing element. one part that makes me concerned is the idea we'll have three years to do our rezoning. if we're not deemed compliant until may, correct me if i'm wrong, we only have until the end of 2023 to conclude the rezoning in six months. is that correct? i'm concerned we haven't dug deep enough in the rezoning to be ready for what is likely which is we're not going to be compliant no matter our best efforts and we'll have six months. i feel like you have done so

much work and so i think one thing that maybe didn't get as much as time and attention is the detail of refining how we're going to do the rezoning. i think conceptually it's great. i think it's going the right direction for sure. i think seeing like a mood board of where things would change but getting into the refined detail and the right corridor and height and getting to that fine grain detail is next and i can imagine we may have comments and thoughts from members of the public and let's have the discussion now not next may because it will be too late and we'll have to be in a position to have to do something versus how we want to. i don't know if there's comments about that but that's giving me concern about where we are now. >> commissioner: i would say i would agree. as commissioner fung mentioned earlier we have to prioritize where we're going with the rezoning. clearly things like fourplexes

and sixplexes there's the density de-control and lifting density limits on commercial corridors. that's easy zoning changes but then it gets to potential increases and extending those beyond the commercial corridors into side streets and that's more at the neighborhood level. i get it. we're starting our process so we're ready for whether we have to do it in a year or three years. >> to add to that, we have done a lot of analytical work but the piece director hillis is addressing the engagement with the community, we have to work to address some of the specifics but that's the component that always times time to figure out the right scale and approach for each community. >> i mute suggest going to commissioner diamond's

discussion about height. there may be areas where the city bonus is appropriate and instead of modelling that if we think 85 feet or higher is appropriate allowing density bonus and i know we don't want more complex in the code but some areas you have to choose local or state. there's a choice to be made. i also wanted to understand about the pipeline and got questions and comments about the pipeline and critiques it's not populated right. some areas where i don't want to say i agree but i think i shared the concern which is around how many projects that are maybe going to file applications, how we're counting those as be filed and constructed. [please stand by] .

>> for like park merced are they

moving behind the scenes and we isn't see what is happening. where are those in the life cycle? >> i can't speak. i haven't seen it in a while. a lot of the permits moved through a little while back. things moved through and they don't start coming out of the ground and we have a 10% rise in our construction cost in one year and we've had supply chain disruptions and the last two years have been a pretty critical change in shift and some of those so i can't speak to where those projects are at. but i'll say that treasure island is one that you can really see where it's happening and things are coming out of the ground and it's getting substantial so mission bay was approved in 1998 and we didn't start seeing that substantial group of units until the 2010s, the takes that long for some things to get to that point and we have three major ones that are at that point right now. so candlestick, and treasure island and park merced and we have some that have come.

we have balboa and substantial amounts of housing, we think that these are going to start bearing fruit in particular and the next few years so that's why those numbers start to change. history is not as helpful on those particular projects. they're going to be launching a little bit. so that's one of the pieces in this and when it comes to the pipeline there's more detail about like exactly how we look at it now. it's different than how we looked at it in the beginning of the last cycle. our data is different and we had a lot of stalled projects in our data so that's changed the way you can look at how much is going to a arrive versus how much we think is going to a vive. and we know that really kicked in and is changing the game so we saw thosen tilements in 2018

and 2019 and it's moving forward and give us a different level of production and possibility. we do know a lot of projects are stuck. the last few years have been disruptive process. but that is settled down and thank you very much. seen things like the dvs that have the development agreements that have unique charrer advertise ticks as we were talking about.

and i think we need to do more and looking a little bit more closely at development agreements and next to the breakdown by income group and we can do more to investigate, where do we really think they are at relative to models that we have like mission bay, right. so, we're going to do more in that area and in terms of the pipeline, analysis that's been shared with the department of planning commission which we welcome, that analysis included these large development agreements in the pipeline and so that really affected the numbers that they were coming up with in terms of project moving from and and the pipeline portion of what we included and inventory that's really narrowed down into this project and not

part of large developments and that either entitled already and they have filed for building permits and have submitted an application to you all. so i think we looked at recent from 2015 to 2018 what has happened to projects in those same phases and discounted projects based on what happened in over the last seven years. so, i think beth odd gee and we'll look at the feedback we've gotten in our analysis of under utilized and vacant sites in terms of development, we're really using a new approach similar to what city of los angeles did and we're looking at probability and in terms of development that is based on of past patterns of development and so it's factoring a lot more

aspects of development beyond just a limited assessment of capacity on the site. and in fact, the translates into lower kind of unit counts essentially on a per site basis and so is that provides an additional buffer you could say -- >> a little more conserve. >> need to be deemed and housing opportunity sites that compliant with the housing element? director hillis is nodding would we apply that type of under lightized analysis to over lay that over the zoning and really only a fraction of those sites for example on a commercial court and housing opportunities

sites and let's say there's a and it's where we need to try to meet the 20,000 units goal and again that may shift as we refine analysis and we will realistically assess the capacity. >> ok, great. thank you. >> did you want to add something? >> i would just say, there's been a lot of discussion about this over the last week. how much can we count from it and that's how much we to rezone for. when we go out and we look at rezoning in areas that we haven't seen a lot of housing developments, we're not just going to stop it when we get to where we may get 20,000 units. we're going to go look at what is appropriate and look at lights and density decontrol in row zone to a density we think is appropriate and do that finer grain analysis in neighborhoods. so, i just want to make sure

we're not going to stop at 20. >> you are not trying to get to a number. you are look at it at a comprehensive and thoughtful. >> do you want to add something. >> i wanted to add, it's important also within the rezoning program to note that it is rezoning and and it's all of the policies of the housing element coming together and it's also looking at certainty and looking at different forms of streamlining and ways to get those permits through that are effective for communities and people building housing so the rezoning gets dis labeled but it's a broader package so that's why we're trying to present it in the rezoning and we'll get into much more detail how the appropriate nature of how it works more specifically, right, in different neighborhoods. >> maybe you will be able to swear my next question, picking on commissioner diamond's question regarding how we will build complete neighborhoods and there's a spiel which i wrote down and it's 32g which talks about the community

facilitieses. one thing i'm just, i don't have a solution and eye just scratching my decade and planning and city that resulted in and we have a lot of lessons from as a city and we don't want to repeat and one of the things that i think that they allowed for and what would be the benefit of the community and to go along with and heighten density and it's not that process and a year from now and due to the needs that we might have and they and let alone the type of outreach and a wish list so have in the community so here is where the new park and ex thousands of people will go so i'm curious and on how do we have that the element and very quickly would need to the design

standards that would be appropriate for these and planning for as well as and the community service and community benefits and without the area plan, what is the department seeing as because of the streamlining they'll do this instead and how do we see that we're going to get there? >> there are two pieces that have come outta we've been work on. one is community based strategies and it's a good example of that and there's commitments in the tenderloin to work with those communities and serving those communities and that's been shown demonstrated we have to be more focused and some of these parts of the cities as well but it's just not been the focus because we've been looking at our areas of vulnerability and our priority equity geography so the second thing out of recovery work beef been doing over the last couple of years and coming out of the pandemic is really recognizing the incredible nature of all the

kinds of infrastructure you need in your neighborhood and it's really emphasized those things that we all needed before and different communities have needed a different zest things. and that's not only community facilities that are paid for libraries and schools and things that are government related but also businesses, laundry mats and when we talk about a complete neighborhoods it's never complete. there are edges and pieces and changes and we have to talk to people to understand, you know, that the unique nature of those things across the city so we've been developing that as i work program and we'll do mapping so we understand the equity map that is going to be based neighborhoods specific that starts to understand what those pictures look like so we can come to communities and be working with them to understand the unique nature of how that needs to be conducted and what is already is there or isn't. so it meets the needs. >> as we keep working, it's time for the next budget even though this budget hasn't even been. as rezoning and thinking about

the future budgeting being able to allocate staff to these essentially new planning projects and new neighborhood planning projects that we'll need to undertake it will help the rezoning there it's three or one year be a better aligned with the community goals and just hopefully a smoother less fraught process than it may otherwise be with the challenging topics. i just have a if you more things. i know i'm taking up a lot of time. this housing took up a lot of your time and we want to give you good feedback and not just saying thank you very much and next and give you are more feedback when you get a vote from us. is the staff there? i knee names but they're in the attendee list.

>> come of the community members around actually getting into affordable housing that's been constructed. that was kind of a key topic and not just building it but how can folks who actually live in neighborhoods get there and i know we have our neighborhood preferences and to the extend that it is feasible but a couple barriers that were mentioned, i'll name them and folks can respond who are appropriate. one was the idea of when our non-profit partners are screening folks, sometimes it can be difficult for community members to meet and so that is a credit check or other things so how can we look at the screening criteria that's not most criteria but it's the folks who are the stew arts and managers of affordable housing. the second thing was neighborhood ami. and so again, i don't like the idea of adding anymore complexity to our standards and when you look at area and income by race and you look at it by neighborhoods you get drastically different numbers

and the city and county as a whole and you have wealthy people pulling up the median for folks and it makes it mean that someone who has got a decent paying job but they're in 30 or 50% ami doesn't qualify for a lot of the inclusionary housing that we build and so just thinking about would neighborhood amis be feasible or how can it work or would it be out of sync with state and federal funding and so therefore not really useable and the last thing an ombuds person. just challenge that folks face where they may be in housing that is again supported by public dollars and who is that bomb buds person they could go to who is there to solve those problems and have accountability for our owners and stew arts and operators of public affordable housing so it's the standards for affordable able housing and ombuds person and whether or not some of the things may be appropriate as pirrizations or goals or objectives to put into

the housing element. >> hi, it's shelia with mohcd and i hope maria benjamin who heads-up our program is still here because she can go into some more details and i can but i think to your first question about screening criteria and you know, we work very closely with leasing agents to ensure the criteria we're getting are reasonable for the ami levels of units in the apartment and we screen all those criteria prior to setting out their marketing plan. we understand there are limitations for people of lower at amis and it might not have traditional credit record bank statements and things like that so we are looking for ways tone sure these people do have access

and it can be a proxy for more traditional financial screening tools. and then, your second question? >> the second question was neighborhood ami and whether it's something that we could look at. so that you are not just looking at the city as a whole but different neighborhoods where more lower income so more people would be eligible for the affordable housing built in that neighborhood. >> great, i'm going to pass it over to lydia to answer that one. >> i think lydia is an attendee.

>> thank you so much hi, everyone, lydia i'm the deputy for housing and mocd and as far as the neighborhoods amis go we did research with this data team and there are some deep technical challenges related to doing neighborhood ami. mainly the census tracks that give us the ami information do not match up with our san francisco neighborhood boundaries. so, that is not yet proven to be something that we can technically achieve. we have to get some consensus on the mark inof error that would be tolerable and it hasn't been an urgent, i think it would require quite a few folks putting their heads together object the technical impediment. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to put that forward as something to consider, adding not that we don't have enough in the housing

element but something to look at and it would be thinking about neighborhood map lines the controversy that comes from that. i know it would be quite a bit of time but it might be worth while looking into. the last few comments and i'll go to commissioner imperial and commissioner moore. i wanted to support again the objective standards and linking that also with this idea that it might ease some of the streamlining and process and redice the cost of building and have that community up front and it's how much can we get up front so the process of actually permitting each project is a lot easier and i want to give my support to those efforts. i know one of the things that were in some of the comments we received were repealing cost. i think there were valid issues that tried to do that in the state and they failed and hopefully we'll see them again or the legislature will give us flexibility on how cities across the state and including san francisco can manage the rent control. i also really applaud the

efforts around ending homelessness and eliminating homelessness which is a great goal and i'm happy to see it here. i want to applaud also the idea of that was in the coalition put forward of no wrong door approach to helping our folks who are unhoused and the navigation tries to do that and the emergency orders tried today do that to make sure where someone comes, they can get linked up with what they need and connected and so there's a lot of work going on there but i want to lift that up. lastly, i think the community opportunity to purchase laws and social housing are a couple other strategies and the city has been toying with and i'd like to see them reflected more in the housing element because they're there and they're resources and some of them money and infrastructure to help tenants be ready and able to purchase and community organizations be ready and able to purchase and there's been several big traunchs of housing that have been sold and no money at that moment within the time period to purchase it and so some of it is not so much the

law just how do we have to structure set up and social housing has a lot of promise and it will benefit kind of the along with the different land ownership models to really think about how that can bring that affordable and moderate income housing to scale and it could be a good way to boost that. and again shall i want to support everything that i've seen and i know there's some folks who are concerned about getting rid of the cus and if we're going to build even try to build a fraction of 80,000 housing units in the next eight years we have to reduce the time and money that people have to come to this commission for our permission to do that so i want to applaud that, assuming that appropriate tenant protections are in place and the registry and the liaison and et cetera so we're really sure and that a house has not been rent and when we're turning it over into hopefully a for plex or a six plex or maybe a.

>> wasn't commissioner imperial. someone could have answered it in the course of what you all discussed so thank you. i kind of want to comment what you said and as we are discussing, earlier about the heights and i'm glad we really clarified in terms that when we're talking about rezoning that there's this anti displacement strategy and the way i see this and that is why i was asking for the housing affordable strategies as you were talking about the

acquisition and preservation and social housing because the map in terms of the what we have the under utilized sites, it means it's not something that we see as well in the west side as much. so the affordability strategy in that west side area so that's what i'm trying to amplify in the housing element and hope would like to end housing affordability strategy because as we all know, the markets are a lot faster in terms of, w. our process is low but the market is a lot faster in financing but in terms of acquiring funding, that's a lot slower. so what are we trying prior ties and kind of like what commissioner fung, how are we prioritizing this as well in the affordability strategy to get the market. we're in the parallel universe

of planes when it it comes to here. i just want to be weary of that have and i think it's what the concerns as well too. thank you, very much for all the comments and all the explanations that you have given us today. thank you. >> i think we have exhausted it topic. thank you staff for all of your work and apologies if is lening and we'll take a 10-minute break before we take the next item. >> sorry about that. i need to remind myself to mute, unmute, everything.

good afternoon and welcome back to the planning commission for thursday april 7th, 2022. please keep your masks on even when speaking. we left off on the regular calender item 11. for adult sex venues. this is a planning code a amendment. >> good afternoon, or evening, commissioners. audrey maloney. before i give the staff recommendation jacob is here to give a presentation from mandelman's office. >> thank you, audry and good late afternoon to you commissioners. i think we're stim afternoon it's so nice to be here with most of you in-person after a brief hiatus, welcome aboard. i hope this is a fun one for you.

yeah, i thought i would start with it now for something different. give you something a little bit out of the world of housing. this is an order i put on my serious voice. commissioners, this is an important ordinance that the purpose is actually to address a lingering stigma and trauma in the lgbtq community in san francisco to recognize and support these communities and support queer-owned local businesses as part of the city's economic recovery and specifically, it would update adult sex venues and gay path bathhouses which was a feature in san francisco as well as around the world. there's background i would like to share before diving into the rest of the ordinances. in june of 2020 the board passed a ordinance that replaced outdated public-health requirements that had effectively banned these businesses in san francisco's

sense the aids crisis began in the early 80s. that ordinance updated the health code, didn't make changes to the planning code and it directed the director of public-health governing the operation of adult sex venues and it was directed that these controls could not require the monitoring of patrons sexual activities or prohibit locked doors on private rooms. these were regulations a legacy of the early days of the aids crisis. in early january of 2021, the public-health department did publish those guidelines. they layout basic requirements for safe adult sex venues such as verifying age the clients and prohibiting drugs and alcohol and the admission of patrons under the influence and requiring the provision of safe sex supplies like condoms as well as educational resources on sexual health and testing. these new standards recognized the advancement and sexual health awareness and prevention treatments and as well as the potential for safe sex venues to

assist in the city's efforts to control the spread of hiv and other sex i'llly transmi sexuald infections. we thought we were good. and around the same time, these standards were published, our office was contacted by a would be entrepreneur seeking to open a bathhouse. they said it won be possible. it was based on the zoning administration or's determination that business operating as an adult would be adult businesses for the purposes of the planning code. adult businesses include things like adult book stores, adult video stores, adult theaters and encounter studios and these are broadly not permitted through out the city only in certain areas and the concern was it was mostly not permitted or in some cases required a cu in the areas of the city that have historically strongly been associate with the lgbtq

community and tenderloin, castro and soma neighborhoods which is where you would expect or we would hope a lot of these businesses to open up. since that determination we have heard from a number of entrepreneurs who have sought to open lgbtq sex bathhouses. this ordinance would seek to remedy that supporting adult sex venues with the lgbtq community. the ordinance establishing a new use definition of adult sex venue that would be a type of retail service and be defined as a business that is operating under the health minimum standards that i mentioned. these are businesses where consenting adults of any gender are allowed and invited to engage in sexual activities with other patrons and don encloud sexual acts or performances by employees of the business, that's an important distinction. it would establish zoning controls for this adult sex venue throughout the city in the same way that adult business is

zoned now with some important changes. namely, making the adult sex venue used prince plea permitted in the neighborhoods i mentioned and castro and upper market corridor and in parts of the tenderloin and these areas overlap with the cats tree lgbtd the transgender cultural districts as well so the ordinance would also allow for 24/7 operations of adult sex venues and areas where they are prince plea permitted providing that voice controls lighting and security standards are met and adult sex codes the business can seek to open between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. with a c.u. which is otherwise prohibited. while an adult sex venue may be operated in combination with a bathhouse or a massage use, public-health houses would be permitted pursuant to the police code and massage operations would continue to be regulated by the department of public-health. so this is to address the

planning side of the equation. commissioners, the purpose of this ordinance is to complete the work that we began in 2020 to overcome this lingering stigma of a painful chapter in the history of san francisco's queer community by welcoming and embracing the safe lgbtq affirming faces in our city and paving the way for queer business owners to contribute to the post pandemic economic recovery. before wrapping up, i want to address the staff recommendations that are before you as well. over all, these are technical fixes that we certainly would look to incorporate in the cor dinnance if you afford that recommendation i appreciate the expanded language of the use definition itself to make clear that other uses may be operated in tandem with an adult sex venue and it's helpful. there's anna amendmentment in the rc4 or a recommendation from staff that would be to make the adult sex venue use principally permitted in the entire area of the compton trance gender

cultural directing, not just a couple of blocks that we have designated where we know of a business that is trying to open up there. that is something i was going to tell you that i was going to defer to the cultural district and i have been able to confirm with both of them that they are ok with making that amendment and so if that's something that you recommend that something that supervisor mandelman would be happy to add into the ordinance as well. so, in close, commissioners, i do want to thank the castro lgbtq, transgender cultural districts and the golden gate business association and castro merchants association and community benefits district for their support and i'd like to thank erin star and pearson for helping to think through this over what took several months and i really want to thank use degree for her work on this and her excellent case report. it was a great read, i appreciated some of the historical research on locations where these businesses have been throughout the city over the years and i hope you had a chance to look at that as well.

so, with that, i will turn it back to audry and i'll be here for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, jacob. so, jacob summarized everything beautifully. i will make my presentation much more abridged than i planned. to kind of put this into our practical language the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to define adult sex venues and permit prince plea permit conditionally permit or prohibit adult sex venues in commercial, residential commercial, production distribution and repair and neighborhood commercial, neighborhood commercial transit and mixed use districts. the department supports the ordinance because it will create a more appropriate definition and land use controls for adult sex venues and the severe restrictions placed on bathhouses in the mid 1980s was in reaction it a epidemic and we know they were an ovary active and ineffective.

most cities have recognized that restrictions placed on these uses were misguided and they've been removed or amended in the united states and abroad. adult sex venues can play an important role in educating patrons will sexually transmitted disease and promoting safer sex. when properly operated, adult sex venues assist rather than impede the efforts to control the transmission of hiv as well as other sexually transmitted diseases as such the department recommend they approve with modifications and so we have four modifications for you to consider today. the first is to expand the area in which adult sex venues are principally permitted in the rc4 zoning directing to include the transgender cultural district. this second is clarify adult sex venues with bathhouse facilities and permits so the definition in section 102 would read, a retail sales and service use that operates pursuant to article 47

and adult sex venue may include pools, tubs or steam rooms and eligible for a limited live performance units and recommendation 3 is to correct an error in table 810. 8910 is our chinatown community business district and currently in that table adult businesses are permitted use by default and they were not called out under the retail sales and service use umbrella and after consulting with the zoning administrator and looking at some history of some of the ordinance and changed we realized it was done in error and the intention was always for adult businesses to not be permitted in that district so we're requesting to fix that error now and make technical amendments to ensure it's implemented as intended. such the case packet, staff has received four submissions are public comment and all of which were in support and they have been sent to you by the

commission secretary. i have a hard keep of them here as well if anybody would like to reavie view them and that con clouds staff's presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes staff presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matters. those members of the public in chamber should lineup on the screen side of the room to submit their testimony. go ahead and come on up. then we'll go to remote callers. press star 3 to be recognized. go ahead, sir. >> my name is ken rowe. i'm a owner of the legacy business era the center for safe sex. i lived in the western edition since 1999 and it's been in business since 1992. i want to thank the

commissioners and staff for this opportunity to speak in favor of the adult sex venue planning code amendment. i'm speaking to the subjects in general. i'm very open to the modifications that have been proposed by the planning staff. our business model is similar to a day spa that we operate during the afternoon and evening and are not a 24 hour business. our mission has been to exceed the city's previous requirements for commercial sex venues. because of that, we've been able to weather health crisis from hiv, new strains of stis, the drug crisis and we found ourselves the only gay commercial sex venues to remain open post the covid-19 closures. so, we're not one of the new kids on the block. we're the only existing old kid

on the block in the gay community. so, some background. our long-term landlord died a few years ago and the new owners weren't able to renew our lease past december 31st of last year, and even though we were able to keep paying rent dung the covid closures. knowing we needed to relocate we looked at the three queer cultural districts specifically where we could locate and to our surprise, we found out that there wasn't any place for us in soma or much of the transgender district and not allowed we we couldn't pay in castro so, until this proposal -- >> sir, i'm sorry to interrupt you but that is your time. commissioners may ask questions later. >> thank you. >> commissioners, thank you very

much for blur time. your time.my name is ed and i ad the public-health department first when there was some questions about this thing saying what happened why are these gone and i looked through the history of the aids crisis and everything and i was astounded to find that everybody want the these businesses back but it was like one of those old regulations that you have, like a bear can't be running down the highway anymore. well, of course, it will stay there until someone looks to the future and stakes a step to change it and that's what we did. of course, the first step was taken it led to you and now we need the next step to happen so we can help businesses like this and we can ensure for the public safety and education, especially our youth, when i was working with thomas aragone, he has two daughters and he said i would like a space like this when

they're sexually active where it's safe for them to go and they have the supplies at hand to make the correct, wise choice at the most critical time. place where there's education. sti testing, all those things. and everywhere else in the country they have this and because of what happened, the knee-jerk reaction is fear we lost that. but we can have it back if we have your support. i'm here to ask you to help us out and i mean, nowadays if you are a young person, they live five in an apartment. they don't have the luxury of privacy to engage in these activities safely or if you are a young person and old enough to vote and did he tell drafted but not to go no a bar. where does it leave you? to unsafe places. you get your i.d. checked at the door and someone is there and there's everything you need. so, i'm just appealing for you to do the right thing and update this so that everything will move forward and keep our eye fixed on the future.

thank you. >> seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers requesting to speak, we'll go to remote callers. again, when you hear that your line has been inmuted you begin speaking. >> hello, my name is bob goldfarb i'm the executive director the ledge cultural district and i'm here to speak in support of the adult sex venue legislation. this legislation is long over vow and will remove a final road block to reestablishing queer businesses that were closed do you to stigma surrounding hiv in the aids crisis. this will benefit the community by helping to remove stigma, creating more community-serving spaces as well as energized possibilities and for queer businesses that have been prevented from opening in the city. i urge you to please support this legislation. thank you.

>> hi, good afternoon. this is jesse oliver sanford and i'm chair of land use for the castro lgbtq cultural district and thank you to the commissioners and staff for the opportunity to speak in support of this measure this afternoon. the district is pleased to continue its part of this ordinance, it's been too long and the bathhouse have been closed in the city and there's really a great opportunity here to express our values as a community through magnets not walls. through allowing new forms of freedom that demonstrate those values to people who are coming here and maybe thinking of moving to the city and to our neighbors. so very glad to support this ordinance this afternoon and we are tuned to do so as well. thank you, very much. >> hi, my name is (inaudible)

and i am a program associate at at compton transgender district. i'm here in support of the amendment for adult sex venues. first, i'd like to thank supervisor mandelman and his office for introducing the ordinance to the commission as well for considering it and taking the time to listen. you know, as the city opens up, there really isn't a better time to make this happen. historically, adult sex venues have been considered a safe haven for the lgbtq plus community being the only safe space for gathering and for us so, today is an opportunity to celebrate and preserve our history and why is which i'm in support of a recommendation to expand the boundaries to include the transgender district because

i believe that that will further be empowerment and this is the trans non binary and queer individuals. of the city and the neighborhoods they live in and it will bring life to the communities. [please stand by]

>> president tanner: i just want to applaud the measure that's have been developed to make sure these places are safe for the people that are coming, to prevent sex trafficking that has been on the rise in our country, and i just want to thank you for coming here. other than that, those are my questions, and i think i will be looking for a motion. if all commissioners have spoken? vice president moore, did you have something you wanted to

add? >> vice president moore: i just wanted to say that my internet crashed, and i can't see anyone, so i want going to make a motion. >> president tanner: thank you. i'll give you the motion and second by commissioner imperial. >> clerk: thank you. there's a motion to accept the amendment with conditions. on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and will place us on your discretionary review calendar, 2020-010586-drp-02 at 1485 20 avenue. this is a discretionary review.

>> good afternoon, president tanner. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request of discretionary review of building permit application 2020.1 # 125.9723 to construction a rear horizontal addition and two accessory dwelling units. there are two d.r. requesters, richard fiola and breonna gunn, both neighbors to the south of the proposed project. they're concerned that the project does not comply with the residential design guidelines to minimize the

impact to privacy and light, and design the building to maintain the architect of buildings at the rear of the mid block open space, which would result in hardships, including loss of light, privacy, and the feeling of being boxed in. their alternative is to not add a vertical footprint and expand to the front and not the rear. staff review confirms support of the proposed project that is compliant with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. the d.r. requester's building has a rear yard that faces the rear yards along 20 avenue and

obliquely the subject lot. the property also has an eight-foot wide side yard abutting the d.r. requesters. likewise, the size of the proposed windows, the additions are not excessive, they are located far enough away and at oblique angles with respect to the d.r. requesters' windows so as not to adversely affect light and privacy. staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. this concludes my report, and

i'm happy to answer questions. >> clerk: d.r. requesters, you're up first, and you'll each have three minutes. >> good afternoon. actually, i think we're into evening officially. president tanner and members of the commission. my uncle and i will be prebting together for a total of six minutes. my uncle lives in one flat and i live with my husband in the other. richard lives in the neighboring property in the home in which he was raised. here's our house, the blue one,

and then, the one next to it is the second property. i should say, sorry, it's her first multiunit building. she has a single-family home a few blocks away. the negative impacts that this project proposed would have on us are obvious. the project will literally block us up on the shared mid block open green space. as you can see on the map, it was seen that should be the definition of the boxing off the property [indiscernible] no explanation has been provided to explain how we are not being boxed in out of this proposed extension. you can see that on our side of the block, we are in the

corner. she's already expanded past our house, and it would further block us in even more. there is an unusual and irregular lot configuration on this lot which is sort of described by the staff, which we just heard, that we have a side yard that faces the rear yard adjacent of the bottom. confusing in the report, but the bottom line is it is an irregular lot formation that will cause us harm if it was approved. an irregular lot configuration, such as we have here, might justify granting the discretionary review. this [indiscernible] and the project are simply incorrect on

numerous levels. the staff reports that the sponsor's submittals for both starts with the claim that the project is code compliant. the staff say this, the project sponsor says this, even saying that the project is completely planning code compliant. these statements are simply false. the project is not code compliant. the zoning administrator had to grant to the proposed project numerous waivers for density, open space, rear yard, and exposure requirements. the zoning administrator granted to the planning code back in november. we have page one of that here; so there's one, and then the action. project sponsors also claim that there's no objective evidence -- sorry. the project is not code compliant without getting this give of exceptions and waivers,

so the claims of the sponsors in the staff report's simply wrong on that issue. project sponsors also claim that there's no objective evidence to establish exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that exist here. obviously, they've ignored the irregular lot configuration, ignore that we are plainly being boxed in to the corner of the lot by this project. they claim that we have no evidence to support our objections and we are presenting our opinions and hyperbole. this is not just our opinion, but the opinion of our planning commission. as attached to our brief in exhibit 2, a near identical project was proposed on this site in 1982 and was rejected which would result in loss of light and air to adjacent properties. the decision was based only on the planning code at the time. it was before the residential guidelines -- design guidelines

were first adopted in 1989 and then again in 1993. the project's just like this one, and this one in 1982 was actually smaller, was incompatible with the neighbors before the residential guidelines were adopted [indiscernible] by evidenced by this near identical project that was previously proposed and rejected by this commission for the very same reasons we are saying that are the problems with the current project. project sponsors say that no

neighbors have objected in their brief. we have seven signatures and an e-mail. in addition to not wanting a massive primary privacy violation in their backyard, these neighbors were very disappointed to hear that the project sponsor has not tried to work with us in any way, shape, or form. the only offer of modification was a garden wall. for any of our project changes, we just received a no from the sponsor. thank you for your time. we hope that you'll uphold the decision that your predecessors made and oppose the expansion that will absolutely block us in. >> clerk: okay. that concludes d.r. requester's presentation. project sponsor, you have a six-minute presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is denise leadbetter.

i'm here representing the project sponsor, who's here in the audience with her mother and father with respect to the project. it's so ironic that we are here today taking into consideration what was presented to the board earlier with respect to s.b. 330 and s.b. 9 and how san francisco is accommodating those very important state laws, taking into consideration how much the density of this city is going to change. and also interesting is how the utilization of a 40-year-old law is being used current to negate the increase in housing especially for a senior couple. there has been no evidence, other than it's going to affect their light and possibly their shadow that this has come in

front of you that this is affecting the public interest as a whole. this is specifically affecting their particular situation, and we have some sketches and drawings, and we can show you objectively how it's not affecting them at all, and i will have that done by the architect. this is completely code compliant. there's been no exceptional circumstances here identified negating the ability to have this project proceed. the one request that was made by the d.r. requesters was that it not be done at all other than to put the entire floor underground, which would be prohibitively expensive, and to essentially keep exactly what is currently in existence. there are other buildings on the block and in the neighborhood that will equate to the size of the construction once it's done, and with that, i rest.

thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public -- >> thank you. sorry. i believe i have a little bit more time, and i'd like to pass it onto the architect to show some sketches. >> good afternoon, president tanner and commissioners. i am the consulting designer. thank you. so what i would like to show overhead is basically the differentiation between the shadow cast by existing property versus the proposed structure. you can see here is a shadow casted by the building on d.r. requester's property, june,

5:30 in the afternoon, and the difference between the proposed area addition. the project has a proposed eight-feet set back and the proposed area has an additional 3 feet side set back. i'm available if you have any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open this up for public comment. members in the chamber can come right up. those calling in, press star, three. seeing no requests to speak, d.r. requesters, you have a

one-minute rebuttal each if you'd care to use it. >> this is more about our privacy. this is a photo of overlap of what they're proposing over the existing building. as you can see, these large windows right here are going to be several feet from our yards directly, looking into our homes and the privacy of our yard. this is about the fact that it's going to extend 30 feet past our home, blocking our lot into the corner as we are in a very unique lot configuration. >> clerk: okay. project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> we have nothing further to

add other than the windows are exactly as is existing, and they are not peering anything that's private into the next-door neighbors, especially since it's an eight-foot set back, and we have 11 feet between buildings. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes rebuttals, that closes this portion of the hearing, and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: thank you. thank you to the d.r. requester and the applicant for being here. i don't see any extraordinary or unusual circumstances. it seems like the windows that you are concerned with are already there, already there

right now. i'm not seeing anything that's out of compliance, so if there's no comments from commissioners, a motion? >> vice president moore: i would like to make a comment, and i do second the idea that it's nothing exceptional or extraordinary. i do think it's an interesting concept of what we talked about for four or five hours today. since this building, including expansion, doesn't impact the ability of light, which is sun light basically from the west and from the south, this is not happening, so i make a motion to approve. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> vice president moore: or to not take d.r. and approve. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion to not take d.r. and approve. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and concludes your hearing today. >> president tanner: okay. meeting's adjourned. >> vice president moore: thank you.

>> good morning, everyone. my name is jeffery tumlin, and i am the executive director of the sfmta, and welcome to the new van ness avenue. this has been a very long time in coming, but i am so proud of the results that all of my teams have produced. the new van ness avenue is a part of our efforts to reimagine san francisco streets, to rethink our streets to allow them to move more people as the city grows, and to prioritize the people with the fewest mobility choices, and that is what we're steadily delivering all over san francisco, so these projects include some obvious components like the bright red new transit only lanes that are built of 2 feet thick of red concrete

that's red all the way through. it includes rebuilding everything of the overhead power structure, including 375 new trees and 4,000 drought resistant new shrubs, but the best part is the undergroundwork. we dug up and unsnarled 150 years' worth of crazy utilities, including 10,000 feet of communication fiber optics lines, 18,000 feet of sewer pipes, including 19 century brick sewers, 25,000 feet of water pipes, and 5,000 feet of ductwork to power our buses and power signals. rebuilding all of these utilities and strengthening them for earthquake resistance

means we will not have to do that again for another 150 years, and i am so glad for that part of the project. this project was the result of -- okay. we could not have done this without a very, very large team, so i'm going to go through and thank some of our partners, and i will miss some. so thankful for the transit commission, to the san francisco county transportation authority who is our funding and planning partner, to mayor london breed and the board of supervisors who have prioritized this project again and again for over a decade. to the planning department, who helped us reimagine the space, to public works department, the public utilities commission, who helped us reimagine the

under ground staff. to the arts commission, who helped us choose the art, to the city attorney's office, to the historic preservation commission, particularly here in the civic center area, to the mayor's office on housing development, but we also owe a very strong debt of gratitude to the folks who live and work along this corridor. digging up this entire street to replace 150 years of utilities resulted in some major disruption and impacts as a result of the construction, and i really want to extend my gratitude and sincere apologies to all of the business owners and residents along this

corridor. thank you for your patience. you put up with years of noisy and disruptive work at all hours of day and night. we have learned a lot of lessons from this project, and we are already applying this lesson to other projects, so i also want to thank, in addition to the residents and business owners for their patience, i also want to thank the people who worked on this project. i want to thank everybody for their work along with hundreds and hundreds of people, but particularly those people who have spent the last decade making this happen. from the san francisco

transportation authority, i want to thank tilly chang and bob masis, and then, i want to particularly want to thank walsh construction and all of their technical subcontractors for being out here delivering this work, including the ballet dance of rebuilding the mission and south van ness intersection. so thank you to all of those people for really making this happen. so it's very, very exciting to finally be here. this is a very big year for the sfmta. we completed the first phase of the geary rapid project earlier this year. we completed the first phase of rebuilding taraval and the el taraval this year, and indeed, we're going to open the central subway later this year, in the fall, and i'm so happy to be here, finally opening the van

ness area bus rapid transit. so without further adieu, may i introduce the mayor of san francisco, london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: wow. what a big deal in san francisco today. thank you so much, jeff, and thank you -- let's give another round of applause to the great san francisco symphony for that beautiful rendition of "i left my heart in san francisco." yes, our hearts are in san francisco today, and today, because of that, we are rolling out the red carpet. no, this is not an april fool's joke, this is finally done, because it has been a long time coming. the people of san francisco, the voters of san francisco approved this back in 2003, and the work began to look at how

we were going to reimagine what van ness boulevard would be in order to provide efficient transit and safety and all the things that we need. when i think back to the history of van ness boulevard and what it represented after the 1906 earthquake, when i used to walk up and down these streets and catch the 49 to the 47 to galileo high school, not too long ago, it was auto row. this city was built mostly to accommodate vehicles, and over the years, we've seen a significant shift, people using various modes of transportation. but also, because we are a city who pride ourselves on making sure we are good stewards of the environment, we noticed

something. 47% of greenhouse gas emissions happen in this city because of vehicles, and we need to make changes. we need to make our public transportation system more efficient. we need to make sure that we improve our infrastructure so that different modes of transportation be moved around san francisco in a safe and efficient manner and at the same time having positive effects on the environment. yes, this project took a very long time, starting when i was on the board of supervisors in 2016, but you know how that is. even scott wiener was on the board of supervisors. bureaucratic years take forever in this city, but guess what? i feel like we're opening it right on time after dealing

with two years of a global pandemic, so please forgive me if i don't recognize you anymore. as we begin to reemerge, i can't believe how strong and resilient this city is. we've endured so many challenges in our city's history, but when we're able to complete challenges like this, we celebrate, but we also understand the value of what this will mean for people to get around this city, for the commuters that come all over the bay area -- golden gate regional, and the folks who catch muni, and the kids who try to pretend to get to school on time at galileo -- this is going to be a meaningful change, reducing the travel time by 30%, making public

transportation more attract attract -- attractive to people. that's our goal in these various transportation projects, so as we reopen, we have to make sure we can get people around efficiently and safely, and i am so happy that this is finally getting done because now i can catch the 49 to the house of prime rib and get there in a timely manner. now we can make sure that we support all of these businesses. yes, the city came together and provided millions of dollars for grants for small businesses, but it clearly was not enough, and so now, the real work began -- begins. using this system, enjoying the public art, commuting back and

forth to wherever we need to go and supporting the businesses along van ness, but i want to say to the kids of galileo, don't get off before it's time because we don't want this transit system to be a way to let you do what you're not supposed to be doing. i want to thank the county transportation union, the people who live along this area, work along this area and have businesses along this area. we owe you a debt of gratitude for what you've endured during this time, and i think this is a shining example of san francisco and our resilience of what we've had to endure the last couple of years.

we are going to continue to host the cleanest and the greenest fleet and move san francisco in a direction where we meet our climate goals, and we make sure that we provide transportation that makes this the priority in san francisco, using public transportation as the priority in san francisco to get around because it is more efficient than any other mode. thank you all so much for being here. we appreciate everyone that's participated in this project. [applause] >> thank you, mayor london breed. fun fact: in 2001, i was quoted by san francisco columnist john king in a newspaper story in the chronicle talking about san francisco bus rapid transit, and the mayor, at the time, i don't know -- at the time, upon reading this article, tried to fire me over the radio. thank you, mayor breed, for your support strong of transit

in san francisco. meanwhile, the author of this recent legislation would have saved -- shaved significant time off of transit in a year. senator scott wiener. scott? >> i am so excited. as a 25-year muni rider, i've seen the good, the bad, occasionally the ugly. i love the subway, i love trains, but in my heart, i am a bus person. and buses, you know, get really neglected a lot of times. it's the large majority of transit here in san francisco, is buses. we need to find ways to make

buses faster, more efficient for people. they shouldn't have to live by a subway line to be able to use transit. they should be able to use transit everywhere, and buses are the way to do that, and rapid area transit is the way that we do that. this is just incredibly exciting. when you look at the future of san francisco, we need a lot more housing. we need to put a lot more housing here in san francisco so that people can be paired to live here. but we have to have more and more trouble transportation to support it because if it's just a bunch more cars, the geometry

doesn't work. we need to put it all together to make this the most amazing and sustainable city in the world. this has been a real team effort. when you look at the work that's being done here on van ness and other amazing transit projects in the city, i had the honor of chairing our county transportation authority, and we worked really hard with the mayor, with then-supervisor breed to move this forward, but we also worked at the state level, and i want to really thank and acknowledge our entire current and former state legislative delegation, our city attorney, david chiu, who we really miss in the legislature. let's hear it for mr. chiu. when he was on the board of supervisors, his district was right along van ness, and he helped guide this along, and

working with phil ting, the chair of the assembly budget committee, we've worked hard to get more funding in san francisco. we're getting more and more momentum to have the state be a better partner to counties and cities to make sure that we're adding more transit. so this is amazing. congratulations to everyone. we learned a lot from this project. it can -- it will not take this long in the future. we're working, as jeff mentioned, on legislation to dramatically streamline bus and rapid transportation. let's get more of it, let's get it done faster, and congratulations, everyone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator wiener. one of the places that the bus will take you to is the san francisco opera, and so i am

very pleased to introduce elisa sunshine and andrew king from the san francisco opera. [applause]

[♪♪♪]

[applause] >> over 40% of california's greenhouse gas emissions come from the transport sector, and of that, the vast majority of personal driving. and in addition, here in

california, we're no longer demolishing low-income neighborhoods in order to widen highways, and yet, the state is growing. we are growing jobs, we're adding people. california is still a land of opportunity, and so i am utterly delighted to watch new leadership at the state department of transportation who's working to reimagine the state highway system in order to move more people rather than just moving more cars and to help the state achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goals. so i am very honored to introduce the california secretary of transportation. >> thanks for the set up, director tumlin, to have me come after that performance. how in the world do you top that? so when you schedule an event

on april 1, and and it has the history that this event has, immediately, the thought is, is this real? is it actually going to happen? everybody can see today what the fortitude of mayor breed, director tumlin, it is real, so kudos to everyone for making this happen. i'm the secretary for transportation for the state, here on behalf of governor newsom. he would have loved to be here because he loves

transportation, but he was busy this morning. we know what this is going to mean as far as reduction in travel time throughout downtown san francisco and the region, so efficiency is a big part of what we're going to gain from this. number two, the environmental benefits. environmental benefits are going to be huge. environment impact, nearly 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. transportation is the largest, the biggest culprit of our environmental challenges in this state, and projects like this will improve that. it definitely will improve that. it will address it. and finally, thirdly,

equitable. we know how much senator wiener mentioned it before -- how much of a challenge it is to afford to live in this state, but we are coming up with solutions to make it less costly, more equitable for people to be able to move about is exactly the direction that we need to go. so kudos for people moving in the right direction but to actually be able to deliver this project today. i city -- see ray from caltrans team. our district director, thank you for your leadership.

city and county staff, mayor breed, congratulations on an amazing day like today. thank you again for having me here. thank you very much. [applause] >> completing a project of this magnitude also requires strong managerial support, so i am proud to introduce supervisor raphael mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: director tumlin, you actually got it done. congratulations. but you know what got it done?

the union workers who show that sustainable projects and union jobs go hand in hand. there were lessons to be learned, mistakes not to be repeated, but this project will make a difference in the lives of san francisco every day as transit riders whiz past cars stuck in traffic carrying students, construction workers, seniors, tourists, and anyone wise enough to choose transit first, this project will make a difference for our quality of life.

the transportation authority is proud to have helped lay the groundwork for this day by leading the planning and environmental review phases of the project as well as providing nearly $45 million to support every phase of the project from planning to construction. these funds were from the transportation authority's half cent sales tax, proposition k, which included $500 million for muni and other projects when it passed in 2003. as we look forward to another critical transportation funding source in november, i want to thank san francisco voters for their consistent support of transit first investments like this one. yeah, give it up for the voters. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: in the case of the van ness improvement project, this investment paid off multifold. local city and sales tax leveraged $120 million in state and local funds to support this

project. so we want to thank our friends at the f.t.a.s and at caltrans for their partnership over the years of this project. finally, i do want to recognize our transit authority staff who are instrumental to the development phase of the project. tilly chang and our deputy director of planning, rachel hyatt, and our deputy for policy and programming, anna la forte, whose staff supported each phase of the project. and i want to thank michael short who was the manager of the e.i.r. under rachel and

flew in from north carolina to be here with us today. now that is love. i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge my colleagues on the transportation authority board who made it out here this morning, commissioner stefani, commissioner melgar, commissioner safai, and commissioner haney. so with that, congratulations, everyone. san francisco's coming back on transit. [applause] >> as we've already mentioned, this project took way too long, and it also required digging up the entire street curb to curb to unsnarl a mess of utilities completely down the street. i am therefore very pleased to

introduce our final speaker, one of the -- one of our favorite business owners in the corridor, joseph betts, who is the owner and manager of the house of prime rib. mr. betts, please join us. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'd like to just is you, commissioners, for inviting me. you know, there's not much to say that's not already been said, however, i'd like to tell you my point of view. yes, it was difficult, but there are two people that i'd like to thank. katie mccarthy from the city. she informed me what was going on. we had a meeting before things started, and during construction, she always informed me when i called. the answer was right away, and this way, we could plan. we were not blindsided.

another one who i really appreciated to work with is david costello. he was the best. again, a lot of things have been said already that i don't want to repeat, but there's one thing i want to say, an old saying. you forget the price, but you don't forget the result, and the result is beautiful. when you look at van ness, the trees in the middle, the bright striping in the middle, it looks great what you have accomplished. thank you. [applause] >> so thank you all, and i also want to thank a few additional people for their strong support

throughout this project. city attorney david chiu, jose cisneros, treasurer, ralph remington from the arts commission, and our entire m.t.a. board, almost all of whom are here, manny yekutiel, fiona hinze, sharon lai, chair borden. thank you to all of you. now, who wants to cut a ribbon so that we can actually start service on this corridor and get on a bus and ride to galileo high school with us? one thing that i do want to

remind everyone if you are going to get on a bus, which is going to start running in about five minutes, please do wear your masks. we'll be going to galileo high school where there will be some additional activities. get on the bus. >> the hon. london breed: well, we've waited long enough. everybody join us. five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause] [♪♪♪]

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e

community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting.

>> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

. >> chairman: good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, ap