tv BOS Land Use Committee SFGTV July 26, 2020 5:00am-9:01am PDT
processing tests. to a large extent that's a national and state issue because the large lab entities that are processing these specimens are getting further and further hand. we all need to work together to ensure that labs are turning tests around as quickly as possible so we can flatten the curve by dpettin getting tests e quickly. >> : thank you. what are the turn around time for test results in san fran francisco. >> : testing turn around time varies demanding on where people get tested and the capacity of where-the capacity of the lab of where those specimens are going. in some cases the specimens can
be turned around within 72 hours but we're seeing back ups especially with our provider labs and some of our own labs within the city. we are backing up seven days, ten days at this point. that's something we're seeing across the state and across the country. >> : thank you director. thank you madam mayor and dr. c olfax for your time. any follow-up questions or questions after this meeting can be directed to dem press at sf dot org. thank you for your time and that concludes today's press conference. concludes today's press >> good afternoon welcome to the
land use and transportation committee san francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 20th. i'm the chair of the committee supervisor aaron peskin joined by supervisor ahsha safai and dean preston and joined by colleague supervisor hillary ronen. do you have any announcements? >> due to the covid-19 emergency to protect board members, city employees and public, board of supervisors legislative chamber remain closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and sfgovtv.org
are streaming live. [indiscernible] >> supervisor peskin: , we lost you. are you there? erica? >> one moment, we're checking with her right now. >> i'll go ahead and finish her announcements. number scrolling across the screen for public comment call in is 415-655-0001. when your item of interest come up, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. i believe those were end of the comments for today.
thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. if ms. major is still present, please read the first item. [agenda item read]. i want to thank supervisor ronen for being here for the first three items. she has been doing dozens upon dozens of hours in the rules committee. the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you members. i appreciate that very kind scheduling. this legislation seeks to establish a new temporary use
permit that will make it ease for nonprofit agencies providing arts, cultural, philanthropic social services. provide to covid-19 public health pandemic, san francisco was reeling from affordability crises that was destabilizing our city business and nonprofit. the global economic crises we find ourself in has exacerbated our condition. anywhere you go in the city you see dozens of empty storefronts lining our most commercial corridors and these will only be expected to grow in number. we begin the challenging process of restoring our economy, the blight these vacant properties create will undermine the healthy and vitality of the neighborhoods. this legislation seeks to create an efficient solution by
establishing a new use permit, option that will allow nonprofit agencies providing arts and social services to operate in unused vacant storefront throughout the city for a period up to two years. this new temporary use permit would offer faster and lower cost way of activating vacant store front properties with uses that support the health and well willing of the surrounding community. this legislation will help provide access to spaces which operate on either short or midterm basis that can assist during periods of transition and minimize construction to critical programs and services. for property owners, this permit option not only offers an official way of activating storefronts it will help avoid costly fees associated with
light violation or registering as a vacant storefront as required under the city's vacant and abandon commercial storefront program. as we roll out this initiative, we will be partnering with the department of building inspection so that property owners can receive notices for vacant storefront are informed about this new temporary use permit as a ways to supporting local nonprofit agency. we will also be partnering with the office of economic workforce development to develop supports that will connect nonprofit agencies that are risk to displacement between facilities to property owners who are willing to bring them in their storefront. we consulted with planning department staff to find bays to broaden scope of this legislation to be more responsive to needs. as such, we proposed amendments that define covid-19 such as
food distribution, financial assistance and popup testing facilities. as uses that will be eligible for this new temporary use permit and would also be exempted from an application processing fee. that way service providers can use this new temporary use permit as a tool to quickly and easily set up critical social services in our vacant storefront to assist our most vulnerable residents. we believe that by creating streamline process for bringing nonprofit activities into vacant properties, this new low barrier temporary use will help mitigate the presence of neighborhood blight, promote activities and bolster recovery throughout the city. i wanted to give a special thank you to paul and my office who's been working hard on this since february as well as ben blineman who sits on our entertainment commission has been advocating
on many interventions to help small businesses throughout the city and came to us with this idea. i have distributed the amendments to you in advance that introduce the additional covid-19 relief and recovery use. i'm happy to answer any questions. i know planning staff here. >> supervisor peskin: do you have any questions for supervisor ronen? >> i don't. i have a comment. is that okay mr. chair? >> supervisor peskin: yes, sir. >> i appreciate all the hard work, supervisor ronen has done on this. we went through a very similar process when i came into office. we did the planning process.
we took a really strong look at a lot of the zoning and things that needed to be changed. one of the things that in our planning table that was not allowed, it was just not permitted at all. that was actually one of the first things we changed to allow for art uses to be used in commercial spaces. it's been like that for a long time. it was a barrier for lot of organizations and nonprofits. we did put some additional controls in. we've already checked with planning that this compliments what we've done. i want to appreciate what you done and thank you for your work and i want to highlight arts activities. it's something that was not unique to our district. i know that supervisor chang when she was in office had to do the same thing for her corridor.
my question to planning is, is the mission corridor mission 24th street area, is this temporary use something that will be continued? do they have the same issues that we had outer mission where art uses was not committed? is this temporary fix or is this something that's made more >> supervisor peskin: ms. flores >> actually, i'm from the planning department. before i answer supervisor safai's question, i want to give the commission report if that's all right. the planning commission had this item june 25th and vote to approve it with the modifications that i believe supervisor ronen has proposed to you all today.
>> supervisor peskin: two modifications right? >> correct. the finding covid-1 covid-19 --y also additionally propose to extend the initial approval period from one year to two years. to also extend the optional extension at the discretion of the planning director for additional two years. the total permit time should not exceed four years. to supervisor safai's question, yes, this has been an issue. the planning code organization from several years back, unfortunately made art activity uses unpermitted in neighborhood commercial district. this legislation will not be a permanent fix for the disillusion of art activity.
>> supervisor safai: i brought it up to highlight it in case it's something they wanted to do. thank you. audrey, my apologies. i'm working off the script that i have. my apologies. i don't have questions. i want to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and also for something that was good policy pre-pandemic. i think with everything that is going to be driving increasing vacancies, it could not be more relevant. i think that the amendment in particular really well taken in terms of broadening out who can use this as well as making sure that when this is utilized we're not up against a tight time line.
i want to thank you and also move the amendment. >> supervisor peskin: before we vote on that motion, supervisor ronen, if you have no additional comments. why don't we open up to public comment. ms. major, do we have anything in the queue? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment call the number 415-655-0001. press pound and pound again. press star 3 to line up to spe speak. any callers in the queue? >> yes, i have two callers in the queue.
next speaker please. >> am i unmuted? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. thanks. sorry. my name is sophia green, i'm a practicing visual artist in san francisco. the first studio i rented was on the third floor of the building in san francisco mission district. the building was not protected from conversion but at the time, there wasn't any pressure for office space in the building was still with art and studio. after being there in the studio for about four years, the artist on the third floor no got notico vacate. i got another studio in the building on the second floor. however, the experience and
disruption of being displaced caused me to start looking for studio face in th space buildind from conversion. it only matter of time the artist in the building will be kicked out. luckily, you was and to -- i was able to find a sublet that has a lively artist community and is protected from conversion to office space. i've been there for two years and currently, this building has a wait list to get in that's very long and the building is very high demand. it's pretty clear you can get higher rent from office space than from artist space. if a building is unprotected, many building owners optimize income by converting their buildings to office space with continued artists displacement being the result. i'm asking please support this ordinance amending the planning
code so we can stop displacement. >> we're on item number one. >> supervisor peskin: your comments have been noted for item number three. thank you very much. >> sorry. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public who like to speak to this item number one? which relates to philanthropic and arts activities as temporary uses for period not to exceed four years. >> for the callers in queue, this is item number one. if you did press star 3, please press star 3 again to get out of the queue. members of the public who wish to speak on item number one,
should press star 3 to line up to speak. if you're no line for item number one, please star 3 to get out of line. next speaker please. >> that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: public comment is closed. we have a -- [indiscernible] supervisor peskin and supervisor ronen's amendment. on that item, roll call please. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: ms. ronen that is your first.
>> you have to forward it. >> supervisor peskin: you're right. on the item as amended, a roll call please. [roll call >> if i may, i like to supervisor dean's amendment is substantive and requires continuance. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i was not aware of that. why aren't those amendments substantive? >> they don't require report back because they were discussed at the planning commission. they propose to amend the planning code to allow new uses since the covid-19 related uses.
>> supervisor peskin: okay. i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to our next meeting on 27th of july one week from today. on that motion, madam clerk a roll call please. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: let's move to a nonconforming parking lot. read the next item please. [agenda item read] members of the public who wish
to provide public comment call the number 415-655-0001. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: the legislation before you today addresses a situation specific to one landmark site. by allowing a parking lot that has been serving this neighborhood commercial corridor to continue to operate for a period. at 2351 mission street is extraordinary landmark property in the heart of the san francisco mission district. while the interior has been damaged, its stunning failure to addresfacaderemains in tact.
in addition to small storefronts and operating hotel in the two upper floors, the interior is gone. there's a much used parking lot that has been operating most recently as nonconforming temporary use. this legislation would extend temporary use period. right now in the midst of the pandemic, there's no viable redevelopment of this site. with all the neighborhood commercial corridors struggling, it would be a disaster to blight this area where unused vacant lot. we cannot afford to stress our struggling small businesses right now by removing existing parking. this legislation will allow additional time to allow viable development plan for the site that celebrates and preserves the historic significance of a magnificent landmark property. this legislation has been heard by the historic preservation commission and planning commission and received unanimous support from both.
i want to thank planning staff for their work. today, i ask for your support. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor. are there any questions or comments from committee members? i don't see any on the roster. if not, why don't we go to the planning department. i believe the planning commission approved this unanimously. i'm going to say to mr. sanchez, -- anybody from the department t of city planning who like to comment? now we got ms. flores. go ahead. >> thank you chair peskin. i want to reiterate that this item appeared into the historic preservation and planning commission last week. both commission did unanimously
recommend approval of than ordinance. i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. my apologies. why don't we open up to public comment. any members of the public who like to comment on this item number two? >> we're checking to see if there's anyone in the queue. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: seeing none, i would like to make a motion t forward this item to te full board with recommendation. is there any comment on that? public comment is closed. on that item, roll call please. [roll call]
we've been waiting for suggestions from supervisor ronen. the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you chair peskin and to all members of this committee for being so patient with us on this legislation. the covid crises has kind of thrown it into a difficult situation. we've been trying to figure out how to navigate it. you all have been so kind to hear this so many times. what this legislation is intended to do is to promote new housing and protect arts inside of these office -- instead of office uses. the eastern neighborhood planning was approved in 2009. among other zoning and policy changes, it converted industrial zone parcels to mixed use residential or what was then a new re defined urban mix use.
it was intended to encourage transitional development pattern between commercial and residential districts in order to buffer potentially incompatible land uses. one stated goal was to protect the wide variety of art and light manufacturing spaces in these areas while opening potential for new housing. however, u.m.u. permitted upper floors subject to controls. years later we now know that the u.m.u. designation is not working as envisioned. office does not serve the purpose of a buffer nor does it encourage residential development. that was not foreseen when the initial rezoning was done was that the real estate market would make it impossible for other users to compete with high rent offices. we've seen studios and workshops
displaced. new development opting for office over other potential uses including housing. my legislation prohibits future office uses on upper floors except in landmark buildings which have limited other options. allows for certain public office uses on the ground floor under conditional use authorization. i'm presenting one amendment today which has been circulated in advance to your offices. will not require this item to be continued. it is essentially limits the new prohibition on office uses with u.m.u. rather than to the entire eastern neighborhood. i want to acknowledge the planning who prepared staff report on this legislation and as part of that, thoughtful, racial and social equity. i wanted to thank planning who
also prepared a thoughtful, racial and social equity analysis to limit the geography to the mission. by removing the potential for office in the mission, the city will be promoting the housing development that we need as well as retaining and protecting arts activities and light and industrial uses. i do think that it is time for us to reexamine the controls we put in place more than a decade ago to see if this still make sense for our current needs. we are in a shifting world and how we work and live and travel will affect land use decisions. for now these amendments are needed to ensure we don't lose ground. i ask for your support. i wanted to thank amy beinart for not only representing me but her continued work. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor peskin: are there questions or comments for the maker of this ordinance?
supervisors, any comments or questions. >> supervisor safai: i have one question. i think it was clarified. i can ask now or wait until after public comment. >> supervisor peskin: why don't you ask it so the public can comment on it. >> supervisor safai: we received a number of emails and people calling about one project in particular, 2300 harrison. it sounds like from what i got from your staff this morning, this project appeal will be finished before the legislation goes into effect. can you talk about that for a second to clarify for the record? >> supervisor ronen: sure. >> supervisor safai: as i understand it, they were going through the entitlement process. you started this back before
covid, continued through the process. now their closer to being done with their appeal. sound like appeal will be done so this legislation might not impact just this one project. >> supervisor ronen: this is something that i've been struggling a little bit with throughout the process and part of the reason for many continuances. but only part. that appeal is set to go forward prior to covid, prior to this legislation being even heard at land use. as all of the appeals were continued at the board, it turned out this legislation went forward. i've been struggling with the word fairness. the project sponsor has -- many members of the planning commission have said it's not fair to move this item forward
when it wasn't -- if covid haven't hit. it wouldn't have impacted the legislation. i want to say that there's very little that's fair in the world of development. it's also not fair that the number of low and middle income latino residents to the tune of 10,000 have been displaced from this neighborhood over the past 10 years, become much more desirable and tech offices have moved in and pushed people out. there are many things that are unfair in the world. i actually would say that -- i take issue with that word being used in this context. however, as it turns out, we are now hearing items appeals at the board again. right now we have a tentative date for an appeal on the 2300
harrison site for august 18th. if that takes hold, i have no intention to seek to delay it. the missed item -- this legislation is passed by the board probably would not be in effect that time. we would hear the appeal. none of this was designed in order to deal any particular one project. 2300 project did bring this to our attention that the density bonus can be used in a way to increase the amount of office space to a developer which no way meets the intention of the density bonus law which is to increase amount of housing. however, which then led to why we're allowing office use in the
first place which led to the legislation. there is a relationship between them. again, we're not trying to play games. we're not trying to impact this project particularly. i hold firm that the policy objective of limiting office in u.m.u. zoning is the right policy move. how it impacts any one project is up to state and whatever happens because of covid that we're all dealing with many circumstances beyond our control. you hope that answers your question. >> supervisor safai: i appreciate it. i know there's lot of moving pieces and when you doing legislation, you certainly don't want it to be about one particular project or one particular instance of injustice. you want it to have the most wide ranging impact in terms of its overall goal. i agree with you. having seen in my time what
happened to the mission over the last 20 years and seeing the -- people throw around the word gentrification a lot. i think everyone has their own personal experience what that means. truly to see rampant gentrification and displacement in the mission, it's extremely visible. that businesses, that's family, that's long time cultural institutions, that's housing, that's a community that was built and thrived and prospered for a long time. i understand what you're trying to do. that's often how legislation works. we're dealing with the now.
we're dealing trying to have lasting impact going forward. with development, it goes through a process and everyone understands going in in san francisco. it's usually a cumbersome long process. the housing is the housing. sound like the project got up to 25% inclusionary. we spent lot of time talking about what the impact of the density bonus would have and how we capture that value in san francisco. it's not necessarily always the best tools available. i think we came up with what we
thought at the time was a good solution. that's good to hear. it sounds like things will work out. this seems to be the one that you spent time thinking about and ultimately, this sounds like it's going to work itself out. >> supervisor peskin: let us be clear. none of this conversation will prejudice our quasi judicial hearing on the matter. however the board adjudicates the matter, it will be resolved prior to the effective day of the legislation. if the board rules one way, not to use sports analogies, it's a dead ball, board rules other way, it's a live ball. thank you for that clarity relative to the one issue around
in 2017, we were completely displaced by illegally zone tech offices. we lost our gallery workshop and 20 artist studios when new owner did legally move his business there. he allowed the international corporation to take over half of the upstairs displacing 20 artists and he couldn't open plan office with entertainment space, computer workstations. then the following year, they took over the remaining 20 studios. we were completely displaced. during the two years around our displacement, we saw forced closures of lot of other mission and studios, hundreds and hundreds of artists. we tried to develop another large studio in mission but finding affordable space
together was just impossible. eventually they were able to create a new studio near balboa park in excelsior. if mission stop this predatory high end office use, artist like myself might be able to claim space and return to the mission. this will be impossible if high end office use is prohibited in our u.m.u. spaces and we have to have enforcement of p.d.r. zoning. i'm an artist working both traditional painting in digital medium. i know anyone can work on a computer anywhere. there are plenty of empty offices in the city. >> thank you. we have 27 listeners with 12 in
>> i'm here to support the ordinance and i hope that the board of supervisors approves it because i believe that we must keep our identity and dignity of our people. we do that by serving them and having businesses that serves them. [speaking spanish] >> i'm also a business owner and i have seen the effects of
having laws benefit tech companies rather than benefiting small businesses like myself. this will be something that -- a step towards bringing more equity to small businesses. [speaking spanish] >> this will help our community, our immigrant community that has tech businesses as well as working in our community. thank you. [speaking spanish]
small businesses are the ones who establish our community and provide our services and provide the quality of life that we all need. [speaking spanish] in our businesses, are the ones that implore our community and are the ones that bring back money to our community and boost our economy locally. [speaking spanish] what i would miss is being our business being displaced due to
the rent and the cost and in. [speaking spanish] we need more spaces that serve our community and employ our community. [speaking spanish] this ordinance is ordinance that allows for the businesses that create jobs for our communities. [speaking spanish] it helps us create organizations, businesses that serve the type of families that
we serve. [speaking spanish] for this reason, i ask for your support of this ordinance so we can keep businesses that serve us and employ us. thank you. i have one more testimony. this is a letter that i would like to read from a community member. dear members of the board of supervisors, i'm the other than of discount auto performance, auto motive shop that has been in business since 1992.
during owning my business i have seen out of businesses as results of increase pricing epressures by office use and make it impossible for business owner to renew their lease. property owners are hesitant to renew leases to more than month to month. .it has become impossible for me to find a location that is remotely affordable. despite my business being highly successful. i have been able to raise three wonderful children and send them to college to provide well-paying jobs for two mechanics and part-time work for my son. now i'm faced only having six
week notice to find a new location as soon as my property owner brings them. i'm no hopeful that i will be able to find another location. i'm stressing that i will be to close and lay off my employees and find a job as a mechanic. industrial manufacturing, nonprofit and artist uses in the mission need to be protected and these uses and all of the jobs that come with them will be gone. please approve this legislation so that the business that rely on industrial spaces will be able to remain and continue to remain in the mission. >> your time has expired.
next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is hannah. i work for the nonprofit organization projects commotion. project commotion is in favor of amending the code. we serve around 1600 individuals annually. we currently rent space on harrison street and have been at this location for 12 years. as programs have expanded, to include a bilingual preschool on site, we began to outgrow our space. we lack productive work space as well as any quiet space needed to take a true break and come back energized to work with families. we cannot find other affordable
options in the mission district. we make it work. this is not the sustainable in the long-term. we are committed to staying in the mission and serving our target population, long time latino residents. it's becoming harder to do so. over 12 years in the space, our rent has increased over 50%. our lease went up around 3% a year. this year it increased by 12%. this is a huge financial burden for us that we didn't feel we can push back. we were afraid of losing our space all together. we encourage all of you to vote in favor of ronen's u.m.u.
ordinance amending the planning code. >> next speaker please. we have 28 listeners with 11 in queue. >> hello, good afternoon. thanks. i'm valerie, i'm code director at southern exposure. has provided education programs and support for artist and has been important hub for the community and mission for 46 years. i'm calling because i'm concerned that upscale office space has been eliminating space for housing and studios and nonprofits for some time.
particularly at this moment, it is the heart of the mission dips on the community organization. when we lose nonprofit and cultural space because of impact on the most vulnerable communities, without clear restrictions on urban mixed use development, we'll be able to stop the displacement of artist, nonprofits and manufacturing jobs. i image you to pass this ordinance to help protect our artist, community members and nonprofit organizations that are very curable to the -- crucial to the well being of our community. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
i'm calling in to support of the u.m.u. ordinance. supervisor hillary ronen noted 10,000 latinos have been displaced. it impact the cultural and economic fabric of the mission. they've all been displaced leaving cultural void in the neighborhood. for example, over 20 of our -- artist have lost spaces in the last few years due to the displacement and the high cost of rental space. these artist have families and children had to on the streets, garages, backyards and night club sometimes.
increase in rent and decrease in resources to artist make it really hard for us to produce 30 plus year. over the past 40 years, we've been leveraging the power art culture and creativity. we think that the u.m.u. ordinance is a positive step forward to bring equity and justice to our community. >> next speaker please.
>> my name is katie. i ask you to support the u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i'm a visual artist and small business owner who was born and raised in san francisco. in the past five years, i have been gentry if id out of two places. my art work is large scale that requires month to dry.
it's worth noting during the covid-19 crises, office space across the city is sitting empty and probably will for a while. meanwhile, my manufacturing and artist all visited to making supplies to help the community. because we're local, we're able to deliver products quickly, the i strongly urge you to protect p.d.r. thank you very much. >> next speaker please.
>> hello, i have a textile and supply company. i create commission art pieces. i say that accessing affordable stable work space in san francisco has been greatest challenge for me as a business owner and artist. i now lost my work space on four separate occasions. i've been forced to move on nearly annual basis due to p.d.r. and u.m.u. i have to move again finding new solutions. you have to shoulder the cost of moving significant stock. i have to set up new operation systems. the demand for my product has been growing steadily and i'm
not able to keep up. i moved my inventory and all my shipping receiving to warehouse in san jose. i've been unable to find an affordable solution within our city. i felt the loss of our highly dynamic creative community and artist that our neighborhood once supported. it's demoralizing. i feel there's no little to no protection to keep small businesses here. i'm strong supportive of u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i you will see it as a vital step towards the protecting the small business ecosystem of our city. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm here to ask you to support the u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i'm the owner of restoration
workshop limited. we specialize in landmark restoration historic architecture. we work at the residential level, we also consult with public institutions like the g.s.a. and the city of san francisco as well as participate in restoration religious architecture. we manage restoration projects but pull together coalition for many disciplines. we really are the last remaining of the skills and shop facilities to perform high level restoration of architectural murals in san francisco. we occupied space since 2008. we have been in business in san francisco for 16 years. that's been working in the trades for 30 years. my business employs 6 to 9 regular, employees at high
leave the city, it never comes back. environmental and monetary costs operating from outside the city -- it no longer allow to continue. having the space within the city being able to advocate and to adjust and work on projects as we go. i would urge to approve the ordinance. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this matter should call the number 415-655-0001.
>> good afternoon supervisors, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco national coalition. no real comments on the piece of legislation. in regards to the 2300 harrison street project that we mentioned earlier, we are requesting that a grandfathering clause be added and amended into this piece of legislation. couple of items that were mentioned, number one, supervisor ronen, this is such a chaotic world now. nothing is guaranteed. we very much appreciate the intent to try to have that
appeal hearing prior to this legislation taking effect if something does happen to that timeline, grandfathering clause will ensure that this project in the pipeline is not affected. as mentioned earlier, specific relation to the inclusionary legislation that was negotiated and grandfathering provisions was placed in that legislation. again, requesting that a grandfathering clause be included. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon chair and members of the commission.
i'm representing 45,000 member here in california, 3800 members in the heart of san francisco. from the policy standpoint adopting adoption without grandfathering clause does nod bode well for the city. the idea that the city will arbitrarily does not produce confidence in the process. the city adopts grandfathering rules like those on the jobs housing. since the project was introduced in 2016, the development team has done their due diligence to follow applicable planning processes, engage in
discussions, designed under current zoning rules to make sure union trades represented on site. on april 23, 2020 the planning commission unanimously recommended approval staff modifications including grandfather clause to submit applications to the planning department as the date of introduction. the city risk losing 24 units of housing. this will happen.
unemployment rate is 12.5%. 2.5 shy of the state average. more than ever, every unit and every dollar and every job matters coming out of this pandemic. this is why it's imperative for the city not add to the challenges that already exist. in the world of uncertainty, we respectfully ask that the proposed u.m.u. legislation will be amended to include a grandfather clause 2300 harrison. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm representing the project sponsor for 2300 harrison. we continue to support amendment to include a grandfathering clause. we have been told over tentative board of supervisors appeal date. that has not been confirmed. because of that, we also do not have a board of appeals date.
we would still be racing against this legislation and the event any continuances or delays which are entirely possible especially today, this legislation could become affected and killed this project because we did not get through the appeals hearing in time. there's no certainty that the appeals will be heard or finished. we have two different appeals, at two boards and no confirmed appeal dates yet. without a grandfathering clause, 2300 harrison will remain as a parking lot instead developed with mixed use project with 24 new residential units including six units on site. the city will forego $3.5 million in impact fee payments in order to preserve a parking lot. changing the rules in the will h
hour, it is also unusual as the city typically includes a grandfathering clause so that rules are not changed after a project has spent years and substantial amounts of money in the entitlement phase. after already having received its first approval from the planning commission. it would be an exception for you not to include a grandfathering clause and i think something that sets very uncertain precedent. the use of a density bonus program does not change the amount of permitted office of this project. two floors of office are permitted if arts activities five stor -- five story buildin. >> thank you. we appreciate your comment. next speaker please. >> this is sophia green. i wanted to do a brief recap of
my comments in the appropriate agenda item. i think the big point of my comments was that i was in a building where about 50 artist was displaced to make office space. the point is, i was lucky enough to find a new studio space in a p.d.r. protected building. i would encourage the planning commission to support more p.d.r. buildings in san francisco so that we can keep artist, nonprofits and makers and small businesses in the city because all of these things add to the social and economic vitality of san francisco. i think that about covers it.
to reject this amendment as proposed. i agree with supervisors safai that said when we start -- developer starts the project team in san francisco, we are expecting long process to get something proposed and developed. what we never anticipate this board changing rules about the land use during the entitlement process. i think that the proposed project would have adverse effects. you heard ronen said that the office space does not promote
housing. one particular project, which is active use for retail, second floor office -- it is office spaces anticipated rent that allows our project to pencil and to provide for the five units. we would not have the housing, we only have -- we will be able to add units -- three units of housing. what we'll have to do is scrap my project as proposed and build three luxury condos and sell them off to recoup my proceeds or my investment. in result of this legislation, would kill more projects such as mine which provide rental units for the neighborhood -- >> supervisor peskin: your time
is up. it sounds like you have articulately your financial fallback position. next speaker please. are there any more people in the queue? >> this completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: all right, thank you to all of the speakers. i did mean to antagonize the last speaker. there is an amendment on the table. that amendment which is not substantive in nature, i believe was proposed by supervisor preston, is that correct? >> from my understanding, it's an amendment from supervisor ronen. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen cannot make amendment. >> right, i understand.
sorry, i missed the part. >> supervisor preston: , i have not moved that amendment. i will be happy to move that amendment. >> supervisor peskin: as the previously described non-substantive amendments on this matter that we've been hearing for a number of months, a motion has been made by supervisor preston on that motion, madam clerk, roll call please. [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: all right, that motion passes. are there any comments before we vote on the ordinance as
amended? if there are month comments -- supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: can i ask one area i clarifying question,d like supervisor ronen stated this is set for hearing on the 18th. her intention is to have that hearing. she said that very clearly. i don't understand what the confusion is. is there a difference of opinion in terms if that hearing is happening or not? >> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: no. what i would say, the hearing is set for the 18th. i don't anticipate that changes unless the clerk of the board for some reason, decides that date doesn't work. i guess my contention is that covid is not like any normal
situation. i wish my daughter can be grandfathered and go back to school on august 17th. the world has turned upside down. this wasn't anticipated to delay any hearing. >> supervisor peskin: i guess it wasn't clear to me until you restated it right now. >> supervisor preston: this hearing would have happened sooner. this hearing would have happened way before and the legislation will be following after it. i don't think that's clearly stated for the public. i was on the phone with a clerk this morning. we have about 15 appeals that are now in the queue that have been put on hold because of covid. they are all beginning to be scheduled. this one seem to be at the top of the queue. is that right mr. chair? >> supervisor peskin: i'm no longer the president of this board. let's just do timing relative to
the 2300 harrison case and. i think we all understand the equity issues there. the reality is covid hit, supervisor ronen's legislation was stalled. their hearing was stalled. let's do the dates. which is if this committee decides to send out the ordinance as amended today, it would go before the full board of supervisors for its first reading on 28th day of july. if we do not have a regularly scheduled meeting because we have one week off in august. it would go to its next hearing for second reading on the 11th day of august. if the board approves that, the mayor would have ten days to sign it. she can sign it earlier, not sign it or veto it. that gets us to about the plus
or minus 21st day of august, legislation would not become matter of law until about end of september. >> supervisor preston: this is for clarity. >> supervisor peskin: approximat ely 30 days after the law goes into effect. the only uncertainty, assuming that it leaves this committee, assuming that the board votes for it twice on the 28th and the 11th, i put my calendar down. then there's uncertainty around 10 days as to when the mayor takes receipt, whether the mayor signs it, doesn't sign it or vetoes it. assuming the mayor doesn't veto it and it goes into law, it will become law on or about the last date end of september.
if this matter is not adjudicated on the full calendar date of august 19th, there's still month and a half for the board to hear this. i'm not in any way prejudging this matter. i-- that it is dead.i think thet supervisor ronen make sense to me, the last time you heard this in late april, there were whole bunch of other people who wanted to get on 2300 harrison coat tail. they seem to have gone away. actually one of them sent an email. with that supervisor safai, the floor is back to you.
>> supervisor safai: i want to be clear too. i'm glad you keep saying that. this is not about prejudging any appeal what happened. i'm trying to get on to the record what supervisor ronen had said and clearly state the date. that's all. if we vote on this as a board and it comes for second vote after one week recess, then the mayor signs it on the tenth day, then there's about a month and sounds like there's a number of weeks that we can have in between. just for clarity, once the hearing is done that day, it's up or down. seems to me there's plenty of time in this time frame. supervisor ronen has stated her intention not to ask for any continuance on the hearing.
i wanted to put that out there for the record. >> supervisor ronen: to clarify through the chair, i think we requested the date at the 18th. but the president's board has to okay that. it's ultimately his decision when to schedule it. i don't plan on asking for a different date. or trying to delay it. >> supervisor safai: where did the 18th date come from? is they said they are offering you? >> supervisor ronen: i believe so, yes. >> supervisor safai: got it. okay. >> supervisor peskin: my totals for saying the 19th. 18th is the tuesday forkedly -- for clarification and record. if there are no further questions or comments, madam clerk, did we vote on supervisor preston's -- >> remaining balance of the motion.
>> supervisor preston: i wanted to say one more thing. i want to reiterate couple of things that i said. i appreciate supervisor ronen. i understand so much of what was talked about today in terms of public comment. i think that's really important. i think that when people are trying to build, i think certainty is a really important factor. i think that -- as yo you said, there's lot of things people dealing with result of this coronavirus. it's impacting many lives. lot of the delays were out of our control. certainty obviously in terms when you're building is an important aspect of deciding when to make your investment. the thing that makes me feel more comfortable, there's probably about four or five tuesdays in between the time that your legislation would go into effect. when we would have that hearing. that hearing is going to be the determining factor one way or
another on this project. this legislation is not going to be the determining factor on this project. i feel lot more comfortable of that. if it were the other way around, i probably would have a different perspective. i have a lot of deference to the district supervisor. she knows her district better than anybody on this board and is working with large constituency of people. i'm sensitive to certainty and when people are in the process of making an investment and certainly having affordable housing is important thing. as i stated, i think this project today would probably not be where we're proposed today based on where the economy is. i want to say that for the record. i think it's really important that we went through the calendar so that everyone understand where things are. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you
>> supervisor peskin: erica, you're frozen. last time is zakheim. >> we may have lost her. [agenda item read] >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam clerks. i am the initiator of this resolution, initiating landmark designation for a set of frescoes that sit on property owned by the university of california san francisco which were done by mr. bernard zakheim that started approximately 85
years ago and finished approximately 82 years ago. bernard zakheim learned at the feet of diego rivera and is known for his works in many other places with such radical artists as victor armtoff and george albert harris. i realized this is a remarkably complicated situation. i wanted to ask my colleagues on this panel and the board of supervisors to initiate landmark designation for these ten incredible radical works of art that sit on the university of
california san francisco campus by way of background article 10 of the planning code allows the board of supervisors by resolution to initiate designation if this panel forwards this to board of supervisors, the department of city planning and historic preservation commission would have up to 90 days to evaluate the historic worthiness and report back to the board unless they request an extension of that. this is one of the artistic treasures that the university has. i want to thank san francisco
architectural heritage, mike bueller, their executive director and their membership along with many others who want to save these frescoes. most importantly, i want to thank zakheim family that is alive and well. bernard zakheim's grandson adam has been seminal in this. her brother nathan has proposals that, do true, will be cost effective in saving these frescoes in whole or in part.
i want to thank the department of city planning, marcelo for being on this call today. with that, we have two presentations. one by san francisco architectural heritage by mr. mr. labounty. i realize this is a very small part of a much larger expansion of the u.c. campus that comes with very important policy considerations around urban design, transportation impacts, housing impacts. this is probably a financial rounding era in that discussion.
all of that will be before us. i want to acknowledge my colleagues on this panel dean preston who cannot talk to about this because it's land use committee. he shares part of that campus with our board president, supervisor yee who shares the other part of that campus. again, the other land use transportation issues that are part in parcel of this project will be forthcoming. this is the beginning of what is going to be a lengthy process, hopefully to confer landmark designation. unlike landmark designations on other properties in san francisco, i want to be clear about this, the state of california, university of california, which is subdivision of the state of california, is not subject to our local laws. i believe that these incredible
radical ten part murals frescoes deserve that level and deserve that protection. with that i like to ask mr. labounty to come forward with your presentation and we'll go to the owners. not exactly the owner but the caretakers of those murals. they are actually property of the united states of america. it was the united states that paid for them and actually interestingly enough, the general services agency of the united states has recently written a letter saying that this is actually a property of the united states. we will not go into level of
ways. mr. labounty, foreclosure is yours. >> thank you supervisor peskin. good afternoon, my name is woody labounty i'm from san francisco heritage. i'm here to share the significance of mural cycle history of medicine in california. created by artist bernard zakheim. from 1936 to 1938. the series is composed of ten pictorial panel and two panels on the walls of toll and hall. large lecture room within uc hall proposed to be demolished
for a new research and academic building. on the right you can see the murals behind a class of nurses. bernard zakheim was one of the leading artist in this area who created major public art under the new deal art program. polish jew, he was born in warsaw 1898. his family prepared him for the synagogue to be a rabbi. against the wishes of his family, he instead became politically active and began studying art. imprisoned in a concentration camp during world war i, he came to the united states when the war ended. he opened his own custom furniture shop in san francisco. before being invited abou by dio
rivera. in san francisco in the early 1930s, zakheim organized exhibitions by jewish art it's and recognized for his work with water colours. he won an open competition to create his first major pres freo jewish festival on california street. this piece by the way, was successfully removed and reininstalle in-- reinstalled iw building in 2004. zakheim was one of 26 artist to create the murals within quite tower. which represented first new deal air art project. zakheim has been credited with developing the concept of the art work within the tower and his own piece completed in 1934, is entitled library.
library controversially contained leftist references including a copy of the regional communist newspaper, western worker. >> supervisor peskin: not to interrupt you, if you go back to the last slide, his daughter who i believe is 94, is in the bottom left hand corner with the blue skirt on. >> also in 1934, zakheim created two frescoes for the emergency hospital and health centre. today san francisco city landmark number 272. the work there entitled community spirit and growth, depicted scenes of neighborhood life and maternal care with birthing imagery. this project attracted the attention of doctors at the university of california san
francisco. the work's progress administration through the federal art project, commissioned zakheim to brighten a dark ugly cave with art work to educate medical students on the history of their field. the history of medicine in california was the result. the murals are created in message reaching back as far as the italian renaissance which the painting is done on fresh plaster. u.csf faculty assisted in help guide zakheim's research and choice of subject matter for the frescoes. the history of medicine in california depicts founders, scientists and educators to breabreakthroughs in medicine.
it acknowledges the skill and recognize medical expertise, african-american midwife biddy mason showing here attending to a malaria patient with dr. john griffin. zakheim wrote, i did not take only the beautiful or heroic parts of history. the murals includes scenes of murders, am mutations and mutatm mutation an-- aamputation and a. zakheim's work had always been concerned with human values and human drama and his point of view has been sympathetic to human struggle and effort.
how spanish soldiers spanning panels of native people was intentional composition, symbolic of the invasion of california. author anthony w. lee wrote, the mural splite into a programmatic argument about class conflict and the super exploited races in people. his work has a real social value and that is charged with positive qualities of belief and protest rather than negative qualities of indifference. the murals supposed su subversie
nature during the cold war. in 1948, ucsf covered the mural cycle with wallpaper. you can see in the back here during the 1953, lecture, the wallpaper that was covering the mural at the time. they were uncovered in the 1960s and underwent conservation treatment by the artist on nathan b. zakheim here on the right and jennifer walker in the 1970s. with funding from ucsf alumni faculty association. bernard zakheim on the left died in 1985. the importance of the history of medicine in california is acknowledged, recognized and undisputed even by the university of california san francisco. ucsf representatives described
frescoes california treasure and the jewel of university art collection. ucsf draft environmental report issued last week on july 13, 2020 admits the series is a historical resource and the proposal to remove it, substituting a digital representation would be a significant impact for purposes of the californian environmental quality act. beyond its high artistic value the history of medicine in california is -- exceptionally rare. the series is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past, bernard zakheim, ucsf dr. chauncey leek and not
to mention historic figures. the frescoes represent his most significant work. thank you, that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. labounty. that's probably one of the more educational moments that this committee has gotten in quite some time. thank you colleagues for your indulgence. mr. newman, your presentation is next. let me just be clear with my colleagues and members of the public. my conversation early on prior to introduction of this resolution to initiate with the university of california, mr. newman, was such that i'm very clear that u.c. would like to preserve, save, these repurpose these frescoes.
it's that spirit that i welcome mr. newman. the floor is yours. >> thank you chair peskin and supervisors. i'm brian newman. i'm senior associate vice chancellor for real estate at u.c. san francisco. it's an honor here to be here. i want to thank mr. labounty for that presentation. i learned a bit myself. hopefully you've received our letter that was submitted earlier today. just to be clear, officially the ucsf is neutral on the resolution. i wanted to say my colleagues are sympathetic with its goals. i'm happy to talk about that letter. i will go through my few slides quickly. >> supervisor peskin: so we're clear, mondays are electronic bare for me and my colleagues. i received 300 so far.
i have not seen that one. it will be a part of the record and i promise i will read it. >> okay, fantastic. thank you. just little bit of background on the context. we completed our comprehensive parnassus plan last fall. that was a plan that supervisor peskin refer to that is broader land use and redevelopment plan for the parnassus campus. that plan went through a process to validate the need to replace uc hall. the lecture hall is inside u.c. hall. that determination was made by ucsf leadership. right now we have plans for a research and academic building
on the footprint of u.c. hall with lot of amenities to the community. that project would start with demolition of u.c. hall in 2022 and then construction would begin soon after that. that's where the murals are located. as you mentioned, -- i think it was supervisor peskin mentioned, commissioned part of works project administration. i will get to in a minute the conversations we had the general services administration of the federal government.
u. of the impacts we identified is the damage or destruction of the zakheim murals because of their -- with paint on wet plaster. their large 2500 panels each attached to the structure itself. they have some damage, some water damage. unfortunately that entire building has significant amount of defer maintenance. what we did, we issued -- we requested professional opinion from a.r.g. to determine the likelihood of the process success of removing the murals
to be clear, they didn't say it wasn't possible. they did indicate it's complicated. it's expensive and they maybe damaged to panels individually or plurally. some could be destroyed during that process. although the likelihood of success will likely increase as the team doing the work. the concern of the fact they would be damaged, possibly be destroyed whether collectively or individually, required us to put that impact in the environmental impact report and to be clear, even if there's a plan to remove the murals, that impact would be identified in the e.i.r. the challenge with the timing is, we had to release the e.i.r. because of a milestone need to get an approval by the regents in january for the campus plan to keep our new hospital on track.
that was before we could finalize a plan for the murals. it is the worse case scenario. it's not the worst case scenario we're hoping for. we're working in good faith to address that. we are as we speak, work began last week, doing a digital capture of all the murals. we will do that regardless what the plan is for the murals. just to make hure that they are digitally captured at a high resolution. we've engaged several stakeholders. including the zakheim family, i had several conversations with adam gotstein. he has health of information. he's been very patient in answering our questions and providing the information. he's provided doss of -- dozens of emails suggestion and advice including willingness to
participate in trying to save the murals themselves. we've been contact with the foundation which is the foundation, i believe for around foster children. they requested specifically that that panel be saved. they requested a high resolution reproduction on canvas of the mural that has mason on it. the stak stakeholders we've eng, there's a lot long list. i want to mention in addition to nathan zakheim, we've been in contact with the federal government. it did surprise us a bit they issued a letter asserting ownership interest which we saw lot of documentation around the ownership interest. we've been working with them in good faith about their interest and what they may want to do as
an owner of the art work. they see themselves as advocates for their preservation. they've been very clear to us they do not have the means financial or otherwise to lead an effort to save the murals. they want to advocate on their behalf. they've given us advice as they put us in contact with conservators. we understand how passionate people are including our own community and our alumni to preserve these murals. time will tell base the on the work we're doing now on whether they can be saved. we took the step last week of authorizing a request for proposal for design build bids from qualified teams to submit to see if they -- what they
believe as far as the process and the cost to remove the murals. we'll be asking for mr. zakheim and others if they like to participate in that r.f.p. process as well. that specific act, i think will tell us a lot between now and end of august. clearly this is not our core competency when it comes to art preservation and these complex pieces of art. the information we received including our own cost estimate that we developed, may be incorrect. the best way to test that, however, because they're so unique and there's not lot of comps out there with this work is to go out to the marketplace and seek the professional expertise of qualified teams to determine how that work will be done. the likelihood of success and the risk to be art work itself whether individual panels or all of them. then the cost. that process is undertaken now. we'll have those responses by the end of august.
we'll be making a decision on what to be with them to remove and possibly transport those. we seek professional advice or resources available to help us in this endeavor. i offer that both the board of supervisors as well as the general public who want to assist in saving these murals. we'd be happy to have all the support we can get to be able to achieve that goal. with that, i'll hand it back to you mr. chair. >> supervisor peskin: mr. vice chancellor. we're all in it together. i really appreciate your entire presentation. particularly those last words. is there anything you like to add or subtract?
>> hi. we don't have any additional detailed information at this time. i believe that woody labounty noted that the artist and murals outline and work towards new deal context statement. which is under review and draft form. the department and the commission are aware of the murals and their importance. we have also received the initiating information relating to the landmark. we are aware of the 90-day time frame to review. >> supervisor peskin: thank you very much. are there any comments or questions from committee members?
>> it's my first time dealing with g.s.a. on a matter like this. we had two conversations with them. we notified them of the risk of these murals being destroyed. as our part of our due diligence, making sure they got the proper notification. they are created under the works project administration. however, we didn't believe they retained ownership interest because they were painted in situ. they don't have lot of documentation.
>> and i have published a number of pieces on the new deal art of this city. there was mention about new deal in san francisco. i am currently peer reviewing that history context statement and i think you will all learn a great deal when you receive it. on fairly short notice, the former planning commissioner, we have prepared a letter and i will retreat what is in that letter. i found woody's comments about be appropriate and well researched. thank you. i won't repeat that. what i would like to do is put these into a somewhat larger
context and san francisco has an unusually rich collection of art that was produced by the new deal agencies. one of the largest collection and one of the richest collections, probably in this state, and perhaps in this region. unfortunately, the various city and state agencies involved have had a mixed history over the past 80 years and in carrying for this art and as i indicated in an article that was in the journal california history earlier this year. so, i was especially saddened to read ucsf's proposal to destroy this art and on a bird's view.
>> thank you. thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on this item number four? >> hello, my name is richard rothman and i am interested in murals in an fran and on occasion, ucsf is what we go into the hall and they told me they were going to build around them. if you've been in -- i called my
contact at ucsf and they were going to build around them so i was wondering if one of the supervisors could ask mr. newman why they changed their mind. the last time i talked in february and when i found out in june that they were going to destroy them. why can't ucsf get around tobin hall and save the hall. it's very dangerous to move these murals. it's not something you want to do and maybe at the very, very last resort but these murals could be damaged and the other thing is where are you going to put these murals. these large murals and thank you
for considering this important issue. >> thank you mr. rothman, are there any. >> public comment is closed. i want to say a few high-level things. the item before us is not going to change the world. but in the middle of the great depression has been a narrative in our society all my life. the new deal was what we all came to know as the new government golf at solution and millions and millions of people
to work and and gave us this incredible legacy of art and public works that still serve us today and and i have known that for a long time but what i've come to realize is that happened less than 25 years after a pandemic that was the spanish flu that killed a half million americans and we had a much smaller population at the time and so i want to put this all in that historic context. the legacy of murals that came out of bernard sackheim were informed by that new-dealer a and i am starting to realize by
the error that proceeded it that was informed by a pandemic, i am profoundly hopeful that we will figure out a way to preserve the express and what they represent and and i would like to commend this matter to my colleagues. i want to recommend mr. newman and the yo university of califoa and this is balancing act on the one hand, take care of public-health and on the other hand, take care of history and our art and i would like to send this to the full board with recommendation. are there any comments from committee member? >> thank you mr. chair. often times people will say, you know, why is this important? people will say -- they'll give
you false arguments and false choices like, well, if we do this we're taking money away from x. if we do this, we're not able to do provide the level of healthcare. i know that there's a lot of interested parties and i know that there's a lot of individuals that would want to be part of preservation and this is an important part of our history and this is the type of art that is almost a lost art. it's something that is very, very special in the era and in the vane of deego rivera and some of the muralists that did this type of art. it's part of our history in terms of the great recession and putting people back to work and valuing artist and valuing their message and up lifting them. so, when i first saw the message that they were potentially water damaged and there would be at
the cost of $8 million and they would be a choice between providing care or preserving, i didn't accept it and my message to the university was, we have to find a way. the answer has to be we're going to doing everything we can because it's such an important part and when you look at it in the concept of coyte tower and what this individual meant to san francisco history, jewish american history, and artistic history in the city and county of san francisco and in the united states, it becomes that much more significant and the pricetag becomes, in my mind, a secondary choice. and so i know there's a lot of indowd individualed that want endowed individuals that want to be involved in philanthropy and there's a 500 million-dollar commitment as part of the
rebuild of this facility. so i know that we can find the way to do this and as you stated, family members have already taught abou thought aboe ways to do this and this is important and i appreciate you moving forward with this preservation. and i'm happy to support it. >> thank you, supervisor for your comments. any last words? >> no, no further comments. >> excellent. so, on my motion to move this to the full board with recommendations, madam clerk, a roll call, please, if you do not freeze. >> i apologize. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend --[ roll call ] supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> you have three ayes. >> madam clerk, can you please read items 5-8 together. >> yes, item number 5, is an
ordinance amending the general plan to amend the market and making conforming amendments to the arts elements and the housing elements and making appropriate finding. item 6 is inviting the zone be map to amend the band van ness and market special use district and making other amendments to the height and maps and zoning districts maps consistent with the (inaudible) octavia plan. item number 7 is an ordinance with business and tax regulations to create hub housing sustainability district to provide a streamline administerral approval process for certain housing projects within the district meeting specific labor on site affordability and other requirements creating an excited board of appeals process foray peels of projects within the district and approving appropriate findings item number 8, the planning codes to amend the van ness and market special
use districts toen cor additional housing and uses that support neighborhoods residents and businesses. to and to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-922-4815. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to lineup to speak. >> ms. lang ios. my apologies for last week. we're a little stressed out. we would love to see your powerpoint presentation on the hub and -- >> we cannot hear you.
>> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors, lilly planning department staff and last week i provide provided an overview of the legislation and i focus on the equity assessment done from the hub as well as clarify the teacher equity work. i'm going to share my screen. if it doesn't work correctly, please interrupt me and let me know. >> if you can just put a little more sound i would be great. >> ok. the hub area falls within the boundaries of the octavia area plan. this is an area that's been zoned for high density housing since 2008. the plan before you would allow
housing, additional housing and additional affordable housing. about a 20% increase compared to what is already allowed today. the plan provides for almost a billion dollars in public benefits including a new fee for community facilities and it responds for a desire to have input on how buildings will look and what groundfloor uses would be allowed. it provides an alternative. it grants more height on 18 sites but the new sites are not automatic and can only come through discretionary approval by the planning commission. it changes the rules for more two and three bedroom units to support families and restrictions on retail sides to support more neighborhood using and less parking.
the plan would ensure height requires payments of all area plan fees cree you see the steps for an equity assessment. thank you a new tool the city is using. this is the first land use protect the department applied this tool too and we're still learning how to apply an equity lens to all of our work. there is not a professional standard yet on how to do this work. these steps were developed and then applied to the project with input from the community, our community equity team, and other city agencies including the new office of racial equity. we continue to welcome new ideas. the equity assessment tool is a framework for looking and it asks decision makers consider
the implementations from a racial and social equity lens. it provides a structure for reflection and for integrating equity considerations. applying the equity tool can result in real changes to reduce, racial and social inequity, advance equity and approved success for all groups. for this plan, eight changes were made to the legislation as a result. there are a couple of ideas that extend beyond zoning and the board may want to consider these. the first step in the racial and social equity assessment process is to establish equity goals. the equity goals used for this plan strive to keep people in place and provide room for more a fort able housing and it will meet the needs of low income people and people of color. the anticipated benefits highlight the fact that new housing would be built on
parcels without existing homes. there are no direct displacement. a new park in seem a. improvements to existing parks in the western edition -- >> direct displacement doesn't happen anymore. it's indirect displacement we all focus our efforts on but go ahead. >> safer streets and $682 million for affordable house. some of these changes include potential burdens too. although there wouldn't be direct displacement of homes, there would be some loss of retail and industrial jobs. overtime, there could be small business displacement and turnover. due to changing demographics and new retail demands. there could also be less tolerance for residents without phones who live in encampments. equity assessments include space for community concerns.
and here somewhere other things that we have heard. concerns that groundfloor uses may not be neighborhood serving, concerns that market rate housing could add to gentrification pressures in adjacent neighborhoods and social and cultural disparities could reduce cultural diversity and a desire to see affordable housing units on site and a community based mechanism to proactively address these issues. with these burdens and benefits in mind, there are eight changes made to the plan, after the equity assessment. expanding the boundary for that open space -- >> these changes were made when? >> these were made following the equity assessment and they're incorporated into the legislation that is before you. >> right. but the changes were made at one date? >> >> specifically, we completed this equity assessment about a year ago.
we began drafting the legislation in january of this year. so i can look up the exact date of when they were added but they were added at the beginning of this year. >> so post covid? >> yes. >> >> the office of racial equity did that in what discussion? >> we have conversations with them around the tools, specifically, that we're using. and then also sharing some of our findings from the assessment tools? >> and their response was what and where is that set fourth? >> i don't have a summary of their specific comments. they reviewed the findings that we have and we had a series of conversations about the specific legislation and discussing things that could be made from zoning and land use perspectives and then some of the things that would require further investment
and discussion with other city agencies. >> thank you,. >> sure. >> the specific changes are, expanding the boundary in which impacting money can be spent to provide funding for projects in the adjacent neighborhoods. broadening the membership -- >> relative to the first, that is the existing boundary of one mile? >> currently, the funds, the infrastructure funds can be spent in the planning area or within 250 feet? >> ok. >> broadening the membership of the market activity cac, allowing a land dedication option for affordable housing requirements in the adjacent neighborhoods and new requirement to support community serving use that's the groundfloor. expanding the unit mixed requirement and new general plan
policy to apply a racial and social lense to future land use decisions. new requirements to ensure that residential uses are the primary land use and so no stand alone hotel or office use would be permitted. and then allowing for more affordable housing with commission discretion and public input. this is not the end of the equity work and association with the hub. last week we heard community members asking for further equity work and this work is beginning now. todd co has hired advisers to develop guidelines for the hub area. this work will identify goals, benefits and burdens and we look forward to hearing from the community and consultants throughout this process. i'd like to leave you with the
knowledge that a an explicit sht towards equality. the planning commission adopted phase 1 of the department's actions plan and this focus on the department's internal functions such as hiring and contracting. phase 2 and underway now and this work will focus on the department's external functions. such as community outreach, community plan, and regulations. and as part of phase 2, the department will continue to refine and adapt the equity assessment tool in collaboration with our commissions, this board and the public. so that concludes my presentation. thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide this overview. and look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you mrs. langois. are you saying that you agree with the proposal that's been set fourth by the community to do additional equity work as it
relates to 15 of the 18 parcels of real estate that are before us? what are you saying? >> i'm saying the department is supportive of doing further equity work and we acknowledge that this assessment tool in the lens is new for us and that we can learn from consultants and from the community and having continuing that conversation is important and i think removing the 15 sites as an opportunity to have this future conversation, i think we have expressed some of the concerns and some of the things that the city loses by making that amendment and i understand the concerns that the communities had around the proposed legislation as it stands. >> thank you, that was a perfect
summation but i won't say i am delighted that the planning department appears to be turning the page your record notwithstanding. with that supervisor preston. >> thank you chair peskin. i am some row mark remarks but o chair, if you or supervisor safai had questions specifically, i didn't want to jump in on one of those. >> i wouldn't say the presentation by planning is actually one of the best presentations i have seen. it is actually, to my mind, kind of an admission that planning has never seen urban development through an equity lense until now. that's been pushed through politics. that has been pushed through elections and that is the first
time i've heard this from planning so i cannot tell you how appreciative i am that you are finally speaking the department, the people's language and albeit maybe there's some dis correspondence withidiscordance withinyour dep. >> i concur with you on that. i'm going to step back and talk a little more broadly about the hub development and the broader breast strokes what the community proposal is here. in terms of moving forward. can you hear me ok? chair peskin, you just froze on my screen and i don't know if it's on my end or yours?
>> i can hear you fine. >> great, thank you. >> so, first off, thank you chair peskin and supervisor safai for continuing this last week. this matter for a week and it's been helpful for everybody to be able to digest all the details of the plan. the package that is before us is very broad in scope seeking to rezone 84 acres around the intersection of market known as the hub and outlined by planning last week. there are four pieces of legislation thatten pusses and hub area plan including a investmentments to the general plan business and tax code and related so i knowing maps and it's a very broad and very significant proposal taken in its entirety and it will have an impact not just the neighborhood
but surrounding neighborhoods that i would argue the entire city. it's been referenced, 18 total parcels at issue and they have the rules changed with regard to what can be built on these sites and how tall, sense and how much residential and how much commercial and most importantly for whom. i think the stakes here he very high. the area plan will increase height density and traffic in this part of the city. i think the area offers significant opportunities to create affordable housing units, invest in public transit and mobility more generally. i want to thank the planning department staff for a lot of work has gone into this and this is a comprehensive proposal for the hub and there's been enormous work that has gone into this and the proposal that i'm laying out today which are
community and led proposals and should not necessarily, should not be read as a criticism of the planning department's efforts in doing the equity analysis that's been addressed but reflect more the importance of this area and necessity for us to do it right. if we are serious and i believe we are racial equity we need to look at proposal and do it through a process that is community-led. some of this work on equity was done a year ago but unfortunately the more recent efforts by our office and the other office is impacted has been our outreach efforts that have been limited by the pandemic in recent months. it's made it much more difficult to have meaningful community engagement other than online
forums. we have heard loud and clear from the coalition of community stakeholders led by communities of color they have concerns around what is proposed in the hub area plan. they reviewed the proposal and they've come to us with a question and supervisor chair peskin, allude today it earlier we have a phased approach to allow height and zoning changes for the project that gone through a thorough community discussion and pausing temporarily on moving forward until we can complete the more thorough race specific witty analysis that was previously mentioned. particularly it's imperative we as elected leaders centers and elevate the concerns that we hear from low income communities and communities of color and that's the spirit of the amendments that i'm interesting
today and at the same time i think advocates have been careful here to thread the needle by allowing certain key sites to move forward and those are the furnished along in the process and have significant community benefits in the form of affordable housing in particular. and so i've circulated amendments colleagues and doing so as a request of community groups in conjunction with the other supervisor offices impacted directly specifically supervisor haney's office and also indirectly vice supervisor ronen's office and these amendments speak to limit the zoning changes to the three sites that have gone through a community process, the project site at 30 van ness and 10 south vaness and 98 franklin. the result of which is a considerable package of public benefits at each site. with buy in from the community we would essentially be fast
tracking the necessary changes for these three sites in phase 1 and at the same time taking the time we need before moving forward with the broader rezoning. we're pausing for specific purpose as i mentioned which is to allow more thorough race specific witty analysis on what the effects will be on communities of color of the complete hub plan. the process to scope this analysis is underway and it's our intention to allow no more than six months for its completion. it's important for stakeholders on all sides, to understand that nothing in this plan -- nothing in the four pieces of legislation before us, is being rejected today. rather, i will be moving to duplicate relevant files and with the agreement of colleagues i hope and if i do so, we'll effectively be keeping the
broader discussions of the other parcels and the broader rezone ago life at committee while moving forward to the full board with the projects that are in the process ofen title. and have offered the significant community benefits that i mentioned. i know, i want to mention the extent of the public benefits and these what are drives the community support for moving forward with these projects so at 30 van ness, 25% of the proposed 333 units will be offered at below market rate and $10 million will be allocated in affordable housing fees to the city, which will be directed to construct proposed affordable housing projects at fifth and howard or fourth and fulsome in the project area.
at 98 franklin street, which south only one of the three key sites in that district and the proposals for 345 unit residential projects situated on top of five story podium which will serve as the new home of the french american international school as well as some 3,200 square feet of retail space on the groundfloor. working with both the community groups and my office related properties the developer has agreed to include 25% on site affordable there and higher than the legally required amount and particularly encouraged that of the affordable units, 80% of them, that's 69 units will be earmarked for deeply affordable for households earning 50% of the area an medium income and the 17 additional units will be for households earning no more
than 100% of the median income. the developer deserves credit for working closely with the community and my office in agreeing to significantly proceed the legally required number of affordable units and i want to send my gratitude to the head of school and many many families and parents at the french american high school and students and alone who contacted our office and conveyed the importance of the project for our school community and their overcomeeling support and especially with enormous challenges for san francisco families and uncertainties around family health and safe tea and when schools will open and we appreciate the families who reached out and shared their thoughts about this project. i also want to know that my office has been interested in whether some of the particular affordable housing fees that are required for the area and then
98 franklin developer left to pay another $5.8 million in area specific housing fees, we have been interested in whether those could instead be satisfied by getting even more on site affordable units and at 98 franklin and more broadly in the sub and it's in the future to the other 15 sites. in discussing and exploring this, it's become clear that there needs to be a more refined methodology for calculating the number of units that the fees' s equates to. so among the other amendments i'll offer a non substantive amendment that will authorize the planning department and mayor's office of housing and community development to clarify the methodology for how many on site units equate to these areas specific fees as an option for developer and i want to
specifically recognize that the developer at 98 franklin have indicated openness to further increasing the number of on side affordable units in lieu of the $5.8 million. when that methodology is clarified and we have a chance to see how many units that would be we're not obligated to provide those units on site, they were free to pay the fee but the office looks forward to continuing discussions with possible additional on site units when we have the methodology laid out how many units that would be and the project at 10 south van ness is for a mixed use residential and retail project with a total of 966 units of housing and 29,000 square feet of service space and as part of the community benefits package, the developer has agreed to allocate their
affordable housing obligations to a land dedication for creating 100% permanently affordable housing and while the city has not played a formal role in negotiations, my understanding is among the sites being considered for this land dedication, it's 1979 mission street and no one as the monster in the mission. and that site, colleagues as you know, has been the subject of nearly a decade of organizing work for housing justice advocates and mission district active in particular leaders from the latino community. and while the approvals don't require the developer to acquire and dedicate 199 mission property specifically we know community activists see today's approval as commissioner to securing a 100% affordable site and i will say this, if this were to come to fruition at 1979
mission, it would be an incredible win and a testament to the power of community organizing and for the miss district and the housing movement in at large and for a neighborhood that has suffered the displacement of more than 8,000 latinos and over the past decade to lay the groundwork for 100% and envision and articulate as the marvel in the mission would be a milestone and an incredible accomplishment in this city. taken together these three sites have gone through a robust process involving community and various stakeholders and the results are three projects that have community support. and are appropriate to confer the significant benefits enclouded in the legislative package today. namely the ability to build at much higher scales than previously allowed. these projects have been before the court for just a little bit over a month and are being fast
tracked but the the remainder of the parcel to the area plan do not yet have specific vetted proposals and not gone through this process and i believe it's in the best interest and city particularly given the reasonable requests for a equity study to be completed to address these other parcels in a phase two of the hub area plan. they're not ready to move forward. but enemy leon the sustainability district legislation it's one of the items before us today. this over lay as i understand it, would allow for ministerial approvals for project that meets certain minimum thresholds.
i want to be very clear for the members of the labor community, who have reached out about this, that we are not rejecting and i'm not proposing that we reject, any part of the proposal that is before us today. we would be pausing to further the housing sustainability legislation and if a project in this area plan moved forward in the interim, nothing would prohibit or preclude and benefits and i would hope and would work with my colleagues to ensure that any such proposal would include nothing less as is standard for projects of this scale in recent history in san francisco. we'll admit that i have some discomfort locking in long-term changes for this entire central area of the city with so much uncertainty right now. about what the future holds.
we should act deliberately in planning for the next 40 years and especially when we do not know what the next 48 hours may look like. it's part of the race anden equity analysis and we have a meaningful opportunity to weigh in with support with opposition and proposed changes. this has been a challenge and get in the pan and i know for my office and for you colleagues that are constituents, that it's been hard, as i said, to engage with our constituents. it's been extremely challenging to look at the feedback and --
and it's been a major transportation issue that are present. the market octavia has been a congestion nightmare and the prospect of adding thousands additional units and with them more than 2,000 private parking spaces, it seems like a formula that could significantly exacerbate an exiting problem. add to that and and ecommerce delivery vehicles and we could be left with a more congested city center when all is sudden and done under this plan. i think these are solvable problems. i believe that we need a clear
plan on how to mitigate these issues. even though at the top level of leadership in our transportation agencies, we'll admit the future of public transit in flux solving congestion is impossible without better understanding of the role of public transit will be and have in the city at large. so, you know, all that said, in conjunction with the folks transportation agencies we can figure out solutions in the coming months and to be clear, i believe we're confronted with not only difficult problems arising from this proposal but also potential opportunities. one is them is an opportunity for the first time to directly center, in value, the voices of community of color in the planning process.
in a way that is not just lip service but respond it their demands of how this should proceed. that say and a change, in how we can develop in san francisco. i also want to recognize it's long been the desire of many residents in my district and the surrounding neighborhood and to explore the further removal of it's in the amended legislation and this is before us and there may be an opportunity to accelerate that conversation. it's my strong desire, given the freeway rests on publicly-ond land that we can map out a long-term strategy where the freeway removal could result in the creation of permanently affordable housing on those sites significantly altering for the better the racial and equity
impact of this plan area. it would seem to me as we pursue zoning of the area that we also plan for how we can accomplish these important long-term goals. so, thank you for your patients and a very long presentation but as you can tell, this is one of incredible importance to my district and the city. i have amendments which i circulated to chair peskin and supervisor safai and we'll also be moving to duplicate some of the files and happy to go into the details of those amendments or to do so after public comment or comments from my colleagues. thank you supervisor peskin. it was quite the presentation. supervisor safai, is there anything you would like to add or subtract? >> nope. >> thank you. >> all right.
why don't we go to public comment. madam clerk. >> mr. chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. operations, please let us know if there are any callers ready. >> there are 17 callers in the queue. i will queue the first caller. >> this is time paulson, thank you supervisors and sunshine, jussupervisor,i listened to you. i appreciate it.
>> and 10 south van ness and we feel that everything has moved in the long direction -- in the right direction which you have all recognized. we appreciate that. we do have very big concerns because we did not want this to be slowed down. there was a lot of work put in prior to you being on the board of supervisors to make sure that labor standards were going to be in all of this hub legislation which if it did not move forward, it would not be part of the way developers would get their entitlements to move forward in other areas that are there. that could be in jeopardy and i want to be clear that that is an incredible concern to us and as with as i don't understand, i
mean, i know there's a lot of work that has been done and there has been a lot of work done with the community and other labor folks and constituency groups to make sure that the fees that are done and the affordable housing stuff, which is so important, with so much housing being a part of this gets moving forward. we appreciate where that is in terms of what is sounds like might be a phased movement. we probably are still on record as saying we want this to move forward right now and even though we are listening. thank you for keeping those things. >> thank you mr. paulson, next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors, my name is david woo with the fill phone fo district. we're in sort of the hub plan
and thank you supervisor preston and everybody who has done so much work on this. we must center the conversation of land use planning, zoning and development around racial and social equity. we condition keep going with the business as usual top-down model of planning that takes a profit-driven approach to land use in san francisco and the era of covid-19 and massive up risings against the police state, existing inequities have been exacerbated and laid bear for everyone to see. it's time that we address the again traification thagentrific. we know zoning and approves massive market rate development projects inflicts violence on working class communities and communities of color. the hub presents an opportunity to incorporate a community led racial and social equity framework into the planning process which directly supports the resolution passed by the planning commission recently. we support phasing the hub plan
so this process can take place. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisors safai and preston. my name is kits and i'm a co director of (inaudible). the mill project has been a vibrant space for communities voices on the walls of the alley. as an organizer with the mission district, organizations social and economic justice i'm calling into support the recommendations of phasing the hub area plan except for the three proposed sites until through racial and social equity analysis is complete. this is an anti development but a community planning process that strengthen the equity first trademark to build housing for all. a race and social equity report done correctly can be used to
access how new development impacts the mission. we have attributes and our eastern neighborhoods plan failed these communities which is caused negative by marketplace development which we are historic able income and color and diversity. this is our opportunity to hold the city of san francisco accountable for the correct racist planning policies of the past. having a home is more than just affordable housing. it's providing the most valuable populations over all benefits from the neighborhood planning and policies that they have an equitable fee at the table. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ben. i'm the secretary of red stone labor temple association. the tenants association of the historic red stone building in
the northern mission. we're a part of the united to save the mission coalition. tenants include artists, latino groups, which serve poor and working people in the community. our tenants association supports a phased approval process of the hub plan so it will not further displace and harm low income and working class communities of color and in the mission, hey for and hub areas. we feel that too quickly moving forward with more market rate housing, even with so-called affordability components l. have a disastrous effect on the ravaged, poor, house and working people who are the majority in the mission. we need more inclusion in this
process and that must start with the serious, thorough and social equity report. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. we have 37 listeners and 19 in queue. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until you have been notified your system has been unmuted. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of san francisco action coalition. i'm not going to repeat my comments from last week but wanted to add two things as it related to the discussion here today. number one, we share supervisor peskin's concerns regarding displacement and want to be doing everything he can to put forward policies that reduce
displacements and while building housing at all income levels is not a panacea for displacement, all of the research does show that building both subsidized affordable and market rate housing, across san francisco, will have the absolute best impact reducing displacement is a goal. and secondly, in the conversation of racial and social equity, the pro housing folks have pushed for adding multi family zoning across the entire city and so in this conversation, i don't understand how we can continue to have this important discussion and trying to figure out everything we can and troy to achieve every possible solution to make sure our city is a true place for everybody while still
maintaining our single family home zoning. i hope this conversation leads to positive changes in that light as well. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is kim thompson and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before you today. the reason for my call is to express my support for the proposed pub zoning legislation and the 98 franklin street. my husband has been a resident for 30 years and i've been a resident for over 15 years. we are a inter racial couple raising two inter racial daughters. our daughters attended elementary school and our currently attended children faith school. both receiving financial aid. we've been members of the
international high school community for over a year and we couldn't ask for a better school on a neighborhood and it's the oldest and by binge wall school and they bring together people from many backgrounds and we have a shared culture with compassionate, and principled people and who love and support our school offers an amazing school program to families of varied socioeconomic background. the hub rezoning will deliver affordable housing and the kind of mixed use mixed income, transit oriented development plan that will serve san francisco well into the future. the 98 franklin projected will provide affordable units. i strongly encourage your support of french america international school and the 98 franklin street development. thank you for your time.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. we have 35 listeners and 25 in queue. >> hi, my name is gary i'm the president of the red stone labor temple association. at 16 and cap. i just wanted to echo my fellow tenants' comments earlier. that the tenants of the red stone building support more inclusion in this process and a thorough racial and social equity report. we support a phased approval process of the health plan and we're one block away from 1979 mission and supervisor preston's remarks i believe in the proposal to get 100% housing sounds great.
realistically, you know, and also we need to plan for 40 years in the future. so many people are out of work and we can be entering another great depression, why don't we think about this a little bit and think about who can afford market rate housing. it makes sense to produce more affordaaffordable housing many f that's all i have to say you will be notified you have been unmuted and you may begin to speak. >> good afternoon chair. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. my name is daniel greg.
the carper ten's union is in full support of the hub legislation proposed here today. we grow with the plans' objectives to encourage housing, including affordable housing and services to meet the community's needs. the plan addresses two major issues we are facing. the first is housing and something we're very familiar with and does not seem to be going away any time soon. the hub legislation brings thousands of residents to san francisco. both market rate and a considerable amount of affordable housing as well. the proposed development as loan will bring 1600 units. another major issue begins to address is jobs. construction is a second largest industry in the world behind healthcare. the economy is hit hard by a combination of recession and the covid-19 pandemic. all three have made commitment to labor and have an active history in san francisco and a
track record of making sure the projects get built and belt with union labor. this means jobs for hundreds of san francisco construction workers, opportunities foray prentice shipforapprenticeship. approval of this plan will not solve the housing crisis of fully bringing us out of the recession it's a huge step in the right direction. in conclusion, i want to reiterate we support the hub plan. we ask the land use and transportation committee support the plan as well. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. you will be notified you are unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is marie and i'm calling to support the recommendation of phasing in the area hub plan except for the three sites until
a racial and social inequity analysis is complete. this recommendation is not anti development but it is community planning this is a moment to hold the city of san francisco accountable for correcting the racing planning policies of the past and it's important to have a home during the covid times and any other time. thank you, very much. no planning without us. members of the public can call other the number and i.d. press poun pound and pound agai. press star 3 for those who have already pressed star 3, please continue to wait. next speaker, please.
you will be notified that you have been unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: hi, good afternoon supervisors. my name is sam and i am a renter in the mission. and i'm calling to support the hub rezoning and issue concerns regarding this additional equity review. while i support in theory the equity review this project has been delayed to undergo reviews for five years now and i'm concerned that the equity impact of those delays is not even being considered at all because every day that this project gets delayed and more housing is not filled and these $1 billion in community benefits is not paid to the city, it's a day that people will not live with shelter and the city will face a budget crunch.
furthermore, i want to ask the board of supervisors as we look through racist planning, why i haven't seen proposal to up said the west side westportal saint francis wood, these are white and exclusionary neighborhoods with single family zoning right next to money munitations that e you in the train in 15 minutes. as we look a lot -- i support the removing the central free and it should be a part of this broader shift towards equity and planning and zoning. thank you. >> you will be notified you have been unmuted and you may begin
your comments. >> caller: hell oh i would like to express my support for the proposed hub rezoning for the 98 franklin street development. i have been a san francisco resident and worker for about 21 years and i also own a small business in the city, a local business enterprise. i'm also the children born and raised in san francisco and all three are attending primary and middle school at french american international. i think this will provide affordable housing as well as more school mixed use income in a trance see enter oriented area
it's what the city needs. again i give my support. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> you'll have two minutes. >> my name is an gel i caal geld i'm calling in support of the amended hub area plan being proposed by supervisor preston. our coalition is supportive of approvalling this phase 1 area plan which is a narrow area plan that moves forward three key sites van ness and 98 franklin streets. approving these three sites does not mean the over all hub plan is go ahead to go. the hub area plan over lays communities living in d5, d9 and d6 there are still a lot of
analysis that need to be done to ensure we have an equitable plan to mitigate the massive negative impact of this area plan and having the planning department examine the potential socioeconomic impact of the proposed development on our low income and working plans and particularly residents living in the central city is the right step forward to uphold the commitment to make a commission resolution number 20738. it's nice to hear your city staff acknowledging the equity assessment, it's a step backwards to approve a whole area plan and go back later to incorporate what the consultants identified with community groups. this kind of backward steps is snowball effect. negative i have total tax break all over again in eastern neighborhoods and we need to not only address the housing crisis
which market rate development has not helped. about what we need is a real equity plan that will ensure that all of our existing communities will continue to live, thrive and i ask you support the proposed amended area plan that our essential city coalition worked to achieve. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you will be notified that you've been unmuted and you may begin. >> good afternoon, supervisors peskin, safai and preston. this is anna tay sha district 8 member of san francisco tenants union and central city's coalition. the central city's coalition advocates for adoption of a phased approach to development in the hub area plan that provides for approval of the three key development rights, situated in the plan, that has
been submitted and are in the process of a project approval, namely 10 south van ness and 98 franklin. the three projects proposed for approval has met with the community over the last several months of community process was followed. developers came to the table and agreed to confer sufficient community benefits to these developed in the hub area plan. these community benefits go above and beyond what is required and help mitigate the negative impacts posed by the developments. other projects in the area plan could be considered in the future when the framework of a race and social equity assessment that's in the process of development by the central city coalition is completed. the framework will be the basis for a race and social equity study that advises modifications to the hub area plan. and implemented to mitigate potential harms to tenants, businesses, at risk of displacement, harm to vulnerable low income, working class and
people of color. i ask you to move the amended hub area plan that our central city coalition has worked to achieve forward as committee report to the full board. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jason henderson. i am a co-chair of the market in octavia community advisory committee and chair of hayes valley neighborhood association transportation and planning committee. speaking for myself i support the phased approach and it's creative and it's needed. don't forget that much of the eastern side of of district five is rent-controlled tenants who are baring the burden of regional traffic, incredible
amounts of traffic. so, with this post pandemic environment that the urban realm plan is not sufficient. we need to have wider sidewalks and bike lanes that provide north-south access between the mission and the civic center and western edition. we can't just let this become privatized mobility with ubers and lyft and ecommerce saturating this area. we can reduce the parking and i would urge an interim parking control while the planning process racial equity analysis is underway and keep it as it is. .25. go to the interim control we did in 2017. extend car free market to goff because you will be seeing a lot
of vehicles converging on 12th street and that's not good. and lastly, i think accelerating freeway removal is critical because we need housing and that is suitable land for plentiful housing and open space. so, i'm pleased to see that that is -- thank you for your comments. you have two minutes to speak. you will be notified you have been unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: hello. hi, thank you. good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is claire and i am a member of so many cam and i am here today as a long time district 6 resident. i was born and raised in the tenderloin and my family moved
here from the philippines after world war ii and they live in the neighborhood today and we've been struggle to go stay since. i'm calling in for representation of phasing in the hub area plan except for the (inaudible) site. until a thorough racial analysis is complete and i want to let it be known this is not anti development but creating a community process. a community planning process. that puts equity in the forefront of land use making decisions because we have seen how past plans like the twitter tax breaks and eastern neighborhoods plan have failed black and brown working-class communities. if we do it correctly a racial and social equity analysis can be an effective tool how assess the development will impact the tenderloin. planning is subject to the (inaudible) and currently and in this process and when we talk about (inaudible) neighborhoods, we need to address up zoning for violent and harmful acts and it
should be a requirement to conduct a racial equity study to see how it will impact brack black and brown communities and the same way that environmental impact reports are required for any projects. this moment is our opportunity to hold this city accountable for correcting racist planning policies of the past and this is more than just housing it's about equity and having a feet at the table and our folks staying and see a future here. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes and you will be notified you've been unmuted. >> caller: hello, (inaudible). can you hear me? >> yes, go ahead. >> caller: hi name is martin and i'm calling from you district 5. so, i want to center the
discussion here on the delay and all the infrastructure improvements that are part of the hub package. we're talking about a billion dollars of street and infrastructure safety improvements. i do support a racial equity study as a ex immigrant member of this community and a tenant myself i understood the need for that, however, i believe that racial equity has to be centered on street improvements and because street violence including car crashes, and other collisions that occur on our streets, especially in the hub area, do impact people of color more than any other groups. so, i do support, for example, tearing down the freeway and building affordable housing there however i think if this plan is being delayed in order to stop the growth in this area, i want to remind folks na the area already is accepted for high density and highrise development and stopping this
plan would stop the street improvements and the transit improvements and stop the street scape improvements so ultimately the decision has to be how do we exceed the project goals and not how do we stop this up zoning because the up zoning will improve the lives of everything in this city if we do invest the community benefits into the street improvements that are part of the plan currently. i'm ok as long as it is not a delay indefinitely. the central freeway being removed should be part of this plan, thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you will have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is theo and i'm a renter in san francisco and i share of san francisco and i want to call in on behalf to support these three planned projects in the
hub and looking forward to moving quickly forward with the wrest. after the equity study. we absolutely need more housing and we node more housing of every income level. it's easy to say let's not move during covid, let's pump the breaks or slow down, but who needs places to raise our families, we need this housing now. on the equity side, i want to ask why are we only talking about projects in large being built in soma and the mission. supervisor preston, we live a couple blocks from each other and i want to know the wealthy part of district 5 places like alamo square, i live in an apartment building in this area built in the 1920s but we don't build those and why not? isn't that the equity view is that we should be building more
housing on the western parts of the city and central parts of the city not just move all that development into soma and the mission. let's get more housing built. let's do it in our neighborhoods. and i ask supervisor preston to show us you can say yes to housing and demolish the ways to zoning we only allow apartment buildings in soma and the mission. district five say great neighborhood to live in and we can have a lot more neighbors living here. so, please, you know, show this and take leadership and up zone the west side of the city. there's no reason why our zoning maps should map our old red lining maps. it's a clear racist legacy and we should undue that. thank you and please move forward with these three projects. >> thank you for your comments. again, members of the public who wish to provide public comment can call into (451)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is
146-922-4815. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to lineup to speak. you have raised your hand. just wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisor. i am with some can. it's a member of the central city coalition is ensuring we have more equitable san francisco that will project and enhance the ability for our working class communities of colors to continue to exist, live and work within the spaces that our greatest and maintain this this city and i'm calling in for the proposed by supervisor preston and our
coalition is supportive of approving this phase 1 hub and area planning which is now a narrow area one that moves forward and (inaudible). we don't agree the city approving the whole entire hub plan without first looking at race and equity impacts. it's crucial that the rate and equity assessment is done before we pine for phase 2 of the hub area. and we are passing that will help sent prevent the harm to working class communities. again, i ask that we support proposed the amended area that our central city coalition has worked to achieve.
thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you may begin your communities. >> caller: hello. may i proceed. >> yes, ma'am. >> caller: thank you, ma'am. i want to provide i am (inaudible). i am a member of the filipino community. operations. and calling in the support of (inaudible) for the phasing in the hub area plans except for the three (inaudible) until the analysis is complete.
this recommendation is not untied development. rather, it is the community planning process needed to strengthen the equity first framework to be housing for all. it's social equity report. some can debate use as an effective tool and assess how new development this is the hub plan area impacts the stock market and tenderloin. we have given inequity and seen how they turn neighborhood plans away from the communities. which post negative made by market rates development and to low income and working class and color and diversity.
it is our opportunity to hall the ct and some for accountable for connecting racist running policies. having homes is more than just affordable housing. having a home is providing the most population and over all benefits from neighborhoods planning policies and that they have an agreed able seat at the table. i strongly took fourth -- >> your time has expired. thank you, ma'am.
>> good afternoon, supervisor, my name is lorenzo with the tenderloin congress a member of the central civic coalition. the reason i called is to express our support for the amended market and octavia area map. being proposed by supervisor preston. it's kong convinced it's important to look at equity to ensure the question of equity is suck stan shalsubstantially add. it also includes the approval of the three key development sites at 10 south van ness. the developer of this street projects have worked with the communities to provide substantial community benefits that will have mitigate their negative impact. the tenderloin people believe in the importance of community
planning process to strengthen and the equity first framework to build housing for all san franciscans. we believe there's no way to be con student so we strongly support the proposed amended area plans. we believe this is the right thing to do and under the principles of inclusion, equity and democracy. thank you so much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> yes, hi. good afternoon. this is tracy rosenberg and i'm from media alliance and we're a constituent group with united to save the miss. i'm calling in in support of the phased in hub plan and requesting a comprehensive race and social equity assessment before the entire hub plan is
adopted. the eastern neighborhoods plan has been deeply problematic as we all know. we've been seeing the bad effects for years and it's important that we go forward in a different and better fashion. we need an inclusion i have planning process with equity at the forefront and impacted community have to be at the table. we can't keep repeating mistakes that have gotten us to our current place with massive displacement and probably, i believe, we in an article as the most general fied city in the country. as a legacy non-profit organizations, we were founded here in san in 1976 and we never intended to be anywhere else but in 2005, we had to leave this city because we couldn't pay the rent. and i was only lucky and happy
that we were able to come back in 2015 and nothing to the non-profit. development. but we were lucky and most of community groups and members of the and the san francisco we came back to is not the san francisco that we left. so, let's stop here is look at doing things in a different and report and analysis. >> thank you for your comments. we have 24 listeners and 12 in cue. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
kelly hill with united to save the mission and part of the central city's coalition. i'm calling in hub plan being proposed by supervisor preston. we support passing a plan that moves forward the sites as those are the only three proposed development this is the that will help the warm of working class communities. for me when i lock at the massing 3-d diagram and the eir you can see the level of scope and the potential impact that that plan is going to have on the built environment. and the north side it's vulnerable residential spaces and dangers of indirect displacement as the plan goes into effect.
we must effect that existing vulnerable housing within anna jays enter to the hub and the in center section of the hub, along market, i see large projects already under construction and we see at least nine long time community serving businesses already displaced due to the new construction. 1554 market and 1629 market and 30odes we see 1,000 under construction. we support the labor and union folks on the job. i'm concerned that we've already lost at least nine working class businesses along otus street that were open for business in the low and moderate income communities of color. we don't know the full impact of this yet. on the same side of the plan, this is where i feel we need to row visit the hsd and work together for stronger protection and modify the process that could lockout community participation and planning. i won't go parcel by parcel but several up zone sites include the largest hardware store in
the city and a large restaurant supply as well as numerous other businesses crucial to racial diversity in this community. it's important to be able to edge gain in the community planning process when large projects are slated -- >> thank you so much for yu your comments. next speaker please. you'll have two minutes and you will be notified your line is unmuted and you may begin. >> hell hoe, hi. hello supervisors. my name is (inaudible). and we're calling in support of the recommendation of phasing the e-hub area plan except for the three sites we haven't discussed. until we do a thorough racial and social equity analysis, we don't have to look too far back to see the equity eastern neighborhood plan that has destroyed our community. there's 8,000 latin residents with the mission and hundreds of small non-profit businesses artists and working class
manufacturing. we are in a historic walk shed movement with white blacks matter intended or non intended. this moment is our opportunity for the city of san francisco to be accountable for correcting racist planning policies. thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors, this is jim and i'm on the board of the civic center benefit district which is one of the on site community groups that you haven't mentioned. we have worked closely with the three developers, a couple of them are on our board. on related to the pedestrian aspect and the facility of the groundfloor of the building and they're happy with them. we did that many months before you got involved. i want to point out that in the
past five years, nine developments have been progress 2700 units of housing. with affordable units. these units are already there and taking up a lot of the parcels that are already there. of the list of 18 that you are dealing with, if you eliminate the three that under construction and the three we talked about that's 12. three are owned by the city and one of them is owned by the community college district, and two of them are very viable businesses so leaves you with eight small warehouses that are either under utilized or empty. this whole to do is the over blown as to what you are talking
about. the important thing is to move this thing forward, particularly the parts of the plan that deal with the pedestrian environment and you don't need to hold that up because it's been worked out really well. so, do whatever you are going to do but let's think about getting this together and when you do your studies, you are going to find there's not that many pieces of property to worry about. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. we have 21 listeners and eight in queue. >> hi, there. my name is samantha and i'm a resident of the district 5. and i'm calling to speak in favor of the hub projects and the 98 franklin project. i was in district five for the better part of a decade now and i've been a neighbor of the french american schools for about a year and a half now and
there's no other organization is would trust with a project like this as much as i trust them. they've been fantastic neighbors and they engage the communities in ways didn't expect when i moved here. this is exactly the sort of mixed use mixed income kind of transit oriented development plan that i was hoping for when i voted for denser housing in all of the ballot initiatives. so, i'm excited to support it and i am glad this is moving forward. thank you so much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. this is pat. i am a d5 resident and member of the (inaudible) coalition. this hub project overlaps three
different (inaudible). raising social equity is an important thing that should happen before more of the hub area is up zoned and benefits given to developers. ask that those should only follow after the community that shows what benefits it wants. planning has been very good at building buildings but how much are occupied? we got people who we walk home with it's true and we got building that's have been built. so which need to do a little more thoughtful planning that clearly the value of neighborhoods and neighborhoods, people who have businesses they can go to, services that they can go to and non profits and events, and people where they can feel at home and will not have people calling them out for being black in a white area. you need to be better.
support san franciscans and keeping our san franciscans here. i supports comments by supervisor preston and other city comments. phased approach, please. thank you. >> thank you, members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146-922-4815. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand, please wait for to indicate you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. for those already in line, thank you for waiting, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, supervisors. john from the san francisco mission district. and a member of the central city
coalition. our coalition led primarily by working class communities of color has been working on this plan for well over a year and a half. we have spent that time attending community meetings, combing through documents, and assessing what the path forward could be. it's why we're calling in informed to voice our support for the amended area plan that is being proposed to you by supervisor preston. this allows us to phase in an area plan that is being passed at one of the most uncertain times in american history. it is also a time where our country is reckoning with the structural racism that is pervasive in every facet of society, especially in land use and planning. the phase plan before you brings with it three key sites that have all met with our community stakeel horse over several months and ensure we produce the needed benefits and the mitigate the negative impacts that developments can have on working
class communities. we have won working on a social equity ceasement being led and we want to ensure we're looking at future developments and area plans through a true lens of racial and social equity. this assessment will allow us to look at a future phase 2 of the hub area plan and ensure we were building an area that is truly help encompass a plan for us. supervisor preston, i would like to thank you, your office, in particular, kyle sil smiley as e look forward to the work ahead. thank you. next speaker, please. >> your long time resident and member of the senior disability action. i approve the efforts to allow
the first street projects to go ahead will not slow down the hub. if the supervisors today and tomorrow support supervisor preston's amendments and essential city's coalition plans, for a racial and social justice setting, this could be the first day of a new and equitable future for san francisco planning. that would be a future in which the people effected by the construction there have a choice in its creation. thank you. >> thank you next speaker,
please. >> caller: good afternoon. i live in d9. and i have been looking at this hub plan carefully and i was reading defunding strategies and it was previously proposed and it showed the hub area could have 2200 affordable units. i thought it was exciting and we definitely don't want to loose that and i was looking at affordable housing, $682 million worth of transit and $116 million worth and parks and recreations are $32 million and complete streets $71 million and school and childcare 75 mends. it's a billion dollars in benefits we don't want to loose and it's the reason that sensitive communities like mine and others are concerned here is because we're really needing to
start looking as as the planning commission is a ban on zoning ordinance that's c co hab tate multi family housing on large lots. these rules prevent both lower income and middle-class families from settling in affluent neighborhoods, exclusionary zoning ordinances were partly motivated by institution tonal and banning those, it's not only good policy but constitutionally permissable if not at the something that goal governments can do if there's a political will to do so. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. we have 21 listeners with four in queue.
>> we are living in different times. covid has effected business who's live in these districts that overlap the neighborhood. i know a lot of people are advocating for affordable housing but what is the use of affordable housing when the neighborhood will feel like a portrait to residents and communities of color. where a community retail and business floor space makes us feel unsafe. where people who just moved into the bay area are calling cops on unhoused populations and people of color many of this is a part of our environmental impact report and and it's important to
of the hub and we should examine not just where wore changing zoning but wore where we're not changing the zoning. there were two homes valued at $2.5 million that have been sold in the district and the median income is over $100,000. we should make changes there. in january, i attended a meeting of the west of between peaks central council where leaders of the neighborhood association expressed shock and state legislation and it could tall and lower income residents and black indigenous and people of color. it didn't cause direct displacement but it has sim here
to ask you to support the amended hub area plan as proposed by supervisor preston. early earlier we heard an ordinance from supervisor ronen to fix issues in the planning code and address indirect arms that were not mitigate in the eastern neighborhood's plan. you have all witnessed the devastation of the mission --[
speak today. my name is casandra and -- they bring together people from many cultures and backgrounds just like the make up of san francisco. and we have been part of this school community for the past seven years and and 98 franklin mixed-use development and i want to take the opportunity to commend the city and the community and planning staff for all their hard work on this important project. it takes a long time to get to the point of project we're at today. this project provides a uniqu
unique -- that's really been a staple in san francisco for families for decades. this project has gone through a long approval process and the international community of french american has worked with the city and the community for the past five years to make 98 franklin and the hub a reality. so i strongly encourage you to support the project today. so that we can move forward and deliver the various improvements it promises to the community and the city as a whole. thank you so much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> this is the fourth time i've
been kicked off this call. when mission residents raise the issues before the eastern neighborhoods plan was adopted, we were told that it would be adequately addressed later. it never was and we're still fighting for equity while displacement and trauma increases expo te exponentially. the planning department has not performed racial ini can equity study. the fact we stand before you and state there's no directive placement from this plan demonstrates the inadequacy of their understanding of impacts on communities of color and our need for this study first before moving towards final adoption. let today be the day that his to be yans referred to as the moment in time when this land use committee ushered in a new era for san francisco. that from this day forward, all major planning hood changes will require rates and equity study and assessment of the impacts that are revealed and they will
be central to proposing mitigations for direct and indirect harms. and then no area plan will ever move forward to final adoption without that lense. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: we're debating displacement and gentrification. i'm concerned with racial and culture equity in those communities that have seen dramatic changes. there's a way to get us on the same page. look at where we built housing in the city. it's overwhelmingly focused in the same community concern it has been for decades. that map say perfect modern reflection of the racist red lining formally outlawed in 1968 and still very much alive. in 2019, 317 units were built in the mission and over 2800 units were built in soma but just four were built in the sunset.
four. if you are so concerned about the inequitable impacts on the hub you must know how unfairly housing is disability tries uted across the city but on this subject, you are silent and we can build thousand of new homes in the city while elevateing and protecting these communities that are expendable. if you are serious about housing equity, fight to up zone the rest of the city as hard as you fought to slow down the hub and i will be thrilled to join you. >> that completes the queue. thank you. colleagues, are there anymore questions or comments on items 5-8?
chair peskin -- >> yeah, i'd like to run through if supervisor safai or any other questions before we do that and i'm happy to do that i believe supervisor safai had to leave so i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor safai. >> on the motion to excuse supervisor safai, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. you have two ayes. >> great, that motion passes.
supervisor preston. >> thank you. and i want to thank everyone who called in and interests been a lot of moving parts and i want to give particular thanks to john jacobo, carlos, tess, david woo, jason henderson among many others who have helped our office to understand the concerns and the implications of the various pieces of the legislation here. also, the folks with united states mission and central city and coalition and also our offices a he i mentioned before worked collaboratively my legislative -- i don't know if
you have an order in which we take these in terms of voting and are tick latin articulating. >> so, please, dean, go ahead. i think the amendments are solid. so, go ahead. >> right. >> great. and i'll keep the summary brief. so i'm going to start with item number 6 on the agenda. file number 200556 and would like to coupe date the file and continue the original file to
the call of the chair and make several amendments. do i need a motion chair peskin to continue the item to the call of the chair? before making? >> you can dislocate the file and you can coupe la indicate the file and we can vote on any amendments there too. >> so, for the amendments to the file on that and section 2a pages 4-9 removing rezoning of parcels from nct3 and removing height increases for all parcels
and and last section 2c pages 12 through 16 removing the expansion of the rusd except for a small portion of 10 south ns project site that is outside the sud, a move to amend that item. >> hold on a second. the file has been duplicated, correct? >> correct. >> before amendment. >> and then the second file has been amended, correct? >> and we're voting that has been amended, is that correct?
>> we can take that vote first, yes. >> ok. >> >> as amended. >> we will also need a motion on the original pre amendment version to continue to call the chair. >> right now we're doing the duplicated file as amended and is that the vote i'm about to vote on? >> yes. >> all right. >> clerk: on the duplicate file has amended, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> preston aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> clerk: you have two ayes.
>> and -- >> clerk: would you like to vote on the remaining balance of the duplicate. >> the duplicate legislation to recommend as amended. supervisor preston? >> to be continued to the cause of the chair? >> let me clarify to make sure i'm getting this right. we duplicated the file. we amended the duplicate and they've been taken and we are moving the amended file with recommendation as committee report? >> clerk: yes. >> you are totally (inaudible). >> madam clerk, may i intervene.
the duplicate file is -- since you are sending it out as a committee report, it should be the original file that gets amended because it's the file on the board agenda. the duplicate you should continue to the call of the chair. thank you. >> in that event, do we need to undo -- >> we need to rescind the previous vote to amend the duplicate. >> i'll make a motion to rescind the previous vote. can we do that without objection? >> yes. >> so moved. >> we duplicate the file and now we need to amend the original as previously stated. >> on the motion to -- on the motion to amend --
>> on the motion to amend the original legislation, as stated by supervisor preston, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. you want to send it to the board with recommendations. >> yes. >> as a committee report. >> on the motion as stated by supervisor preston, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> peskin aye. you have two ayes. and then the last step to move to continue the duplicated file here. >> on the motion as stated, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> you have two ayes.
>> thank you. madam clerk, is there anymore business -- >> we have one more item that will require amendment and two more that we need to move. so turning to agenda item number 8, file number 200559. again, to duplicate the file and the following amendments for the original. amend the option for provision of affordable housing fees to clarify methodology and align with other provisions the ordinance for calculating fee equivalency that is as previous distributed on page 16 line 8-11 and page 16 lines 12-17. also, amend planning department