tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV January 13, 2022 4:30am-5:31am PST
>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 10, 2022, meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor. this is our first meeting of the year 2022. may it be better. i am the chair of the committee joined by the vice chair. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to thank the folks at sfgov tv. >> clerk: the committee members participating in this remote meeting. public access to city services essential and public participation is invited. public comment will be available either on channel 26, 76 and 89 and the call-in number is being
streamed. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. you can call the number on your screen, 415-655-0001. again, that number is 415-655-0001. you will be prompted for the meeting i.d. which is 2494 264 6753. again, that number is 2494 264 6753. and then follow to # #. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listen note only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are from a quiet location, speak clearly and turn down your television or radio. or you can submit comment by
e-mailing myselfo: firstname.lastname@example.org comments may be sent to city hall as well. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on january 25 unless otherwise stated. we have interpreters helping with translation. if you can please help with the announcements. [speaking spanish].
>> madam clerk, please call item 1ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa. sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. members of the public can call 415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 2494 264 6753. and then press # #. if you have not already, please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. madam chair. >> chair: thank you very much, madam clerk. we are joined by supervisor hillary ronen who represents
this corridor. thank you for being here. do you have a few words? >> yes, thank you so much, chair. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for hearing this item today to designate this building as a san francisco landmark under article 10 of the planning code. i have very brief remarks and i'll turn it over to a colleague for her presentation. newly arrived immigrants first opened casa sanchez as a tortilla factory. they moved to the mission and established a much-loved family restaurant [indiscernible]. this restaurant helped to establish the strong presence of
latinx-opened business. there is an expectation that this restaurant will join soon. [indiscernible] during my first term, my office formalized the structure of cultural districts and a number of cultural districts formed across the city. the specific sites that carry the history and legacy of these districts are crucial recognizing that tangible and intangible elements are important contributors to the historical assets of the city. because of the leadership of this district, 24th street east of mission street has continued to be a high-concentration
corridor. the street hosts carnival and other festivals. while this restaurant has moved to a larger production space, the building still houses a latinx restaurant and the iconic sign remains. much thanks goes to the latino historical society and for those leading the charge to recognize and protect the historical contributions of the latinx community for san francisco's rich culture. i ask for your support to move this to the full board with recommendation for approval. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, supervisor ronen. this makes me so happy. supervisor peskin, did you want to say something before the next
presenter? >> i did. in addition to the others, i would be happy to affix my name as a co-sponsor. i want to note the association of the sanchez family not only with north beach but a latino community in north beach set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the fact sheet, not only in association with our lady of guadalupe church, but the -- that used to be the entire latin quarter. i never heard of this nightclub. i'm going to do more research on that. hats off on this case report and for the landmarking. i am happy to be a part of it.
>> chair: thank you. i heard also that supervisor peskin wants to learn to dance bonda. welcome, ms. lavali. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. if you could bring up my presentation. i have a few slides. before you is the ordinance recommending approval for casa sanchez. in 2017, the historical organization added this to their work plan. in coordination with the property owner and the latino historical society, the preservation commission voted to
initiate the landmark designation of this building at their january 2021 hearing. casa sanchez is located mid-block on the north side of 24th street in the heart of the commercial quarter of the latin latino district. this is a two-storey commercial building home to the restaurant from 1968 to 2011. this is the third location of a multi-generation family business that was founded in 1924, as mentioned by supervisor ronen. the casa sanchez company is believed to be the longest-operating tortilla and tamale factory.
recommendation on the proposed landmark designation was heard on october 6, 2021. the commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark this designation, finding that casa sanchez is historically significant for association with the family business that dates to the 1920s and with development of the larger latinx community particularly with that of the business district. this is recommended as being 1968 to 2011 of the period of significance, marking the tenure of the restaurant in the building. thank you to bob sanchez and the sanchez family for encouraging and supporting this designation and also reiterating the comments to the historical society for their research and
documentation in support of this designation. thank you and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. colleagues, do we have any other questions or comments before we move on to public comment? >> i just wanted to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and please add me as a co-sponsor as well. >> add me too, please. the sanchez family has been so supportive of this area and really all the businesses in the corridor. let's go to public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the
system indicates you have been unmuted. we have six listeners. can you unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is woody labounty from san francisco heritage. since 1961, heritage's mission is to preserve and enhance san francisco's unique cultural and architectural identity. san francisco heritage was previously heavily involved in pushing casa sanchez for listing as a historical place. we definitely support this significant association with the history of san francisco's mission district and the city's latinx communities and culture. we celebrate and support casa sanchez. we definitely support its nomination at the landmark and
recommend it for approval. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. let's take the next caller, please. >> this is marta sanchez. nice to see everybody online. usually i have something to say, but this time i'm filled with emotions of all the memories i had growing up in the mission and on 24th street and all of the things we've been doing. everybody has participated in everything and i'm very proud to be proud of casa sanchez and the mission district. supervisor peskin, i'm really sorry you missed out on [indiscernible] because those are some good moments. i want to thank you for honoring us. it is not just my cultural -- it
is who i am. it is not just something i do but something we are. we started this first factory in the country means so much more than just being part of the family. i love that casa sanchez is here to stay. that means so much to me. i'm honored and thank you. >> clerk: chair melgar, can i make a quick comment. to further highlight this family's connection to casa sanchez, you can pretty much find marta any day of the week at the testing/vaccine site at cap and 24th street. she was there when i got my shots, when my daughter got her shots, when we got tested. it's this family's connection to the mission community and to the
area in particular is profound and long lasting. so community serving. marta, thank you for your community work. >> in fact, i just saw her yesterday. >> clerk: one more caller in the queue. let's take that caller. >> this is the founding member of the san francisco historical society. we are in the final [indiscernible] input from members and the city spanned over 60 years who are documenting the san francisco latino community history in first voice. i note the community has been a
voice in this community for over 150. casa sanchez was one of those businesses. by approval the landmarking of casa sanchez, it will be one of the first properties in san francisco to be listed for the association with mexican american history. in california's 1988 state-wide survey, the 10 mexican historic sites were identified potentially listing in the national registers. none have been listed to date. so by doing this today, you're making a bold statement. so i want to thank you. supervisor peskin, on the question of sinaloa, there has been a lot of research on that. i think we should set up a meeting so we can chat about those businesses. and my research, i've done a lot in north beach before the
borders changed as well as after from the tamale vendors as well as the first tamale business that was recognized by the international world fair. thank you for taking this into consideration and i hope you approve it. >> i may add that tomorrow's board of supervisors is actually voting on a resolution to encourage that the planning department pursue after it's been on their list for quite a while the north beach survey. i will make sure that the folks who are doing that avail themselves of all the historic information that you have that should definitely be included in that document if it has not already done so. >> clerk: thank you, supervisors. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the board with
positive recommendation? there it is, supervisor peskin. madam chair, if we could close public comment. >> chair: public comment is now closed. thank you. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: on the motion to item 1. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: congratulations, supervisor, that motion passes. madam clerk, let's call item 3 now, please. >> clerk: item 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require landlords pursuing certain types of evictions to first provide their tenants written notice and an opportunity to cure, unless the eviction is based on an imminent health or safety issue or the non-payment of covid-19 rental debt; and making findings that the eviction
protections in the rent ordinance are more protective than those found in state law pursuant to california civil code, section 1946.2. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. again, that number is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. today is 2494 264 6753. then press # #. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak for item 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have an interpreter helping us with translation. if you can please call item 3. [speaking spanish].
much for introducing this item. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair, and thank you for finding room on the calendar for us which is always a challenge. i appreciate you holding this hearing today. colleagues, the board of supervisors has really come together to ban most evictions with limited exceptions for health and safety throughout the pandemic, at least to the maximum extent we could under state law. we did this as a public health measure, but it's become even clearer that making eviction a last resort is beneficial for all of us and not just a good idea during and as a response in covid, but also more permanently for the future of our city. in that spirit before us today is the eviction diversion
ordinance. under the simple but impactful proposal, before serving a three-day eviction notice, a landlord would be required to give a tenant a 10-day warning, allowing the tenant the opportunity to correct the behavior that could lead to eviction. eviction should really be auto tool of last resort and all too often three days really flies by and tenants are in a position where they could have come up with rent money or otherwise solved the dispute with the landlord, but they simply don't have enough time to access the resources and help that they need. our laws are very harsh. a landlord can commence the eviction process just three days later, even if with the tenant comes up with the rent or cures the breach of contract on the
fourth day. so an additional 10 days would really be a game changer. advocates have predicted this would save thousands of san franciscans who would otherwise lose their homes. i just want to emphasize that the fact is as a society we don't resolve any other dispute like this. you know, home foreclosures, consumer debt, car repossession s, you name it, in no other situation discuss someone have three days before losing their home and property. for some reason and beyond the reasons for our discussion today, for some reason our system accepts three days as disputes leading to people losing their homes. if the pending disputes can be
solved, we have a moral obligation to make that happen. i really want to thank all of the early co-sponsors who constitute a majority of the supervisors and include our entire committee. thank you, chair megar and supervisor peskin, and the other supervisors all for their co-sponsorship. i hope we can move forward and do everything in our power to prevent preventable eviction. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, supervisor preston, for introducing this item and your leadership throughout this pandemic which has resulted in helping thousands of folks in our city not losing their homes. i appreciate you in your elephants. thank you so much. if there's no other questions for supervisor preston, madam
clerk, let's go to public comment. did you want to make another announcement if folks want to get ready if they need to. [speaking spanish]. >> we're checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not, press star 3 to be added to the line. we have seven listeners with four in the queue.
please unmute the first caller. >> my name is scott weiber with the san francisco tenants' union and the eviction collaborative. i've been working on tenant rights issues and largely evictions for over 40 years and i'm very encouraged by this ordinance. it is an eviction prevention ordinance because it gives us a path to resolution that avoids the legal process. currently there is a three-day notice which is usually done with the assistance of an attorney. this sets in motion a momentum that leads to an unlawful retainer and often ends in eviction. the proposed legislation gives us additional time to driveways
this without immediate eviction, whether it's payment of rent or some other breach of the rental agreement. the city has invested quite a bit in community-based organizations as well as the collaborative as well as trying to keep people in their homes. this is a very good way to better utilize those resources, rather than having to deal with an adversarial litigation environment, they can go to the problem to help the person seek penalty assistance it's not much to ask of the landlord. it's only 10 days. they get the most expedited process in the legal world and it's only 10 days.
that might make the difference between having a tenant evicted or not. i support this legislation and encourage the board of supervisors to move forward with this. >> i'm from the san francisco tenants union calling in support of this legislation. it's really scary when you get served a three-day notice and you have to get it together to go to the eviction collaborative to file papers because you're being evicted. for what reason? it could be a minor reason that the landlord wants to take you to court. they may win or may lose. you don't know. they don't know. to have 10 days to resolve the
situation, whatever is the case that there is a breach, you can cure it without having to go through the trauma and the legal process. thank you. >> clerk: we have people in the queue. next listener. >> good afternoon. this is theresa flander north beach tenants' association. inevitably tenants receive a notice late friday at 5:00 p.m. or if they return from work, they see something in the mail.
this gives tenants the time to contact tenant councilors over that weekend which would be closed over the weekend. they would have access to tenant counseling, people to interpret what the notice means in a language they can understand. the thing is that the landlord knows in advance that this is something they are going to do. the tenant is only notified three days before a legal procedure begins in terms of an eviction. so this gives tenants the time to have the counseling. if they need accommodations for their emotional support animal, that they have time to get a note from their doctor as examples. so this is a huge game changer and i am so thrilled that you,
supervisor preston, have brought this forward. please, let's pass this on with a strong recommendation and have the board vote yes in favor. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the eviction defense collaborative and have over 35 years of experience working with tenants trying to preserve their housing. i'm so appreciative of this proposed legislation which is a potential game changer for tenants in our city. it creates an opportunity to resolve issues before having to resort to an expensive and drawn-out and extremely expensive court process which is cheaper for all the parties involved, both the landlords and the tenants.
it brings san francisco more in sync with many jurisdictions around the country. a three-day notice falls short of what due process would prior. it also brings in low-fault situations, very minor problems that could be resolved with enough of a warning notice so the tenant can seek assistance or request accommodation. and really be a win-win for the property owner and the tenant so the error is resolved and the problem is fixed and the tenant can retain their housing. so it avoids evictions, saves court costs for the landlord, is favorable to all and the city which has already endorsed this tenant program. our agency is the lead agency for that program. i would be like to be part of
the work fighting these unnecessary cases. >> clerk: next speaker, please. this is the last caller. if you would like to make public comment on item 3, you need to press star 3. >> i'm representing some of my colleagues [indiscernible] -- we are pleased to hear your sponsorship for this ordinance. we recognize the members and individuals experiencing homelessness is rising in san francisco. therefore, [indiscernible] to facilitate access to pregnancy and neonatal resources. extending access to these individuals, what additional measures can san francisco provide in addition to more
affordable, neonatal supplies, and low-income populations? >> thank you so much. we have three more callers in the queue. let's take the next caller. >> i am an organizer with the housing rights community of san francisco, calling in on this legislation to create a 10-day waiting period. evictions are violent and three days is not enough time for tenants to make the best decision. increasing the notice time to 10 days gives tenants and their families enough time to reach out or make plans for how best to respond. thank you, supervisors, for bringing this forward and hope to move it past this committee with full recommendations.
thanks. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, thank you. i am a staff attorney at the eviction collaborative. i am calling in support of this legislation. i have seen firsthand the importance and the need to postpone eviction cases. there is no reason that they can't have an additional waiting period before sending them to an eviction. if there was additional time it would provide tenants time to cure the issue in most if not all cases. throughout the pandemic we have seen that more time on cases has benefitted tenants and so we should continue to work towards providing more time for tenants to address the issue underlying
issues so we don't have to go through the court process and avoid it if possible. as other people have mentioned it is expensive and time-consuming and we need to find ways to resolve these issues without going to the court. we should all support this legislation. thank you so much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. we have two in the queue. >> i'm a small property owner in san francisco. i'm calling in and asking the supervisors to oppose this legislation moving forward to the board of supervisors because it's unnecessary and [indiscernible] -- first of all, i'd like to see and i haven't heard any data put forth why 10 days is a good amount of time to give to tenants.
is there any research that that will avoid evictions in the future? i would remind the supervisors that tenants already have more than 10 days to live up to their contract, it is the lease to live up to their contract. this is a very -- once again, a punitive action against small landlords like myself incurring costs when legislation like this is passed and i have to adhere to it. it is no secret in san francisco about all the trip-ups of a three-day notifier and how that can cost the landlord time and money. i would ask the supervisors to block this and not move forward with it as it is punitive and there is nothing to help the housing situation in san francisco. thank you.
>> clerk: thank you so much. we have one caller in the queue. let's take the last caller. >> i own rental property in san francisco. i urge you to vote no on the proposed notice. what it looks like is a lot of people don't know how the eviction process works in san francisco. there's already numerous safety valves for tenants, like court-mandated settlement agreements and mandatory conferences between landlords and tenants. this gives tenants plenty of time to avoid losing their homes even after an unlawful detainer is filed. the proposed notice does nothing that tenants need and it increases the cost of housing because most of us have to hire an expensive lawyer to send out each of these notices and higher
legal costs and making the cost higher for tenants. that's what you're doing that. renters don't want that and housing providers don't want it either. please vote no. if you still think tenants need a little more than three days? how about changing the existing three-day notice to a four or five-day notice or 10 days, whatever. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. that looks like that was the last caller in the queue. >> chair: okay. well, with that, complement is now closed. any other questions or comments? first, supervisor preston. seeing none, supervisor preston, do you want to make a motion that we send this to the board
with full recommendation? >> so moved. >> clerk: in the motion as stated by supervisor preston to recommend item 3. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: we have three ayes that motion passes. >> chair: thank you. and that motion passes. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code to conditionally permit bars in the castro street neighborhood commercial district; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code. members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 2 can call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001 and the my colleagued i.d. today is 2494
264 6753. >> clerk: we don't have supervisor mandleman with us but we have someone with his office. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair. i am from supervisor mandleman's office who couldn't be here to give a very brief background on this ordinance. earlier this year we had a local entrepreneur who approached our office about her interest in opening a wine bar with some piano music and light snacks. it sounded lovely. she was calling because she went to the planning department because she was told this would
not be possible. bars are not permitted in the castro planning district, which may come as a surprise. obviously as there are a number of bars there, they are effectively all grandfathered in. this is a fine thing for those bars that we love, but this is not a good thing for this lesbian small business owner and others like her who want to add to the neighborhood. since that conversation, the supervisor discussed this in the neighborhood and the broader queer community including many local organizations. the prevailing sentiment, supervisors, is it doesn't seem fair to preclude new folks, queer folks, trans folks, from opening a an establishment in
the neighborhood. at the same time, we also heard clearly there is a desire not to see a complete saturation of the neighborhood with just bars or to see a history of new bars. what the ordinance before you would do would remove the outright prohibition in this area and make bar uses permitted. there would be an opportunity to get in on a case-by-case basis and for the planning commission to deliberate on that as well. this approach would be how bars are zoned in the other districts. this ordinance was unanimously recommended by the small business commission as well as the planning commission in december and the planning department staff is here as well
to convey the planning commission's recommendation. this is a relatively simple piece of legislation that the supervisor believes will make this a welcoming neighborhood and retain its character. i'm available for any questions. thank you so much. >> chair: thank you so much. ms. merlone, do you have a presentation? >> no presentation. just here to convey that the planning commission heard this on december 16, 2021, and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance as proposed. >> chair: thank you so much to you both. colleagues, if there are no questions or comments from you, let's go to public comment. madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see how many callers are in the queue.
please press star 3 to add yourself to the queue. it looks like we have about to listeners today with one person in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this afternoon i'm speaking on my behalf as a private citizen and a 15-year resident of the castro. although i benefit from the privilege of quaintness, i have seen what happens. every single bar is owned by a cis gender person. i have spoken with brown and black folks, lesbians and black people who have been heart broken to learn that making it to the united states, there is no place for them here. our friends and family and san
francisco's visitors endure ongoing pain and trauma, not only because they don't find those spaces that prioritize them, but these bars set the tone that is reflected in the behavior of staff, performers, and guests. this exclusion of these bar owners is due to a deal cut in the 1980s that has no bearing on today. i invite you to support this proposed legislation. thank you so much. >> clerk: that was the only caller in the queue, madam chair. >> chair: thank you so much. out of curious, when was this ban on new establishments implemented in the castro? >> thank you, chair. thanks to the great sleuthing at the planning department, it was
determined that this had been included in the castro since that neighborhood commercial district was created in i believe 1987. this was a time period when we were creating many of these named districts. >> chair: interesting. thank you so much. so with that, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or comments or do you want to -- does anybody want to make a motion that we forward this with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> and this item was noted to have a report. on that motion. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: thank you so much. that item passes unanimously