[gavel] good afternoon everyone. This meeting will come to order to this a regular meeting for the landuse and transportation committee. Supervisor cohen chairman of the committee and to my right, the supervisor aaron hasz. Our clerk is ms. Alisa samara and i like to think sfgov tv for broad casting this meeting on our behalf. Mdm. Clerk any announcements . Yes. Please make sure to sounds off cell phones and electronic devices. Any actions provided today will [inaudible] unless otherwise stated thank you please call item number one item 1 the general plan amendment implanting the citys vision zero zero policy regarding Pedestrian Safety the of the leakto present on this item. Good afternoon. Are you ready for your presentation . Yes. Great you may begin mdm. Chair good afternoon department stuck it on here today to ask for your approval to update the general ledger for the citys vision zero policy. The Planning Commission initiated the changes on july 7 and recommended approval at hearing on october 20. In cracking this legislation would be looking closely with sfmta eight members of the public with the gin zero task force Pedestrian SafetyAdvisory Committee and all of San Francisco. Were proposing to make changes to the citys gen. Plan to reflect the vision zero. Vision zero adopted in 2014 and it its the citys policy to eliminate all traffic deaths by 2024. The city is working to achieve vision 02 the design streets Education Campaigns, targeted enforcement and changes to our city policy. Since this policy was adopted city departments adopted resolutions in support of vision zero and outline specific actions that they can take. In june of 2014 the Planning Commission passed a resolution in support of vision zero and outline specific actions the planning arvind could take to help meet the citys goal. One of these and limitation actions was updating the policies and objectives of the general plan. Currently the general plan does not reference vision zero nor does it reflect the citys recent efforts to address Pedestrian Safety. This is important because the department refused moment applications and makes consistent findings with the general plan. In addition other city agencies reference the general plan while proposing streetscape changes. The ordinance before you would amend the transportation element and the urban design element to reflect the citys vision zero policy. Changes incorporated into this amendment include a new objective specific to vision zero including working to achieve Street Safety for all users. And you objective specific to applying multidisciplinary approach to improving Pedestrian Safety including engineering measures targeted enforcement and Education Campaign and updated objective to design streets safe and convenient walking and updated objective related to Pedestrian Network and map key walking street and minor amendment to make sure the language in the general plan is consistent with vision zero. The department recommended approval and im here today so you can recommend approval or disapproval of the ordinance before you get that concludes my presentation and am happy to answer questions get a thank you gift i you pronounce your last name . Langlois. Thank you supervisor peskin has a question. Thank you mdm. Chair good i think well hear about this and Public Comment and obviously i think were of one mind both of two Street Safety and Pedestrian Safety and reflecting that in the general plan. Makes abundant sense. The questions that i was going to ask you i dont need to ask you because i asked active Community Members so ill just say a little bit about it and then ask you some questions. The changes to the general plan delete a lot of language that is geographically specific. It mentions sidewalks and no we valley what happened. Much broader language that i think correctly is the fitting of the general plan. Except for in one instance in policy 25. 5 on page 11 that specifically with regard to the development of streetscape and public realm lands references union square Fishermans Wharf and chinatown, which my i kind of caught in so far as their old that super bowl are still district iv honor of represented so the question that i have but have since asked and has been answered, is, whether or not Community Organizations that have a history of involvement on planning in or transportation were consulted . I realize that the initiation of the general plan happens and there is, in this case happened in july is a period of time as in this case, happen in october before the general plan amendment are adopted by the Planning Commission, but the question i had was whether organizations longestablished decades long histories like chinatown trip and aaa and other organizations particularly unlike union square and Fishermans Wharf which are more commercial in nature, chinatown obviously has a dense urban population and Pedestrian Safety is rightfully of utmost concern to those residents and organizations that have advocated for the get the answer that came back was that they were not specifically out reached two and i think that there is a perception and eight reality that in the planning process particularly at a high level, outside of specific projects where people get section 311 or 312 notice, that theres a lack of consultation. Unfortunately, for us given the way general plans amendment work, we are not in a position to add some good language because we either , as you stated, approved it or disapprove it but under the way our laws work the board of supervisors cannot amend it. I dont think any of this rises to the level of disapproval and i think that what you will hear from the community and representatives thereof in a minute is language really that emphasizes inclusion and participation. I have an offline conversation with erin starr, from your department before the beginning of this meeting and there may be actual language elsewhere within the general plan that has that admonition get so this language that communities proposing may be dealt with in broader higher level language within the document, but i think given the sensitivity of a number of ongoing issues, whether it is the reopening of the lord stockton or central subway project is completed, whether it is the puzzles to widen the sidewalks on chinatowns busiest commercial corridor along with stockton street, that we have a very clear emphasis and admonition in the general plan that we want to have active in meaningful consultation in participation in with the affected communities. So in its language in that affect that they suggested so. So what i would like to be will to do, given that we either have to give this a thumbs up were found thumbs down at the full board tomorrow because our 90 day jurisdiction runs before our next Board Meeting in so far as january 17 meeting is canceled, for Martin Luther king day, and by january 24 90 day jurisdiction will have run good so what i will after Public Comment, suggest is that we pursue in consultation with the community, the possibility or urge you to consider a trailing amendment that would honor their request for active Community Participation. And involvement. And i guess thats really not a question i asked the question and got the questions answered adjusting to them for the record. Yes. Yes can i say two things related to that be please this is accommodation of all the work weve done with work walked first in 2011 and at that time we were developing framework for where we see pedestrians walking today and in the future, where we want to include the public realm. At that time 20112012 we had a series of Public Meetings could we did walking towards the did focus groups we did more so the targeted work in specific neighborhoods. So i will say that this work is not just the ordinance. Its really building on a number of years of work weve been doing around looking at where we should improve the public realm and how we engage people in that process. I would say also just related to the 25. 5, i think it is a little bit implied justin the work we do at the Planning Department in terms of how we engage committee numbers and work with organizations in our streetscape work worked on the broadway streetscape Design Project with [inaudible] on that and thats an example of the project and partnership that i think this policy represents. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing those no other staff presentations at this time i think we should go into Public Comment. Are there any Public Comment cards you have mdm. Clerk no clean Public Comment is open at this time. Ladies and gentlemen step up to the podium if you like don to speak on item 1. Love 2 min. You hear soft on indicating love 30 seconds remaining in your 2 min. Allotment. Thank you mdm. Chair. Fill german Chinatown CommunityDevelopment KitChinatown Research and improvement project. The Chinese Chamber of commerce. We support vision zero. We have worked very closely with walk sf over the past several years. We are very strong advocates of the Pedestrian Safety. On the other hand, we are very concerned and very weary about the adoption of a policy where it is not provide the texans for neighborhoods to be actively engaged and to either support or reject the project. We have many examples where experiences with the sfmta eight where essentially they have tried to shove something down our throats. And that is why we raise this issue with supervisor peskin and we urge that you will somehow adopt some changes to the language that would ensure an active Community Participation in those projects that are geared towards achieving Pedestrian Safety. Thank you. Thank you mr. There any other members of the public that would like to speak at this time . Public comment is closed. [gavel] supervisor peskin anything else that . I dont get of it is in this item given we said it can be changed by the fact that we would like a trailing amendment i like to commend we send this to the full board with recommendation as a Committee Report and mr. Chen and folks from chinatown trip and ms. Langlois and are office will coordinate on a trailing piece of general plan language if indeed there is no overarching Public Participation admonition elsewhere in the general plan during that concludes my comments. Thank you for your comments and the motion passes without objection. [gavel] speaker please item 2 clinical medical service use speed thank you supervisor farrell is the author of this item. Weve got canister from his office to present and after canisters presentation will hear from erin starr from the Planning Department. Good afternoon mdm. Chair peskin. Currently the sacramento Street Commercial district permits medical services at all stores its about business and professional services can be provided to medical services at the ground floor with acu. This legislation amends the sacramento street ncd to require see you for new medical services on the ground floor. It also requires the cu for medical services as an accessory use on the ground floor and permits medical services by right above the ground floor. We been working with the sacrament of street merchants and residents to address growing a bird concerned that retail and active Service Users are being replaced by medical offices. The neighborhood has been sensitive to medical spas being permitted as retail or personal services but operate more like medical services. Looking forward to cmpc closing one make sure zoning controls in this mcd pounds of the businesses and service you get were already getting early for back from the neighborhood that are supportive of relaxing restaurant control every continue to work with them to pursue that further to make the mcd more active commercial corridor. This legislation is very neighborhood driven wheel to count on your support. Thank you. Thank you. Just the quick supervisor peskin has a few questions i just have one question. Number one, i totally defer to the District Supervisor relative to changes to the neighborhood commercial district ordinance, but the one thing i was curious about was we are returning it to the way it used to be and three years or so ago the same supervisor actually put this into a fact. So i was wondering, generally, in my experience this happens when neighborhood once changes to an mcd. So, what change in the sector mental mcd that they wanted this put in that three years later they wanted it taken out . I think three years ago the was a business neighborhood that supports coming in and so the one neighborhood one of those changes at that time and now they want it changed back. Theyre starting to feel like theres this too many medical offices and especially medical spas coming in and theyre just a little wary of that of those changes. The staff or board maybe will we leave this. But also references cmpc, and. Any thoughts from the district to office with regard to that . Wellwood cmpc leaving worried about a lot of medical offices also leaving and creating vacancies. So thats what we do want to now permit medical offices above the ground floor and not necessarily prevent them all which is what the current status is good medical offices are not permitted at all. Unless they going to replace professional services with acu. Thank you. Mr. Starr. Thank you. Erin starr legislative affairs for the planning to bomb. I think canister covered most of the ordinance alters that the Planning Commission heard this on november 17 of last year recommended approval of course if you have additional questions am available to answer. Thank you. Mr. Peskin any questions for mr. Starkly note . Okay, great. Lets go to the Public Comment anyone like to speak in Public Comment please come on up. You 2 min. Public comment is open. Public comment is closed. Thank you very much [gavel] is there a motion to move this to the full board with positive recommendation . Speed moved and seconded. Without objection that passes [gavel] speaker the to called items 38 together item 3, four, five are general plan amendment to support the potrero hope as a project and item 67 and eight a ordinances many in the general plan zoning map to facilitate the sunnydale hope sf Affordable HousingDevelopment Project and making appropriate findings. Thank you very much. Colleagues on the sponsor of this item i like to make a few remarks before bring up our presenters. This a big moment for district 10 and for our entire city. The revitalization of Public Housing has been a key priority of mine as well as mayor lee since taking office and over the last few years it started to garner more publicity and citywide supports. Especially, with the passage of prop a in 2015. Many people in the city have never been to hope sf site and, or somehow do not ventured into the southeastern neighborhood. This includes Potrero Hills and sunnydale sites which are the two items that are before us to get i know its hard for some of us who live and breathe in the southeast to believe that other parts other people dont know about us but it is true. The vast majority of the San Franciscos san franciscans never have been and likely dont even know that it exists yet nearly 10,000 san franciscans live in Public Housing which is actually a third of this population, our children and have an annual income of about 12,000 a year. If they dont knowif they do know about many people have stereotyped the neighborhood the people that live in the neighborhood could they believe this scenario property and crime and places that should be avoided at all costs. We know that is wrong. Thats wrong. These committees are made up of families and vibrant lifestyles and residents were trying to just like us to make contributions meaningful contributions, to society as well as remaining in San Francisco. But the difference them of the differences most of the city has forgotten about them. As a supervisor who represents four of the citys largest Public Housing sites which are in the hope sf program many of the smaller ones many of the smaller Public Housing sites ive seen for [inaudible] impacts that substandard housing have on residents lives there in the entire neighborhood. So when we break up and the concentration property and we are rebuilding your starting to see positive transformative impacts on peoples lives. So i have also understand the transformation investment the Public Housing can make in the lives of the residents and whats also important to note, not only is touching peoples lives but also having a Ripple Effect