>> good afternoon. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 13, 2023, regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice-chair supervisor, preston and board president, peskin and the community clerk is erica major and i would like to acknowledge jason and james at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have announcements >> yes, thank you, madam chair. the board of supervisors and its

committees are convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while providing public access via telephone and the board recognizes that accessible public access is essential and we'll be taking public comments as follow. first public comment is taken on each item on the agenda and those attending in person first will be allowed to speak and moving to remote call in and for those watching 26, 78, 99 and sfgovtv, the public call in public call in number is across the street, the number is 415-655-0001. again the number is 41-565-5001 and enter the meeting id24822584704 and press pound and pound again and you'll hear the meeting discussion but you'll be in listening mode only. when your item of interest coming up and public comment is called, those joining in person should line up to your right near the curtains and those on

the telephone line should press star three to join the remote call-in cues. if you're on your telephone, please remember to turn down your television and all listening devices you may be using. as indicated, we'll be taking public comment from those attending in person first and we'll go to our remote call-in line. you can submit written public comment to myself, the land use and transportation clerk at erica dot major@sfgov organize and submit it to the supervisors and made a part of the official file. you may also send your written comments to us at city hall, 1 dr. carlton b goodlet place, san francisco, 94102 and items are on the agenda of february 27th unless otherwise stated. madam chair.

>> thank you, to add -- if you're in the chambers, be respectful to those around you and provide adequate spacing if you're seated or speaking. madam clerk, please call item no. one. >> item no. one is an ordinance amending the planning code to update and reorganize zoning district controls including among other things permit accessory, arts, activities and production, wholesaling and goods of commodities and permit arts, activities, job training, public facility, and social service and philanthropic facility uses in the folsom street neighborhood commercial transit (nct), soma nct, regional commercial, and certain eastern neighborhoods mixed use districts, and in historic and nonconforming commercial buildings in residential enclave districts -- and if you wish provide public comment, call 415-655-0001. and item

24822584704. madam clerk. >> we have madison representing supervisor dorsey is a sponsor and we have aaron star from planning. and i understand you have some amendments that -- >> yes. so, good afternoon, chair melgar, president peskin, supervisor preston. i'm excited to be here today to speak about this ordinance. it's 211 pages and it was sitting on my desk within two days of me starting here nine months ago so this has been quite a journey. it has been a journey because this is one of the final pieces of the planning department reorganize project going on since 2014. before or beyond this administrative cleanup, this ordinance makes changing that aaron star will speak to. i want to thank him for being my partner and walking me through the intra keys of zoning and this legislation is the byproduct of community input discussion and compromise. and i

want to thank selma for bringing this joyce to the table and thank tom from livable city who helped me untangle the years of history around this zoning and many of the policy discussions that took place many years ago. this ordinance is particularly pertinent after the mayor state of the city address where she spoke about creating arts and entertainment district and what the feature of downtown looks that and that allows more art in institutional uses and there's a number of amendments i'll speak to and one is sub sfative and i circulated these with your staff and they are on your desk as a hard copy. first is amending the zoning tables that overlap with the boundaries between 7th street and 11 and 11th between howard and division to make the general and nighttime language consistent with the file that we are voting on tomorrow 22104 and the second is exempting childcare facilities from faf limits in the red, rdmx south

park districts and what that, i'm going to turn it over to aaron star. >> thank you, ms. tam. welcome, mr. star. >> good afternoon, supervisors, aaron star, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. the item before is amending the planning code to bring the eastern neighborhoods and mixed-use code with -- and make several substantive amendments in the districts. so, the organization effort started in 2014 and i know supervisor melgar probably remembers that from her time on the commission. with the intent of standardizing and consolidating it into one section of the code and zoning

table. articles 2/7 are complete and this will bring all eastern neighborhoods to the new format and the final ordinance is for downtown residential districts. beyond the non-substantive changes, ordinance makes several substantive changes and i'll provide a brief overview of those right now. by category. the first is accessory use controls. the ordinance proposes to amend article eight and article two to align with article seven accessory use controls to create connen consistency throughout the city and it provides more than 1/3 of retail spaces and spaces can have -- it amends the accessory use controls to allow live performance permits in the mug, mur and mrdx districts and proposes to allow restaurants to have accessory catering uses

just like limited restaurants are allowed to have now. for ground floor controls in eastern mixed-use districts, the projects that provide more than ten thousand ground feet will require commercial space in ranges of sizes including some spaces of one thousand square feet or smaller. for entertainment and recreation uses, it will allow recreation in the eastern neighborhood minuted use districts and remove the planning codes good neighbor policies for nighttime entertainment from the code and require compliance with the entertainment commissions neighborhood policies. and nighttime entertainment and general entertainment will be permitted for properties fronting on folsom street between 7 and division street and properties on 11th street between howard street and division and that's the compromise ms. tam spoken about.

the ordinance would permit bar uses on the second floor on the folsom street and ct and regional commercial district. forren still tuitional uses, it would live allies job training and public facilities and social service and philanthropic facilities and religious facilities in the folsom district and allow community facilities and private facilities and public facilities, schools, social service or philanthropic facilities and trade school uses to be principally permitted in historic district in the red and redm districts and remove mcd's in the salary district. for (indiscernible) uses it would require automobile sale and rental facilities to be in enclosed buildings and prohibit parking lots in the salary district and prohibit parking

lots and garages and allow conditional use authorization for private parking garages in the red-mx districts. for residential-uses, it would remove the prevision that allowed sor buildings to have rear large yards in residential buildings and align eastern neighborhood districts with the previsions in prop h, so it would remove three notification for permits uses. and i believe this is limited to the eastern neighborhood planned areas so it wouldn't extend into the ume districts. it would allow for the same day 30 permit timeline in the eastern neighborhoods and the mc districts and permits as long as they adhere to the restrictions adopted in prop h. other amendments, it would allow large scale agricultural to be permitted in the eastern

neighborhood districts. the far in the south park district red and red-mx would be amended to allow, i'm sorry, that is changed. it would, sorry, they to -- in those districts residential care facilities and childcare facilities would be exempt from far, that was a change that the planning commission had asked for and the supervisor accommodated. and it would allow the react vase of lcua with the zoning administrator approval rather than having a conditional use hearing. so, the planning commission heard this item on november 17th and recommend approval with modifications to one that i talked about, rather than amending the far ratios in those districts, ex many childcare and residential. it

removed language references lighting standards in the planning departments guidelines which we don't have and don't enforce. it would remove for post changes to relax nighttime entertainment controls and every zoning district. to amend the ordinance, nighttime entertainment is permitted for properties between 7th and division street and properties on 11th street between howard and division street unless the properties are zoned red-mx and it will have an opening for those to meet the zoning that prohibits entertainment within two hundred feet of the red and red-m and and mitigate impacts from noise and other quality-of-life impacts related to nighttime entertainment uses and then here is a map of what the changes to the nighttime and general entertainment would be, so it would only be permitted

along where the blacked out properties are there. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions, thank you. >> okay. go ahead, supervisor, president peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. a couple of three questions through the chair to mr. star. all of which were true of which we have discussed online and one question to the city attorney. at a high level, this is all good, thank you for your work, not only on this but on all of the code reorganization projects that have been forwarded to this board over time with this one sounding like maybe the last one, so congratulations on a long turn project finally wrapping up. the three questions i have, one i pointed out to you which was a change to the

conditional use previsions at section 303, having to do with a long-standing, before i think all of our times prevision about adult business where there's been a long-standing code prevision back to the days of then zoning administrator bob. i think he might have been responsible for it, for suggesting it to the board of supervisors in those days which i think was in the 1970s or early 80s. and that was the no adult entertainment within one thousand feet of another and that prevision was stricken at page 23, do you know why? that's much more than an selma situation that has implications for the entire city and the tenderloin? >> yeah. i don't know the exact reason for that. i think it might have just been cleaning up the language in there from the drafter. i would like to check

in section 202.2 just to make sure there aren't operating conditions already in place and so it's not getting rid of something duplicative. >> we have time because we have to continue anyway so maybe we can get to the bottom of that, in the interim -- the other was why group housing in particular was added to section 803.8, which i now understand in our brief conversation is just another or could be another form of low-income housing and i guess we can use the two weeks to talk to folks to make sure that the community is okay with that, but i did have a question for the city attorney on that, which is, it would appear, although a small one, that this could be considered to be an upzoning. >> well, we'll have two weeks to look at that question and to see if we need to pair it with something else, so we'll look at

that question in the next two weeks. >> you can see how my mind is working. [laughter] and then finally, on the removal of the previsions in the planning code that defined nighttime, that defined the good neighbor policies, basically, i wanted to check with the department and with my colleagues that in essence what that means is, we're taking them out of law that is controlled by this and future boards of supervisors and we're putting them into a policy that can be changed at any time without the approval of the board of supervisors because it is a policy under the entertainment commission and its department. do i have that right? >> you would know more than i would on that but the planning department isn't very good at enforcing those because -- >> the entertainment commission

has a better knowledge of nighttime entertainment and the functions and who owns and all of that so they are more appropriate agency to deal with the enforcement of that. that's the thinking of that. >> i don't want to put words in my colleagues mouth, but we would agree that's the appropriate place for monitoring an enforcement and indeed, those are the folks who got out of the decimal meters and all that good stuff but the question i have a question for this board which is, to the extent that it's not codified somewhere, i just don't want us to in be a position where a non elected body says we're going to change 90 decibels and the public doesn't get to come to the board of somewheres and say yes we do support that or no we don't. it's how it's codified. if we were taking these out of the planning code and putting them in the entertainment code, i would be saying one but if we're

taking them out of the law and putting them into mallable policy by people who are not ultimately accountable to the voters, it makes me nervous. it doesn't make me nervous today or nervous but in five years when people forget. >> i understand the concern. and we can look into that and see how we can codify them but when they are in the planning code, we're in charge of enforcing them and as great as we are in the planning department, we're not good at enforcing those. >> you guys are doing the tenderloin plan and everything else, never mind! counselor, am i right that it's going from law to non-law? >> again, i'm happy to look at that in the next two weeks. it's a long ordinance so i can't speak to every prevision but i'm happy to talk to mr. star about

it. >> it's only one hundred odd sum pages. we have plenty of time to figure those three things out. thank you. >> thanks. >> i had one quick question. just remind me because i really don't remember, so if a cannabis cultivation -- is it a different category than large agricultural? >> you're not the first to ask it. it's a farm that has heavy equipment. we don't think this will be a lot in the eastern neighborhood. >> it could be like indoor lettuce. >> that's agricultural use. anything indoors like a greenhouse facility, which cannabis falls under is industrial agricultural. >> cannabis is the same definition? >> yes. >> oh, that's a problem but okay. that's not this legislation, thank you.

>> anything else, colleagues? okay. with that, let's go public comment madam clerk. >> thank you, madam clerk. -- any public comment want to speak. seeing none. we have four listening with one in the key. if you would like to speak on item one, press star three. and i see we have one person in the queue. let's take that caller, please. >> hello. county supervisors, is for taking my call. my name is james hewitt and i'm assistant businessman energy for the international union of planters and ali trades. we bought a building on 65 oak grove street and for the last nine months, i've been trying to do some ada compliance as in putting in an elevator and do upgrade to the

glazing and the external of the building and i was told that this file here actually makes my usage as a union hall legal in the city and county of san francisco, so i'm here to speak in favor of file no. 2203340 and i'm hoping that allows me to do my ada compliant work and get my union hall local in city of san francisco. other than that, thank you for your time. >> thank you so much and that completes the queue, madam chair. >> okay. public comment on this time is closed. [gavel] so, i would like to move to adopt the amendment as has been circulated -- as have been -- have been circulated by

supervisor dorsey and continue to a week as it's substantive. two weeks, i'm sorry. and on the motion to amend, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. you have three ayes. and on the motion to continue to the february 27th land use date, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. that motion passes, thank you. it is, mr. tam, mr. star. let's go to item two, please. >> time number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to add definition and tourist and transient use under the residential hotel unit conversion and demolition ordinance to set the term of ten antsy for such use at less than the seven days or two years. it's a case-by-case basis to

amend the definition of permanent resident and affirm the appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number 415-655-0001. the meeting it is 24822584704. then press pound and pound again and if you have not done so and would like to speak, press star three. madam chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. supervisor peskin. thank you for working on this important issue. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair melgar. i want to thank my chief of staff sunny ann gula for sticking with this issue and bottom lining it now for half a dozen years. and this is not a new issue for the san francisco board of supervisors. the initial legislation that is chapter 41 of the administrative code goes

back to 1979 when there was a profound understanding that our single resident occupancy stock was plummeting and being converted to, in many instances, tourist hotel uses and 40 years ago, the board of supervisors passed legislation to address this issue. today, we're down to some 19,000 units down from about 35,000 units for housing for people on low and extremely low-incomes. a number of years ago in 2017, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted amendments which i proposed relative to updating the chapter 41 ordinance, which mayor lee then signed into law that was

the recipient of a subsequent ceqa lawsuit. this addresses that challenge. i want to thank and acknowledge lisa gibson and her staff at the planning department and our deputy city attorneys for crafting an extraordinary environmental document, this negative declaration is a fascinating historical read as well as an excellent ceqa document that does indeed determine that this project, the legislation could not have a significant affect on the environment and the negative declaration was the subject of an appeal to the planning commission, the planning commission after deliberation and consideration rejected said appeal and now the legislation is finally right for us to pass,

which legislation includes as recommended by the court and amortization period. there's one teeny tiny small amend which is reference the appropriate file and i would like to amend the subject ordinance on page 2 at line 20 to strike the incorrect previous file 190946 and replace it with the correct file 220815. and with that, colleagues, i have no further comments. >> okay. my comment to you, thank you so much for sticking to it through the years. so, if there's no other comments or questions, colleagues, let's go to public comment on this item, please. >> thank you, madam chair. members of the public who would like to speak on item no. two?

seeing none, we'll go to the remote call-in line. we have zero callers in the queue, madam chair. >> i'm sorry. one caller popped up. let's take that caller. >> good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is bryan o'neal, attorney for hotel arts and representing other homeowners and sor's and my clients made a life for them receives in san francisco with family business operating in sor. this is a lawful business renting rooms by the week with seasonal tourist rentals allowed by law. the city is well aware that our clients will be particularly affected by this ordinance but we were provided month notice in today's hearing. we submitted a letter to you via e-mail this afternoon, but due to lack of notice and

insufficient time we respectfully request today's hearing be continued. i would also refer you to our previous filings and bos file no. 161291, 190049, 191258, and 190946. the ordinance before you today will take a bay our clients business without compensation. and the worst harm is inflected on the people the city is trying to a tekt and the sor occupants. many of these occupants are unable to pay a month's rent in advance and let alone a security depositive i. and this ordinance may be intention, and there's harms in the environmental impacts which haven't been evaluated in ceqa review. the proposal is illegal for a number of additional reasons. the amortization period is insufficient and the extension hearing process is overly vague. and the bis is not empowered to hold hearings in the first place. the charter grants the bic with certain powers and

serving as quasi judge is not one of those powers. nor does the board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power. the bic was created by a voter charter amendment and it's an administrative amendment and we're doing functions that falls outside its (indiscernible). it also discriminates between sor owners and tourist hotel owners and owners of other nonconforming uses. >> thank you for your time. let's take the next caller. if you would like to speak and we're on item number two, press star three. otherwise, we'll take this last caller. >> hello, good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is ryan paterson, also representing the hotel and sor owners and i wanted to add briefly that i understand from supervisor peskin that the ordinance is being amended. well, that may seem substantial and changing

the ordinance file no. it's a significant change in terms of noticing. we received no notice of this hearing today. and therefore request this be continued so the corrected version of the ordinance can be circulated and the public has sufficient notice to comment meaningfully. we did submit written comment letters to you via e-mail this afternoon and we request that you take a look at that and consider it before taking action on this matter. perhaps, most the ordinance proposes to take away the sro and its lawful business and sell it back to them via the administrative code section 41.13 conversion process. at great expense. that's unconstitutionalal along with much else in the ordinance and again, we thank you for your time and ask this be continued or voted down.

>> thank you so much for your comments. and we're checking to see if there's anymore callers in the queue. there are no more callers in the queue, madam chair. >> thank you. public comment on this item is closed. [gavel] >> madam chair? >> yes -- president peskin. >> they are welcome to see us in a competent jurisdiction court again. >> thank you. would you like to make a motion -- >> i would like to make a motion to send the amended file to the full board. >> on those motions, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. [gavel] madam clerk, do we have any other items on the agenda today? >> that completes the agenda,

oh, i'm sorry. >> yes, go ahead. deputy city attorney. >> before we end this meeting, could you give me a minute to look up something quickly. i want to check something. >> why don't we recess for five minutes. let's do a five-minute recess. >> that's perfect. thank you. [recess]

>> okay. land use and transportation committee for february 13th, we are back in session. madam clerk, after conferring with the depth see city attorney, i'll turn it to you deputy peskin. >> i would like to rescind the vote on item no. two? >> and on that motion, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> and just for the record, the vote was to rescind the amendment from page 2, line 20

for 19 -- >> no, the amendment was to rescind, thank you for your clarification through the chair, madam clerk, was to rescind sending it to the full board. [multiple voices] >> keeping the amendment. >> got it. >> now that we have voted to not send it to the full board, i would like to make a motion to continue this to our next meeting on february 27th. >> and on the motion to continue as amended to the february 27th date, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. madam clerk, do we -- no. do we have any other item s the agenda? >> that completes the agenda. >> we are now adjourned. thank you. [gavel]

>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪♪♪]

>> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are

here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be coming to play at the same time. >> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment.

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by

deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community. >> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin

twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in

businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be

unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid.

you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. it is time to eat, people.

>> well, thank you for your patience. usually i'm always most low on time. so i appreciate you waiting. i'm san francisco mir london breed and welcome the brown bombers to city hall today! thank you to the parents and theville tierce, all the coaches and all the folk who is show up every day for our kids it make sure they are a success. both on the field and off. when i heard from roberto hernandez how amazing