Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 20220921

Sfgov. Org for staff thanksgiving meeting. Do you have announce ams the board and mitteeers meeting hybrid allow Public Comment still prosecute voidingly row mote access. The board recognizes Public Access is important. First comment on each item from those in person first and then move on to the call in line. For those watching on channel 26, 28, 78 or 99 ask government sfgov. Org the number is streaming across the stream the number is 4156550001. Enter access code 2495 796 7354. Had connected you will hear the meeting discussion asks in listening mode only. Press story 3 to be added to the line. Do keep your television and listening devices on low when you are speak. As indicated well tailgate comment from those in person first and go to public call in line. You may submit Public Comment to moiz the latched use and transportation clerk erica. Major sfgov. Org if mitt it e mail tell be made a part of the official file. You may send them u. S. Postal to our office at city hall. The off. You may send them u. S. Postal to our office at city hall. Part of. You may send them u. S. Postal to our office at city hall. Items academied upon today to add to the announcements masking is recommended not required. Police continue to be respectful of those around and you provide spacing if seated in the chamber. We are joined by president walton. Today welcome, president walton. We will take the items out of order and have him go first. If you could call item 3. Yes. Item 3 an ordinance manying the planning code to eliminate the special use district. Greater than 5 thundz square feet subject to thgz and reper se to or pdr2 direct, members of public who would like to speak need to call 4156550001 then. 0 access code 2495 796 7354. 6 7354. Thank you. Clothesil note that president with theon circulated amendments to his legislation i will turn it over to you. Thank you, chair melgar and thank you supervisor preston and peskin for taking this out of order the Protection Zone special use district, ip z a stopgap measure to protection, distribution and repair Business Districts from higher paying residential and office use when is this area was zoned which was a permissive district allowed all uses. The zone protected pdr from competition and incompresident able uses in eastern neighborhoods and bay view planning process it was intendsed be replaced by controls adopt in the 2 where are 08. An oversight not to remove the ip z in 2008 it undermine the a loophole storage and big box and industrial uses that are inappropriate for pdr neighborhoods reincrease the clarity of the planning code and protect the pdr businesses it was designed for. The ordinance as proposed eliminate the ip z special use and allow social service use greater than 5,000 square feet and pdr2 districts. We got input from planning to focus on making sure we allow grandfathering of self storage projects submitted before december 31st of 21 if at least 50 of the parcels contains pdr or Community Uses on ground floor. There was a hearing on january 11th, or i introduced the ordinance on january 11th. To eliminate the ip intrshgs and allow for the philanthropic facility uses on march 24th the Planning Commission recommended a modification to allow the limited grandfathering i discussed. And so i would like to move this forward to the full board but first as supervisor chair melgar stated. I do have amendments that have been circulated that i want to read in record that would like for to you move. Booij line 6, after the accept a colon add, allowing self storage and pdr2 subject to conditions. Page 4 line 7 after gross square feet. Strike all to the ends of sentence. Page 5 line 19a to the word any and after use in the phrase that submitted a Development Application on or before 123121 shall be page 5 line 20 delete is before principally permitted. Page 5 line 21 after adeno~ less than 50 of the parcel area consists of ground floor industrial agcullure autorepair, catering, trade shop. Institutional Community Use or arts. Page 6 line one replace date 61. 30 to 123126. Page 6 line 2 delete afterless the and replace with city enacts an ordinance with an Effective Date on or before that extends or reenacts in note. Page 6 line 6 and 7 replace section with note. Thank you for your consideration and thank you chair melgar for take thanksgiving out of order. You thank you very much. I like to make a motion that we move the amendments as read in the referred by president walton. Would you like to take Public Comment. First. Of course, we would. Lets do that. And are there members like to speak on item 3 approach the podium. We will move on to our public call in line. If you would like to speak you node to call 4156550001 then access code 2495 796 7354. Press star 3 to enter the queue. Looks like we have zero callers. With that, public ment is closed. Now madam clerk vote on this. And on the motion moved by chair melgar read in the record by president walten supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes. And now if we could move the item as amended to the full board. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Sdwr aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. 3 ayes. Motion passes. Thank you, president walton. If you could now call item 1. Item 1, is a resolution authorizing the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to begin setting rates for parking at goldenigate park concourse garage in kezar parking lot 6. 14 and amend the lets agreement with the commune partnerships rec and Park Department to pay 3 hours. Free parking on behalf of purchase of oozing museums for discover and gold programs at seasons and the museum. Members of the public who would like to comment on item 1 call 4156550001 then access code 2495 796 7354. If you would like to peek press star 3. Madam chair. Thank you. We have Sarah Madeline from rec and Parks Department and rob malone from the San Francisco municipal transportation authority. Thank you for being here. I will turn it over to you. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon chair melgar. Im with my clothe from the mta the resolution is follow on to the flex pricing legislation you all passed the end of last year. That legislation allowed our department to work with the mta employ flexible pricing at the concourse garage and the kezar parking lot thats when we do at the other garages we own in connection with the mta. At the time it was passed, amended to ask that we come back to you and explain the residence loulgz the methodology and approach to rate settings well use in the locations. And so that is what is before you. We have out lined the up and are lower bounds as well as policy goals we would like to achieve with this flex pricing and rob and i are here to answer questions you may have. Okay. Supervisor peskin. Thank you. As mrs. Madeline and i communicates e mail and not able because i was in rules to follow up with the phone call. Relative to monthly parking i dont see, there is, not suggesting change to the rates well . And not be obviously subject to fleckable parking. Is that right . I will let rob answer this piece. Good afternoon rob malone mta. There was no mention of our machining low parking policy but since the question kim came up we do have a policy at all garages first of all a couple thing in terms of rates mechanic low rates are set by surveying the local area or competing facilities or lacking this is a facility that it is not have local competition. In that case compare to the other facilities around the city. The other thing we do is close low monitor the balance the equalization moum month lows are using the garage versus transient parkers the daily parkers are using the facility. In the case of this garage. There are only about 25 monthly parkers. Out of a facility over 800 stall its does not seem like one i would be concerned about use by amongly parkers infringing on daily parkers being able to use it. It is part of our quarter low review process of all rates and garages that we look at that upon bvenlts and at certain facilities men a third of the 21 facilities we manage we put a cap on the number of arc luable amongly park and institute a waiting list for this reasoning. We want to ensure there is a certain amount of availability for transient parkers all times of day. Thank you. You are welcome. I had a question related to this. When we had a hearing in the Neighborhood Service committee about the museums. You may watching there was a lot of Public Comment. One of the things that the Fine Arts Museum director of the deyoung said was this they had not really explored some of the Creative Things that other mull seems the academy of sciences doing for example offering subsidies for bike share. I wonder if the way that the program is configured, now, is open to do this partnership with the museum if they were if they chose to you know subsidize the machining low parking for employees as a benefit or any number of things configured to do in . Absolutely. Access control system heads all sorts of serious capabilities for instituting the types of things and all facilities we work closely with local stake holders. And in the case of here i would presume. We have been with rec and Park Department staff rowing with representatives of the mccp and museums and as presumed we would be communicating with them regular low. And if not just responding to any requests they have i think we would be suggesting or ask them to consider hey, here are some things we do else where sheing use the technology to help it the Technology Helps you want it easy for employees. If you are going to offer what you are suggesting a partial low subsidized program. We are used to doing the things regularly. Going back to the passage of 6 or 7 years ago of increased bicycle parking ordinance that planning echoed, we very actively personally lead the expansion of bicycle park nothing all of our garages. We spent a lot of time think about that providing stationary racks and some cases day use compatible bicycle lookers the membership card you access for a fee per hour if you like more security method of parking. Worked on bicycle way finding. If you have this bicycle parking you want the bicyclist to know this is there and how to finds it. We spent a lot of time the last several years working on that and would engage with the museums and other local stake holders on all of those issues. Thank you, i wanted to ask once you get authorization what is the time line before this gets get implemented. I would like to defer to ms. Madeline to answer that one. It is negotiations with the mccp, et cetera. Thank you. Sure. So our lease with the mccp the nonprofit that runs the garage and the resolution our Commission Rec and park adopted supporting bring thanksgiving legislation to the board. Requires the approval of the mccp board as rob noted we have been working with them the last couple of months talk about policy priorities. Rob reviewed the actuals the last few months and well in the black, which is a change from the last time we were all here talking about this. We were deep in the 3s of covid and struggling. So we need to present this to the board, i believe of i believe meets the ends of this year. And then could begin implementation from there. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions, clothes . Okay. Madam clerk Public Comment. Thank you, members who would like to peek on this item approach the podium. Seeing no members of public we will move on to the public call in line we have 4 listeners with one in the queue. Go ahead and unmute the first caller, please. Daved pill pel. So it seems that may be a bit premature to consider this item before the november election with prop i, j and n. Which the Golden Gate Park and regards to the relationship between the city and the concourse garage and mccp. So im just worning out loud had makes sense to do this now or wait to see the results of the november election if they are not meeting until later in the year. Perhaps there is staff work that mta and rec park can do in advance and then see what the Election Results are. Im also wondering where the detail is on the specific proposed rates. I saw ranges but not an actual proposed rate schedule that will be before mta and rec and park and mccp board. And as to what the rates are. The number of vehicles. Mr. Malone mentioned there are 25 month low parkers and how this goes to meeting operating expenses. For the garage and separate low for the kezar parking lot part of rec parks parking portfolio. And finally on page 2, line 9 and page 3, line 2; it seemed that there were a couple of typos. If i get to that one moment. Sorry on page 2 line 9, was the beta beach resolution in 21 or 22 i couldnt remember and pagely line 2 [inaudible] thank you for your comments. That concludes the queue. There are no long are any callers in the queue thank you. With that Public Comment is closed. Would anybody like to make a motion . Okay. I will make a motion. Page 2 line 9 . I have been in this room all day. Sorry. Id like to make a motion that we can we send this to the full board with positive recommendation. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye melgar. Aye. 3 ayes that motion passes. Diclose Public Comment. Madam clerk thank you very much, mrs. Madeline. Lets go to item 2, police. Joanne ordinance amending the planning to create the tenderloin neon special use special sign district with north of market special use district and acting zoning controls for neon signs within the special district and amending sf01 to show the loyal loyal special sign district and affirming findings. Member who is wish to provide comment call 4156550001 access code 2495 796 7354. If you have in the done so and would like to speak you need to press star 3 supervisor preston thank you the floor is yours thank you chair melgar and for calendaring this and back. Nothing of substance to add we talked about the amendments those required a continuance and hope to move this forward. Thank you. Add mow as a cosponsor this is exciting. Madam clerk lets go to Public Comment. Why are there members withhold like to speak on item 2. Approach the podium. Seeing none we move to the call in line it electric like there are 4 listeners with 0 in the queue. With that Public Comment is closed. Supervisor preston. Thank you id like to move this with recommendation to the full board as a committee report. And on that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have throw an aye that motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations supervisor. Lets go to item 4, please. Item 4 is designating the cork oak tree rightofway of 20th at noe street a landmark tree pursuant to public work and making finings member who is would like to comment call 4156550001 then access code 2495 796 7354. Press star 3 to enter the queue. Thank you. This is supervisor mandelmans item. And he is not here. Is there someone from his Office Online . To present . Mr. Du want to say a few word busy this item . There he is. Supervisor mandelman is on his way. He just walked in thank you very much. Welcome supervisor mandelman im sorry if we caught you a bit by prize we are moving quickly. You are. Thats good. All right. We have a tree landmarking. Um 20th and noe. So clothes today im asking for your positive recommendation on an ordinance directing the Department Public ws to designate the cork oak tree at 20let approximate nory noe as a landmarkistry. It is located in public right of way at Community Garden the neighbors who love and min tain the garden kicked off the process for the tree by organizing a petition with 50 signatures and propped my office for support on august 24 the Forest Council received a landmark tree nomination from public works and on september 22nd it met the landmark criteria for land mark tree status. It has been there for 75 years. Much love exclude based on neighbors i heard from the community is looking forward to its land marking the improve am club has been actively advocating around this and the neighbors who advocated for the lands marking david dias is here and served lead gardener at Community Garden are eager for us to take this step i want to thank ross green and his office for w and i hope it is straightforward. But thank you for your consideration. Thank you supervisor mandelman. Lets take Public Comment if there is no comments or questions from colleagues. Thank you. Members who would like to speak on item 5 node to prop the podium. Good afternoon. Everybody. Supervisor, thank you for your support from the office. This is a fantastic and beautiful tree. It is a cork oak tree harvested cork stoppers and makes them in portugal. This tree is the biggest cork oak in the city. On behalf of our community and myself we are looking forward to your recommendation in the findings. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there others this would like to spoke on item 4 . We am move on to the public call in line. It looks like we have zero callers. Madam chair. Public comment is now closed. Make a motion we move this to the full board with positive recommendation. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Thank you. Congratulations supervisor mandelman. Lets move on to item 5. Item 5 an ordinance amending the planning code rezone r heart attack 1 zoning except for residential 1rh1 to rh2 zoning to rezone rh1d to districts residential 2 family district detached rh2 and dense limit exceptions to 4 dwelling per lot and up to 6 per lot in corner lotted amending the administrative code to subdividing constructing new units to the density exception and appropriate findings. Members withhold like to speak need to call 4156550001, access code 2495 796 7354 then star 3 to enter the queue. If you have not done so would like to speak you mode to press star 3. Thank you very much. Supervisor mandelman, thank you for bringing back this item. No, i wanted Say Something about this. Because i think that this the public chatter. In the press about disfunction of the board of prierzs, this is a legislative process what we are supposed to be doing a city that is Diverse People have different opinions and our process is designed for us to you know amend things and negotiate things and come up with manage we can live with. Our mayor veto third degree and you become and finds what can you know move forward. Have us make progress on the issue and add housing and preserving neighborhoods and protecting communities. I think that it is good. Thank you for bringing it back. I agree i think it is person for this board to finds ways to achievon census and put forward legislation this moves the city in a good direction. I pelt thisy had done this with the version of the legislation that was voted out. It include the aspects i did in the love and did in the have everything i might have wanted. But it was i think a consensus. And we were not able to get the other branch of our local government on board. With it. And i thought that quite a bit about why and how that happened and whether there motive not be piece of this or even all of the pieces of this we might be able to get financial we change them and think about them. I had conversations with the Mayors Office and with some of my colleagues. I look back on my failures with this legislation i think i tried do too much. This legislation or the legislation was approved by the board eliminated rh1 zoning in San Francisco in 2 ways. It made rh2 the base zoning for rh zones. The second was created a path to mall Apartment Buildings in every neighborhood in San Francisco. 46, 4 on corners. Property owners could pursue. And i dont think this was going to lead to massive transformation of the Housing Stock but it was opening the door to gradual. Denseification. Link the 2 proposals together made this legislation weaker than the sum of the parts. Hai wanted to visit with you about today is whether it might make sense to peel those to pieces arc part and see where we can get with each of them. Ir think it is important for you all to may be to run through what is in 41 of the committee now. It had changed a little bit after this file was created and so there are aspects of legislation that was voted out of the Committee Last time that are not in the version that is before you. I will run through what is in and in the in. Included the original is the original density exception in all rh to go up to 4 units per lot and the planning recommendation 6 unitos corner lots and to rezone all rh1 to rh2 and create a path in the subdivision code to create new cono units on lot obtaining the afternoon unit as long as the homeowner resides on site for 3 years after construction. That is all in here. It includes amendments made pie supervisor melgar rezone rh1d and rh2d. As well as to apply rent control to units in the Density Program. And language added by mecar requiring the Planning Department to prepare an r. Sum rising applicable design guidines and fee waiver for homeowners classified a Historic Resource before renovation plans for density exception and this version includes unit size requirements add in the by consensus among the committee and supervisor mar requiring one of the density exceptions to be 2 bedrooms or a third the size of the largest unit on site. There are things that are not in the file before you. And some of them i knowledge absolutely ought to be addd and we circulated amendmented add those back in. And i think you could take action today if you wanted to. The version of the ordinance before you does in the include the reporting reporter s for planning supervisor mar add immediate and that seems like a thing that should be in. And there was reason control clean up language that needed to get out of that i believe the chair pointed identifyd and this needs to get added back in. And the last thing which i have not propose in the an amendment i would like to hear feedback and i continuing is simple you could act on today if you wanted but you may want to think about it some. Was the addition of the 5 year ownership provision added in. And the reason i ask to you think about this one is i mean well this was the thing in the legislation i did not love but felt important part of reaching consensus. I think this this is a provision that will get us another mayoral veto if we keep with the 5. If the committee and board are willing to get rid of the 5 i believe the mayor would sign. At least this part of it may be not rh1 to 2 and sign this part of it. And you know we could try between wherevero and 5 and see how they did with that. But that is the thing for the committee to think about. And then the other thing i would ask that the committee do is a split the file with the 2. The rh1 to 2 in one piece and Everything Else in another piece of legislation. Because i of course they have different issues and different o opponents and a matter of vote counting. In terms of over riding the inevitable mayoral veto i think this committee might want to consider. If there of a carve out that say project and would you may want to continueen if you act on the other things you may want to continue to give time to think about this before you vote it out. But any carve out would require at least a few weeks. Thank you. So much. Supervisor mandelman. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair melgar at the board of supervisors when we considered the veto over ride i expressed my unique frustration having been around for vetoes are seldom in 15 years are is one or two a year i have been around for 20 or 30 of them in that area but they have always accompanied by some amount of advice. Andllow the chair to supervisor mandelman i feel this is a bit like blinds folded and swinging at a piniata. So you sounds like you represent that you have talked to the mayor. And if the issue is the 5 year look back. Is it really . I could i could revisit that. Buoy want to know if this is one and done. I dont want to be played the fool we are here guessing. Now i appreciate your candor as to the rh worn and 2 political conciliation which is i hate doing planning on district lines i find it abhorrant. But as a political situation if it gets the board to 8 i could consider that. But as for the first part in a separate piece of legislation as somehow bite sized pieces are palatable than the whole; is turning 5 years less then and there 5 years are we done . Through the chair . If you want to answer, yes. Of course. My understanding is the 2 piece of this legislation to which the mayor and her Office Object rezoning of 1 to 2 and the 5 year look back. If we were to sends her legislation that did not have those elements in it. She would not object to allowing you know allow up to 4 units on lots africanamerican the city with all the protections and rent control and the things the board built in and sign that. If i may chair megovern to keep the floor, part of this to me is the rudeamentary 6 or 8 politics the largest is Public Policy and the author supervisor mandelman was reading off all these thing and saying there were melgar amendment and preston amendment dids in the say peskin amendments i think i did have one which was a minor clarification to the look back amendment as to taking in the determining who or what errors were. But other than that i have think i said this i appreciated the way that chair melgar was stewards what started out as 3 competing piece of legislation work. I think we landed on the most permissive one. And with kinds of sort of not really data from the Planning Department it was become in envelope stuff. And having been around the elfat for a long, long time and having advocated repeatedly for a long time to the reform at the state level, none. Which successful it turns out both houses of the legislator are super Majority Democrats there are enough that are controlled by big rolls royce they mine as well tell the truth and call themselves republicans. All of that not with standing when we pushed for is that kind of look back. And we did that based on role data not the envelope data what a Holding Period should be and what the number of are in year 1 and 2 and bla, bla, bla. My recollection i have not looked for a time, is they happen pretty quick because people speculators like to make a buck quick. So based on that data there is a separate and apart from the political calculations i may finds my way down to 5 years to where the sweet spot is. But i dont want to just get a win for having a win sake i want to achieve more housing without ripping the lives of people it is under. The sweet spot would be, i dont know i like to look. I remember clearly in a number of the conversations real data supervisor preston may have been i have not talked to him about this body of policies since it left here last time but id like to look at the number. A couple of points to you know respond to what you said, supervisor mandelman. As to the first of your goals of rh1 to 2, as i remember after reading the mayors letter there were 2 issues. Besides what you talked about i understood the second to be sb9 and the feature in sb9 that stream lines these projects and so peculiar low around the ability of neighbors to do dr or offer dr after a project has been considered. You know code compliant and whatever. I that is in the something that is skrnl in the legislation. But i wanted bring it up i did read that. The second thing is i dont think that what we are talking about is the same. Because these are homeowner occupied units and people have equity. Most case quite a bit our real estate values have gone way up. And really through no effort of our own but in terms of the displacement pressures that tenabilities pace it is not the same. I wanted make sure that just putting out my analysis out there. The thing about a carve outside i share that with president walon i dont know to supervisor peskins comments like district wide i want to get it right. Not because of the district it is the fact that black people were kept from owning property. In this country Single Family homes and kept from having lones and there was a system through our federal government that preventd that. That is the last enclave of black homeownership in San Francisco. If we would talk about carve out it would protect yours that were historically you know prevented from that. I would want to get it right and have the conversations approximate electric at the data. On the flip side i will say that we are preventingly the Property Owners from you know getting the value of that victim in a way this we are not doing for the other Property Owners and you know i want to have a pro robust discussion about this that is also an equity issue. Im not saying i have answer either way. But i wanted put it out there that what we are doing is not just, oh , you know lets get that one more vote. I want us to dive into the Public Policy of the zoning and economic issues. So with that i will turn it over to supervisor preston. Thank you. And through the chair to supervisor peskin, i recall that report because i was an author of this report with the wonderful antieviction mapping project this put together the data showing the huge number of those occurring over half of them within the first year of ownership. And it is not apples to apples but there are somewhere purpose there. With both of those. I say on the bill a huge shout out to i have no yet. I know but i was going to say no idea how former senator left laneo managed get this bill it was the left one like off the senate floor in 2014 against what supervisor mess mess identifyd that Real Estate Industry controlled democrats and republicans in sacramento. Die exclude that was the end. I think it is does offer lessons on the issue this is discussed. At 5 years and the start and there were a lot of discussions what the appropriate length was this got short circuited once it was time to make the amendments in the assembly and killed there. That was in the a veto but i think that getting the number of years right is something im wide upon open to which i continuing needs to serve the purpose and certainly open if there is a Different Number of years. 5 was what we proposed left time. Made sense. If there was data to inform that im open thanks to supervisor mandelman and his team and chair melgar time and energy that has gone in this and echo the disappointment not so much in a veto the mayor has the violet if she objects to it but the lack of the voteo letter the guidance this peskin noted to allow us to take that and know when we are dealing with. The way to shape it it meets with her approval or is there a path you know to 8 where her approval is not required . And i appreciate your work in engaging with the Mayors Office. I did ask the mirs office to have someone here i believe paulino is on and love to hear directly from the Mayors Office. I just i we are here to do the work and happy to have the hearings i dont want to speak to the chair we are happy to dive in but we have important things to do and it would be great if we hear from the Mayors Office more than just the last version imposed financial barriers. Can we through the chair can you give some guidance as to the i guess a response to what supervisor mandelman lid out and public ly commit to what would and would not meet with the mayors approval with respect to this legislation . Thank you. Noted our office is working with him and his office. She mentioned in the closing of her letter work with the author and the members of the board to produce legislation that answered her helping goals and stount housing and producing more housing. As to the urth so farz the 2 items that noted with regards to the look back and rh1 and 2, are correct those other 2 points. Our office eye highlighted. As far as specifics to the final language the mayor need to look at the final proposal the final draft proposal before call it we would work with the author on this. Thank you. And through the chair to clarify the position with regard to look back that the existence of any look back period would make this something that the mayor would veto or well is an objection to a 5 year look back period. I cant give you a hard number as far as the number 5 is the one that i would say was not the mayor was not arc menable 2 a number with this i cant speak to that. Okay i think what you say is not the existence of a look back provision it is just that the 5 year look back period is a nonstarter with the mayor. I dont want to put word in your mouth am i getting it right . You are correct. Thank you. Supervisor mandelman. Thank you chair melgar and colleagues for engaging again on this legislation to supervisor melgars points. Yes, the mayor i would agree does not object to the rezoning from between 2 to 2 of itself it is the fact that by as i and disagree with her on this, she believes sb9 is an important and valuable tool for increasing density in San Francisco and that we make a mistake by giving up that tool and e eliminating rh1 begin it is the only place where sb9 would be effective. Ir reiterate that overwhelmingly the applications this as well come in almost a year since sb9 in affect either duplexes or lot splits not the 2 together. It is a small number less than 20 applications have come in. And i think that the notion of ministerial prove of duplexes that could be monster homes with you know 5700 grandma unit attached never occupied is in the a high priority for me to stream line. I think that small and medium sized Apartment Building node to be stream lined in the city. The developer of learning project and the burdens on communities. I think the smallest projects that in my district tend to be very learning homes for wealthy people. I think some level of discretion to shape those is important to retain. I have a disagreement. We could i believe in stroll lining and talked about this left week. And im gearing up to bring this committee you know a conversation about stroll lining small and medium sized apartments. But i think as i said there is already too much in this proposal. And i think trying to add in a stream lining measure that we would craft here and lay are that on and get 8 votes plus the mir is a level of brain damage i conditional take on in this legislation. Well there is zero which what the mayorments and then 5 what might be between the 2 and i suspect this will get continued. You know there is time for my office to do diplomacy with the per ses office and supervisors who may want to try to reupon tain look back for the role it can play and we can use that time to engage with the issues that chair melgar raised about the 18 equitable implications of carving out communities of concern and leaving Property Owners of color in those in those neighborhoods unable to get value out of property that neighbors in other parts of the city men able to get if we do carve outs. I dont see how we get to 8 without carve outs. But there are problems. I feel like many conversations node to be had with several colleagues. Listening to your analysis and you know i see it from your perspective being sat through. And left my brain in Time Thursday evening at planning. I saw a lot of projects that came to us either because at the beginning or the ends through the discretionary review in neighborhoods like those you represent. Most were in district 8. That upon were monster homes with a signy adu that was 400 square feet like calling to fit. Right. And but in a neighborhood that are not asathyy where the real estate value is in the as high. We did see a lot of the more equitable like 2 Unit Properties even if it was an adu because that you know that is hat market would bear. So, just back to you in crafting this how do we create legislation that encourages this. Knowing this they are very different and various angles. So i want to make sure that homeowners who want to have their extended family live in the property. Have children be able to you know move to the home or the property that they own. Can raise their own families i want to make sure that happens we dont having sat through late nights neighbor on neighbor. Make sure we allow for opportunity to have better sustainable use of space. Especially given discs shifts this are happening in communities of multieye generational living. At the same time as we address the reaity you are talking about. You have know purwhich is ingpu out there i dont think there is nothing to the stroll lining conversations. There is there are way in which folks want to prevent neighbors from having code compliant project buzz they are in the way of vows or whatever. I want to claesz that as well. Supervisor precinct. Just wanted to say a few more words about the look back which have come up a few times i guess we should explain to the public look back we are talking about how long whether a period of time you have to own the property before you can access the up zone to deter real estate peck laters from buying property to demolish it and increase the number of units there. So but i want to emphasize one thing as the caution and i just am trying to have a void wasting a lot of time down the road on this. It is in the just a members game game. I dont think it is mayor wants zero. Supervisors want 5. I think to the point supervisor peskin made i do think there is a policy question this we as a board and the mayor have to grapple with. Is the goal to deter real estate speculators from buying, dell demolishing and building higher density or not. I think there are different views on that. The concern you have a number in the amount of time that is low it does not deter that speculation. We can spend time figure out in the finance like what the football horizon is and talk to professionals and planning and figure out, okay here is the sweet spot. That was the analysis they are in the about the building if x number of years they wait and a year notice period after. We did that. That is time consuming we can do that. But i guess what i want to highlight is im not sure we are in the same place. With the board and deregulation crowd when it come to housing the market. I think that i think that those folks continuing is fine. To create a market incentive a rolls royce peck later buys property of the as language as they build moreen if they are market rate x. I want to name that because while im help to have the conversations i feel strongly we need to be deterring the real estate speculation which could threaten to buy up neighborhoods demolish neighborhoods in the name of building market rate housing and i think whatever that number is and im not stuck on 5. If well is Something Else this makes sense that will be what guides me in terms of arriving at this aim of time to make sure it does have an antispeck welltive function. I think we all dont agree or define things the same. I upon dont think that we had define whatted is speculation. Is it any profit of a developer . What degree is it 25 or 30 . I think that part of we have not done the analysis if it is 3 unit or forethe Building Code requires you put in an elevator. There is prosecute forma this would trig are that analysis you know from my point whether this is speck welltive or part of like the capitolism that you know is part of our for you know whatever. It is how we currently have configured the Housing Stock. I think that you know we have not i dont know whether it is a year or no years or 5 years. Im not comfortable saying it is all speculation or not because we have not didnt numbers we have not gotten there and we need more guidance in this way. I dont know if supervisor mandelmanments to you know engage. Planning or folks and doing number crunching. I add that we dont have the 4u know large buildings irrelevant. We have never said this is an unacceptable rate of return for our somebodys investment and therefore we will not allow it. I mean we have put in Community Benefits we expect in terms of upon inclusionary. And this stuff i dont want to drudge you have the year. I wanted to pin out that if we will be coming up with definitions to say this is when we want or this is when we dont want it might be able to define in a better way. Because you know you know if the goal is to take all profit i dont believe that anything will happen. I money that is the way that we deal with housing in our country not just in San Francisco. And if we are going to say this is when we want or what we dont want we should define it better. Supervisor preston. I appreciate the comments and we should conversation we have be having and defining that speculation we are trying to prevent and from other forms of development they may profit may not be when we are trying to deter. I think we did try to tackle that and we had an interesting conversation with safai and mandelman on this topic. Supervisor safai was more open to the yes of investor buying demolishing and building was up front. What we ended up with with the amendments focussed on trying to prioritize supporting homeowners and developing their property and creating density and you spoke about the creation of that wealth and supporting existing property ordinance. That is and there is language in subsection 0 at the time it is in the Public Interest to help the home ordinance like the adus that was i think this is the pregnant we were on. And we were trying to disincentivize the buy it knock it down build speculator. And if there are shades of gray we should address them but i think it would be a shift from where we landed before if we are now going to embrace the purchase for purpose of demolition as a policy goal of the ordinance. It is good we are talking about it i think that gets to the heart of it and i appreciate the diawilling on this. I think it will continue i really i wanted to highlight it because i dont think it is like split the difference thing. We need to figure out when we are trying to prevent. And made surety look back period complies with that. Supervisor mandelman you talked about demolitions as your legislation. Well, i mean there is built in a number of the standards antidemolition, protections and tenant protections that are developed in sacramento as and local low as we am through how we minimize the risk displace am that is in. The i mean to be honest there is the notion that we if we are going to add housing this is i think publicly a point of difference on the board that if we are going to be adding housing in our existing built you have residential neighborhoods there over time will be demolition and building. Well is demolition in my district now and i assume in others as well. And i think we could do a better job of shaping the new housing we are get and making sure it is more likely to serve the needs of people who are not the richest people. But i think this legislation anticipates development not demolition includes protections against the worse aspects of demolition there will be sum as the city changes over time. I think that i dont know there are cases where a speck later is obvious that means greedy. But there are developers we will not think of extraordinary greed but a capitol not vagz. Think if we cut developers out of the project of adding density in San Francisco it is going to be hard. But i dont know if we have to decide that or you all have to today. We should take Public Comment. What i ask for to you do is to make the amendments to get us back up to circumstantial litted this get the legislation where we were for the look back you continue it or split the file or duplicate the file so we have a piece that is the rh1 to 2 alone and then a piece that is Everything Else. And we can get with you chair melgar whether we want to try to do stream lining for rh1 to 2. And we can also have the conversations about the right look back that would allow projects to go forward get us a together if in the a voteo and what to do about potential carve outs which would take times. I ask after this that sept amendments, making them as proposed and duplicate the files and continue it until your next meeting. To be clear the amendments you proposed are the clean up to the rent control. And the supervisor mar reportingly. Sdwroo and split the rh1 to 2 with the rest so moved take Public Comment. Thank you anyone who will like to speak approach the podium. Good afternoon. I have questions about all of this. What is viability of density increase on the typical San Francisco lot . Issues with d b information sheet eg02 and exposure and aggress shows generally. 2, what about speculation with up zoning. Examples the specific low the issue raised in cashing out in the [inaudible] handing out and in october of 21 of 21 Department Analysis on sb9. I think the same issue for everything. 6 pluses on corners. That was what form are commissioner fung thought the best way to go about this. Dont deal with the 4 flexes, 6 flex plexos appropriate corners works best. Planning commission has never used the legislative authority granted to them boy the board in 2008 under section 317 demo. May 4 of 2020 you tabled board file 200451. Bring that back. You are talking about more time i will talk the dem scompligz dr. Hundreds of project in noe valley and the around the city. Few had drs de facto demolition. That needs to be locked at. I talked for 8 years about this. The commission as the this tort do at this time board fwaf it to them. Electric at that or talk to the board or bring back the board file to 00451 that would solve. Problems. Thank you very much will good luck. Again. Are there others members when would like to speak on this item. We will move to the public call in line we have 8 listeners with five in the queue. If you would like to speak you need to press star 3 and it will raise your hand on our side. We can call you you. Lets take the first caller. Coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. Speaking on my own behalf. Joined the lawsuit against sb9. Proposing legislation to amplify it. Thank you. Thank you. Lets take the next caller. Good afternoon jake price on blafl Housing Action coalition we are excited see it continue to address zoning in the city and like to say the effective zoning reform take into account economic feasibility. Provide approvals incorporate sufficient density. And address other unnecessary regulation that could impact effectiveness. I love to hear from the entireses with the goal and if it is to housing how much housing do you want to to create. Thank you. Great. David again and if i can get i 30 second warning i dont weigh in on lands use and dont want to start i was listen to this conversation. Wants to comment on one aspect this mandelman discusses i believe on page 21 of legislation in section 1396. 6. Online 21. The notion of a subviolator for a period of 3 years and triggers things and waivers and fees and waiver fees prioritizing, et cetera. Im just interested in understanding if that affidavit only declaires their intent and if the circumstances change for that person due to illness or a medical condition. Need for rehappen the death of that person or relative other economic ts what affect that has relative to this can have the if just saying i intend to but if circumstances change. If it has no affect after the approvals im trying to understand that whether 3 or 5 years or any period of time. Thank you. What the point of the affidavit was. Im not weigh nothing on the rest. Thank you for listening. Why thank you. Take the next caller, please. Good afternoon supervisors im robin im a volunteer and tracking housing. Worried for the Housing Element Affordable Housing [inaudible] state makes available to ecstasy with the certified element [inaudible] the board is not care what we think about the state. On july 21st after the mayor vetoed the [inaudible]. California d. Housing and Communities Development put out a press release applauding the veto they will obey state housing law. I never seen put out an announce am like that. This was a warning about the Housing Element. They will review element in a few months and said that legislation in this room was not a front to state law. Changes to the building discussed today were not made [inaudible] feasible the report concluded that under state of San Francisco law. Will not know [inaudible] under optimistic assumptions. There are also indications of potential violations of state laws including housing ash counsel ablts and housing crisis act. I urge to you redirect energy to show compliance with the state laws. Thank you. Next caller, please. Hi this is adam the 6 residents in san frr fran for years and one thing consistent is how many of my friends people i know have been pushed out or left the city due to lack of housing. I think with what the previous caller mentioned the hc d review the electric of Housing Element, San Francisco needs to get serious about building more housing. I think this is the key thing we have to ask what is each peeves legislation going to dom encourage building of housing . Or is it gog say we made an attempt but nobody will do this. It is kinds of like saying hey. You know you can sell a car but only cell 10 thousand dollars under the cost building it. You know in reasonable person will do that without gentleman subsidies. Because people need to make a living, live nothing San Francisco is expensive we know this. You know we have to look at practicalities. Supervisor preston this year said that speculators were not interested in Single Family homes when he exempted them from the vacancy tax. I disagree with that but they are river. They have money if they cant by an empty Single Family home, they will buy a multifamily home that has people. Because they have the money and time. Really we need to stop with the nitty grit and he tiengy kick around the edges. Lets look at the 73 as a whole how do we get more home and affordable homeless in the city for people of otherwise. Thank you. Last caller, police. Good afternoon, this is tray north Beach Committee we in north beach experienced displacement and ls evictions i in 21 other nature it is on my street gone through that. And yes the building has sold and charging rents that are 6 to 8 times the amount that most of us had been pay nothing 2014. Speculation is a real issue. We also are able to able to identify several in north beach. I would hope that we do look at more closely what is speculation. And there does need to be a look back there has to be. For us to builted what is needed for the people the existing tenant in this city. Existing home ordinance i would hate for anything to harm so many people i know in the bay view who are seniors and home ordinance. That they are protected. Deterg speculation has to be a big part of this. Thank you and keep up the great discussions i appreciate that. Thank you. We have one more call theyre popped up. Lets take this last caller. I think the board should rethink the goals. You want top prevent making a house with adu if you prevent them from building 3 and 4 units when than i build the husband their mack is a house with an adu when planning asked why did you not mixture myself with 4 units the developer can say this is the max density buzz you called mow a speck later. Or is the goal to prevenn sham units or allow more units. Make it more affordable or prevent the developer from making a profit . In my opinion you should relax [inaudible] and stream line the Planning Press so more housing built with a goal of increasing Housing Production with our housing develop. So that the rent will go down in San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you and it looks like that was the last caller in the queue. Madam chair yoochlt thank you. With this Public Comment is closed. Okay. So would you like me to split the files first, supervisor machine man . And then amend ownership mendz and split it . I think supervisor preston. I can run through my requests of the committee and make it easy for people that would be helpful. Supervisor preston. Thank you. I just wanted to pose the question as we get in the amendments here and get a sense from clothes. Im concerned with tripping out i understand the position of Mayors Office 5 years nonstarter and we had i think start of a discussion around what other purposes the look back. Uncomfortable the amendments would stip outlook back provision. You are saying . Back to the file. If you will remember. This is the stuff you want. The first time we split the file before you introduced yours a few weeks we are back to that file. As i remember. We are going back to that dpiel now addon what you know we think will we are adding things back on. I guess what i want to suggest is or get the clothes take on whether we should be adding in what is what was section 2p on page 6 at the time. That says would not be in what is proposed. That says. This board recognizes Additional Development opportunity may lead to speck welltive real estate victims that may seek to maximize profits displacing current residents demoing existing Housing Stock, building new unit and quickly selling to to discourage that demolition of existing units and disaccomplice am. Residents this ordinance makes the benefit of the density exception to persons when owned their propertieses for 5 years prior of date to application to obtain the exception including the ownership duration. While we may want to discuss00 autonumber of year its does not make sense we would not for what come out of committee today does not include that sentiment as well as a look back period and understands everunderstanding that period of the number of years is subject of discussion. Will im hope for other years i dont see why im not sense thering is disagreement that sentiment should still be why not include it. Either with the 5 years or a Different Number but and have what come oust Committee Still have similar language. It is committee can do what they want this is a simple maam. Im not proposing it today i then and there 5 is a nonstarter if we put the 5 in but then we are just going down the path we have been down results in a mayoral detail we cannot over ride. I didnt feel had needed that provision why im not the strongest person to argue for including the maam if the committee wanted to include it and think about a number that is different from 5 then that is the will of the committee. The things i know i will state. Would first be to add in the clean up language units to the density exception by City Attorney and add in the at the full board before we voted on page 8 line one after shall enter in an agreement with the city rbi certing the language subjects new units to the subing think jection. The second would be to add the reporting reporter s for Density Program by supervisor mar everand adopted on page 9 line one adding a subjection h annium reporting. Housing affordable and Racial Equity net final version that was adopted bite board and circumstantialerates to you this morning i ask you make those 2 ink chas the committee can make others if wants to and i have when you decided what amendments you want to make then i ask you to duplicate it and i can describe that the appropriate moment. I will move those amendments supervisor mandelman let me explain that i am spent a lot of time and energy on supervisor mandelmans legislation. I was um i was okay to bring it back and had conversations with supervisor machine man as well as folks in the community. To try to have a path forward i want to come out with policy that makes tense for my district and the city. What i dont want to do is to invite multiple piece of legislation and i dont want to have this be an opportunity for one being the Mayors Office at this point. I really want to enengage in a fleesz is productive. Where i think we will ends up better off with a better use of space and more sustainable housing. That we currently have. There is during our discussions you know before the break, well are a lot of empty house miss my district where folks passed away and the heirs dont know hato do their tax base is so low there is no incentive it do anything. And the houses were built in i different era. They are not Energy Efficient they have tiny kitchens set off from the house. Folks dont want to live this way. I do see i you useful path forour Housing Stock in a way that is different i dont want displace am. I think we can get this right. I hear supervisor preston by adding that amendment it is like a declaration. Politically since the mayor has said that this is what she does not like. We can add that language that we can all agree on in terms of not wanting to inviolet speculation all that i dont im not comfortable with adding the same language we added before. It was specific low named out in her and i dont want to go through this exercise and all this work to ends up with another veto or even worse not having the support of colleagues. Supervisor preston. Is the guiding prince spell we dont want to make an amendment that the mayor said she wants to veto but will not say has not said look back is a veto the mayors representative said a 5 year look back is a veto. I would propose we adopt the language i read that paragraph p change 5 years to 4 we have no idea and mayor begin us no guidance what the time line and we have on going conversations what the appropriate look back it. What i have not heard is as a policy matter the board or the mayor is automatically opposed to having this concept in the legislation. I think we should have it and discuss and negotiate. That will be my proposal as we take that subsection i read change the 5 year to 4 since we know 5 is not acceptable i think sends a message we are open to discuss but continues to have language in the ordinance supervisor peskin. I think supervisor preston was going the way i thought would be productive to go and base that on the words of the mayors liaison to the board who could have said this is the sticks point we rebejected he did not say that. I probed supervisor mandelman the beginning about his conversations with the ceo and represent and it is i did not hear that. I think to the extend real thought it was good policy and the extent this this body is clear showing that we want to find the right policy and political spot, that this sufficient i mean. I think we are clear, which is you guys said less than 54 is less and we are putting this there as a number that can be negotiated. I think that if we put all 3 of these and not sending anything to the full board today that we can continue to have that conversation. For the reasons we had it originally and again based on data about what is the most effective number to achieve when we want to achieve. Supervisor mandelman. I think that is reason. 4 seems cute but im happy to use that as the basis for the conversations i will have with the Mayors Office in the next couple of weeks. This is what i propose. I will not be supporting that amendment. I said why. So perhaps we can i will move the 2 amendments you read in the record. Then split the file and allow supervisor preston to make that amendment, does that sound reasonable . Chair melgar. Im sorry. Deputy City Attorney, i wanted note that the City Attorneys office appropriated the amendments that supervisor mandelman asked his committee to move. We have not appropriated the withins that preston described we might be able to the language is from the prior legislation. What i heard you read was the finding but not the operative language that firecall exists in other part of the legislation that would impose the look back. And so i want to make sure if and when you make that motion that we know what you would like to move and like to confirm we can approve. Emim sorry. That already was approved as to form. When supervisor preston spruced it a month ago. Is it not the same thing . Should be the same policy but put in an earlier version of the legislation i want to know what we thought how tell fit in and can approve it. I dont think tell be a problem we have not had a chance to look at it we can sign off on it. Supervisor preston you lookllow the legislation and can identify the provisionil do the same i will put up the one vetod and identify it so we know what the motion will be exactly. Happy to and i being just to i think it is page 7 lines 2125 and the provision i read. Im sure we can firm that up. Why dont we take a vote madam clerk on the amendmented read by supervisor mandelman. On that motion to the original file supervisor peskin. Aye supervisor preston j. Aye supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes. Okay that passes. Supervisor mandelman. Thank you. Madam chair the next thing while the City Attorney and supervisor preston work on that amendment they would ask is split file in 2 resulting in one ordinance include the zoning map to rezone rh within to 2 districts and up zone all rh wroshgs d to 2 d districts and another file leave rh1 how it is now and add the density exception program to go up to 4 units or successes on corn or. Make is so. The following requested to be duplicated. And you will have 2 versions one with a density exception and the other as stated on the record. All right. Yes. So okay. Thank you. We dont need to vote on that. Lets do this. Since we have a couple other things on the agenda. Perhaps we can move on to the next item and give madam deputy City Attorney some time . I have in contact with the drafting attorney understands the intent and can make it help take the look back line in the finding and the operative provision from the legislation using 4 years instead of 5. Exactly. We are good to go . Okay. We are supervisor preston. Go ahead. So, after that duplication we did you did you ma damp chair affected there are then amendments to striking to get rid of the stuff in the 2 fights. I skw we amend in file or you all amend this file strike out zoning map changes to result with a file that leaves rh1 and creates the Density Bonus Program and after you have done that in the duplicated file amend that to strike out related the density for 4 and sick leaving a zoning map change to rh2 and 2d. I see deputy City Attorney nodding shes got temperature we prepared the amendment. Thank you. Thanks issue everybody. And so. I make that motion. Okay. So thats to the original . As well . Again or the duplicate file. Amended i believe one amendment suspect to the original and the other to the duplicate okay. On the motion as stated for the duplicate supervisor peskin. Aye supervisor preston aye supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes. Thank you. Supervisor preston. I wanted move the amendments as described and to voteos look back reducing from 5 to 4 years. And thats to the clarity that is to the file one foil that has the zoning forplex and 6 plex program. Joy believe the original that still has this in it. Thank you. Thank you. On that motion we are taking the amendment as stated by supervisor preston to the original file. Supervisor peskin. Aye entires preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. No. You have 2 ayes and one no with melgar in decent. Thank you. Thank you. We will have conversations and come become and visit. Great. We have to do something here. I think that we need to continue this to a date certain that way we dont have to renotice it. I will make a motion that we continue this for a month. Yea. October 17th. I think depending how the conversation about carving out guess. This we need a month. That mean. If this is a matter of figuring out what the right look back is, we dont need a month. What i would ask is continue it to a date closer than that. And we may ask you to continue it to continue the this point. We are missing a couple of dates between now and then. I would push become a bit to continue it to october 10th. Yes. There you go. No audio. The third or 17th. No audio. I would rather have it on the third if we are dem in a conversation about a carve out. Go ahead and no we cant then we have to renotice it this is a lot of w for madam clerk. Do it on the third if you need more time on the third we can continue it to another date certain. Thank you. Through the chair, i was in discussion with deputy City Attorney pierson looks like we have missed a vote for the original. So i think it would be good to clarify. I remember this is condition fusing i know an maam was taken to version before you. That version was duplicated. I heard a vote taken on the amendments to the duplicate but i did not hear amendments to the original. And there were remember each version has to be amended one to remove the rezoning and one to remove the features. Just out of caution and i see others nod thanksgiving they also did not hear that motorbike good to rewinds a bit to ensure that vote is taken. So. Just to im sorry reiterate it is confusing you want us to add the no, maams on the rent control. No that was done. And the item was duplicated. We had the 2 versions and supervisor mandelman described 2 amendments one the original and one not duplicate. The amendment to the to will original remove anything that would have changed the zoning. And the amendments to duplicate remove Everything Else. I dont think this committee took votes on both of those things. I see. We should. I recommend. Of another dubicate to the original again . No. There are file 212866 amendd and duplicated now 866 and the duplicate. Motions as i understands them to amend 866 to remove any of changes to the zoning. To rh2 that is one motion. There is a motion to the dupe areicate that is not yet numbered to dot inverse leave the zoning and remove Everything Else and after those motions are voted on we can return to priors prestons motion to the original. Okay. Take both for original and the dupe 8 or separate low. At the same time. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Ure have 3 aye avenue and on the motion by supervisor precinct addition to the paragraph on record supervisor peskin. Aye supervisor preston. Why aye. Priors melgar. No. You have 2 aye avenue and one no with melgar in decent. Thank you. Thank you. Im sorry the motion to continue. Motion to condition to october third. And at the original and duplicate as amended. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Why aye. You have 3 ayes. That motion passes. Thank you. Bye, thank you. Okay. Where are we, we are at item 6. 6, 7 and 8 together. Why lets call that. Why item 6 manying general plan the Transit Center plan to pasillity development of transbay block 4 by revising height limits and bicycle policy and appropriate finings. 7, an ordinance amending zoning map of the planning Code Development of the trans bay block 4 redevelopment project. Located on the south side of howard between beal and main street increasing height limits and appropriate findings. Item 8 is resolution arc proofing the disposition of lands in ground lease of air space rights by Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of San Francisco to footwork 4 Transbay Partners llc for a purchase of 6 million for the property locateded at 200 main street and making promote findings. Members who would like to speak on these items call 4156550001 then access code 2495 796 7354 press star 3 to enter the queue. Thank you very much. Colleagues my office received communication from elizabeth at ocii at 1. Upon 37 requesting a continuance of a week for this item because of some technical issues regarding the 90 day rule. I guess we have someone here to explain this. Why dont. Welcome. Thank you. On behalf of planning i believe that continuance is you in to 2 weeks. To october 3. Just after consultation with folks involved. Apparently there is an issue that they arementing to work through with the developer. And at the same time the general plan amendment before you has a 90 day period in which you node to review. We want to make sure that 90 day does not come up by the time it is taken to kinds of deal with the other issues. And so we want to working with the ocii staff and City Attorney and counsel to come up with a strategy how to deal with the 9 day limit. Therefore we planning and staff are recommending the 2 weeks we come become to you with some way to address this. Why okay. Okay. Supervisor peskin. When the easiest procedural thing to do is to with draw items 6 and then 90 day clock will stop and reintroduce it . Deputy City Attorney that is certainly one of the options we are looking at but want to be careful to make sure that action will not preclude them reintroducing on a time frip. That might be the option we bring you but want to electric careful low at it. Why okay. Since it is noticed we have to take Public Comment. Yes, madam chair. No is this weird you think when an agency goes to the rules committee they are ready for primetime. As it is funky when i mean what didnt you know on thursday that you discovered on friday . It should not be i mean wasting the committees time. Get it together. Okay. Thank you. Go to public ment on this item y. Thank you are there members had would like to peek on items 68. We will move to the public call in line. And it looks like we have zero callers in the queue. Okay. Public comment is closed. Make a motion we continue these 3 items to the meeting on october third. Madam chair. Hold on priors supervisor peskin who is here from ocii or the supervisor whos name is on this to say, i mean i want waste my time once and twice. So how about continuing to the call of the chair and then when she you are ready to go you can actually put it on the calendar . How is this for a novel idea there was a court request to move to october 24th they have byebye noticed the Clerks Office requests a date certain. It is a pretty hefty noticing fee. Also, when we wasted machiney putting this on the calendar approximate it a date certain it does in the have to be renoticed. We have elizabeth on the line here to erickson cyst from ocii and also justice for the record the 90 day Response Time has been cathin the that october 24th date. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. Did you have anything to add . No , i dont have anything to add employmented note we apologize for this delay. We received word from the developer that there are concerns regarding Financing Program this we think we can w out. We need an opportunity to do that so we hope to be back shortly again, apologize notoriety delay. Thank you very much. Madam clerk make a notion that we continue this to october third. Item sick8 on the motion to continue to october 24th. The date requested or october third . To this committee. Yes. No audio. Im sorry. Yes. Why okay. Wait a minute. The motion to continue for 2 week sns i think this motion has i understood it the request for 2 week continuance is this right correct we were missing a meeting the earliest is october third, right that is 2 weeks yes. Okay. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes that motion passes. Thank you. Police call item 9. Item 9 is hearing to discuss San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency report to develop a plan to promost Pedestrian Access for boarding public tranceit e eliminating ps and making necessary prushth improve ams. And requesting mta to report. Members when would like to speak you need to call 4156550001 then access code 2495 796 7354 press star 3 to enter the queue. Supervisor preston. Thank you. Chair megovern and as eager as i am to get to this we arranged with the right folks at mta to have this hearing on october 17th would love to be continued until that date. Okay. Is this a motion. It it is. Thank you. We have to take Public Comment it is noticed that way go ahead and do that. Are i there members that would like to peek in the chambers we will move to the line. We have 4 listeners with 2 in the queue. Lets take the first caller, please. Great. Daved pill pel. Witting all afternoon and another continuance that is just what is happening today. The supposed mta response to the board resolution is in the on letterhead. Has no author or date. So it is hard to get the context if they could resends it. With somebodys name, date and may be mta all right letter head not khrer how many are in the served they are on routes not in service. In the clear how this effort related to other transit planning work. Im sure they will say they are busy doing transit planning not sure they are up to but this is clear something that will take several years according to memo. And finally the entire document titled the bus stop guidelines san franking municipal riway are not on the mta website i request this mta post this document on the website or in the alternative mail a copy to me and this therefore is a public records ask to the mta if they dont post on the website i will have further comment when is this is conditioned im sure you will. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Adam in d6. I dont understands why there needs to be hearingos this it should be common sense. Bus stipulates should be painted red zones throughout the city or not allowed park in front of bus stipulates you dont need condition sulants or wait for report and hearings. You have been someone needs to say, yea. You know. Pedestrian access to bus system good. No private vehicles p in the bus stops this is in the Rocket Science should be the easy possible thing for this committee the board of supervisors to and mta to move forward. The fact that this is bogged down in process is an indication of you know example hahn is wrong with San Francisco leadership. I would ask all members of the board why this is something that just cant be done. You know you know it the right thing to do. Everyone who takes transit know its other steles do it. There is in good reason to allow private vehicles to obstruct public transit. Thank you j. Thank you very much. And it looks like that was the left caller in the queue. Thank you. With this Public Comment is closed. Supervisor preston med a motion to continue this to october 17th. On that motion im sorry. Okay. Of thank you. On that motion supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes. Motion passes. Do we have more business . That completeings the business. We are now adjourned. Thank you. Clear clear in the bay area as a whole, thinking about environmental sustainability. We have been a leader in the country across industries in terms of what you can do and we have a learn approach. That is what allows us to be successful. Whats wonderful is you have so many people who come here and they are what i call policy innovators and whether its banning plastic bags, recycling, composting, all the Different Things that we can do to improve the environment. We really champion. We are at recycle central, a large recycle fail on San Francisco pier 96. Every day the neighborhood trucks that pick up recycling from the blue bins bring 50 o tons of bottles, cans and paper here to this facility and unload it. And inside recology, San Franciscos recycling company, they sort that into aluminum cans, glass cans, and different type of plastic. San francisco is making efforts to send Less Materials to the landfill and give more materials for recycling. Other cities are observing this and are envious of San Franciscos robust recycling program. It is good for the environment. But there is a lot of low Quality Plastics and junk plastics and candy wrappers and is difficult to recycle that. It is low quality material. In most cities that goes to landfill. Looking at the plastics industry, the oil industry is the main producer of blastics. And as we have been trying to phase out fossil fuels and the transfer stream, this is the fossil fuels and that plastic isnt recycled and goes into the waste stream and the landfill and unfortunately in the ocean. With the stairry step there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. We can recycle again and again and again. But plastic, maybe you can recycle it once, maybe. And that, even that process it downgrades into a lower quality material. It is cheaper for the oil industry to create new plastics and so they have been producing more and more plastics so with our ab793, we have a bill that really has a goal of getting our beverage bottles to be made of more Recycled Content so by the time 2030 rolls around t recycle content in a coke bottle, pepsi bottle, water bottle, will be up to 50 which is higher thatten the percentage in the European Union and the highest percentage in the world. And that way you can actually feel confident that what youre drinking will actually become recycled. Now, our recommendation is dont use to plastic bottle to begin w but if you do, they are committing to 50 Recycled Content. The test thing we can do is vote with our consumer dollars when were shopping. If you can die something with no packaging and find loose fruits and vegetables, that is the best. Find in packaging and glass, metal and pap rer all easily recycled. We dont want plastic. We want less plastic. Awe what you we do locally is we have the program to think disposable and work one on one to provide Technical Assistance to swap out the disposable food service to reusables and we have funding available to support businesses to do that so that is a way to get them off there. And i believe now is the time we will see a lot of the Solutions Come on the market and come on the scene. And is really Logistics Company and what we offer to restaurants is reasonable containers that they can order just like they would so we came from about a pain point that a lot of customers feel which wills a lot of waste with takeout and deliver, even transitioning from styrofoam to plastic, it is still wasteful. And to dream about reusing this one to be reimplemented and cost delivery and food takeout. We didnt have throwaway culture always. Most people used to get delivered to peoples homes and then the empty milk containers were put back out when fresh milk came. Customers are so excited that we have this available in our restaurant and came back and asked and were so excited about it and rolled it out as customers gain awareness understanding what it is and how it works and how they can integrate it into their life. And they have always done it and usually that is a way of being sustainable and longterm change to what makes good Financial Sense especially as there are shipping issues and material issues and we see that will potentially be a way that we can save money as well. And so i think making that case to other restaurateurs will really help people adopt this. One restaurant we converted 2,000 packages and the impact and impact they have in the community with one switch. And we have been really encouraged to see more and more restaurants cooperate this. We are big fans of what reecology does in terms of adopting new systems and understanding why the Current System is broken. When people come to the facility, they are shocked by how much waste they see and the volume of the operations and how Much Technology we have dedicated to sort correctly and we led 25 tours and for students to reach about 1100 students. And they wanted to make change and this is sorting in the waste stream they do every single day and they can take ownership of and make a difference with. An i feel very, very fortunate that i get to represent San Francisco in the legislature and allows me to push the envelope and it is because of the people the city attracts and is because of the eco system of policy thinking that goes on in San Francisco that we are constantly seeing San Francisco leading the way. Kids know theres a lot of Environmental Issues that they are facing. And that they will be impacted by the impact of climate change. They will have the opportunity to be in charge and make change and make the decisions in the future. We are reinventing the way the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. This is so many wonderful things happening in San Francisco. I feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place. [m all right, good morning, everyone. Welcome to our citizenship month celebration, my name is rich, im the acting director of the office of Civic Affairs and immigrant affairs and were excited to celebrate on this hot and beautiful day. Just for today, well be celebrating many of the great Resources Available to san franciscans to support citizenship services. Whether that includes immigration legal services, immigration fee assistance or esl and citizenship preparation classes so were delighted to be joined by special guest and Community Member to celebrate this day and im going to hand it over to our mc for the day, the ceo for self