tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV June 29, 2022 1:00pm-3:31pm PDT
land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors . i am supervisor melgar joined by dean preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the clerk is erica major and i like to acknowledge the folks at sfgov tv. thank you for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> board of supervisors are now convening hybrid meetings that will allow public comment while providing access via telephone. the board recognizesthe equitable public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows . comments will betaken on each item on this agenda . those attending in person will beallowed to speak first and we will be moving to our remote call in line . for those watching either channel 26, 88 or 99 at sfgov tv, the public call in number is streaming across the street. the number to call in is 415-655-0001.again, that number is 415-655-0001. then you enter the meeting id
which is 2499 861 0736. then press pound and pound again. when connected youwill hear th meeting discussions but will be muted and in remote only . when your item of interest comes up , please join those joining us please lineup to the right near the curtains and those on the lines should pressáthree. if you're on your telephone pleaseremember to turn down your television and all listening devices when speaking . as already indicated we will be taking public comments or those attending in person first and go to the telephone lines. alternatively you may submit public comment in writing to myself at email@example.com g.
if you submit public comments via email it will be forwarded to the supervisors and be made part of the official file. written comments may be sent to our office at city hall. the address is one doctor carlton be transiting place, 940102. itemsacted upon are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda at june 28 unless otherwise stated . >> thank you very much madame clerk. to add to the announcements, masking is still recommended though not required. please continue to be respectful to those around you and provide adequate spacing if you are seated orlining up to make public comment . please call item number one. >> item 1 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to develop finance and support additional housing opportunities for low income andmoderate income residents members wish to provide public comments on item 1 to call the number on the screen . that's 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2499 861
0736. then press pound and pound again. if you not done so and would like to speak for itemnumber one you need to press our three and the system will indicate you have raised your hand and confirmation . >> thank you madame clerk. this item has been a while. i have been working with anti-displacement advocates, early education folks. for in the cds i community to address some of the concerns that folkshave . and i am happy to report that everyone so far is good. we also took the language that supervisor peskin came up with for the legislation and mirrored is exactly into this legislation so it would be consistent and we would be using one set of definitions so
that makes it more seamless in terms of the operational of this stuff. and i'm going to just, i provided you both with the amendments and i'm just goingto read a couple of things into the record if that's okay . the first one is the definition of property ownerwhich now reads , means property owner means the legal owner of recor . the residents who have owned the residence or at least five years prior to the application for assistance under the program for the purposes of establishing eligibility under the program, a property owner who has inherited the residence including any inheritance in or through a trust from a blood adopted or step family relationship. specifically from the grandparents sibling child or grandchild or the spouse or registered domestic partner of
such relations or the property owner's spouse or registered domestic partner . each ineligible predecessor may addan eligible duration to the property and restoration of ownership for the residence . there are a few other things under section 85.2. single family property without regards to zoning classification . then section 85.3. it clarifies as long as a borrower is not in default and as long as the borrower continues to occupy the residence of the unit as their primary residence except in extenuating circumstances as determined by mohcd. section 85.3, the. line 122 except as described in subsection c2c below it now reads if the borrower enters
into an agreement upon commencement of the loan, to receive referrals of household with rental subsidies from the san francisco housing authority and the department of homelessness and supported housing or any successive agency to fill any and all vacancies of the new unit or the residence during the long-term repayment shall be deferred until the earlier 10 years after the first certificate of occupancy is issued for the new unit or 12 yearsafter the deed of trust for the loan is recorded on the residence or new unit . then add language in section 85.3 page 6 lines 13 through 18. the property owner enters into one or more agreements with the city and then simply add it after chapter 37 in waiving the property owner's ability to displace one or more tenants in the new unit in accordance with
the ellis act california government section 7060 as it may be amended from time to time. and then we addressed the look back position as per supervisor preston concerns. now in page 6 line for it leads within the 10 years prior to theproperty owners application for the loan and continuing until the commencement of the loan . and then we are removing the language section 85.3 page 7 line 19 number four. striking the paragraphs to provide loans to low and moderate income tenants and existing until co-ops because you think that would be addressed in adifferent program .and then lastly, page 8 line 14.
and why cd may adopt rules and regulations not limited to rules and regulations designed to limit abuse and fraud. and then under section 85.4 page eight it will now say and why cd set shall support property owners with a anything units to tenants receiving rental assistance from any and all state local and nonprofit administered by the subsidy program. that is my amendment. colleagues, thank you for your patience. we hear from the city attorney there they are substantive and since we have canceled the meeting of the 27th and will not have a meeting for the fourth of july , the monday after fourth of july we can sit for a little bit. but i'd be happy to answer any questions or comments from you before we go topublic comment .
>> great. madame clerk let's go to public comment. >> thank you madame chair, if there are members who would like to speak you need to approach the podium. former supervisor obvious . >> good afternoon chair and supervisors. john avilos. talking to our houses and to work on ownership and restructuring mortgages and loansit's something that's missing is having real innovation in our homeownership programs, our loanswith the city . back in 2012 , with the housing trust fund we put language in the trust fund that would modify the down payment systems loan program and other loan that we provide to households that could help them to do any energy efficiency work or to
actually do a cursory dwelling unit but the program wasn't crafted well enough for it to be utilized as well as a candy and it behooves us to make as many tools as possible or different ways people would seek to actuallypurchase, rent or live in a home and this is one of them so i appreciate that . i think jan just the passage of this legislation it would be important to discuss further with some of our mortgage assistance organizations like meta- and the san francisco home housing development corporation and homeownership sf that we look at how we can make even more innovative the programming. often it does not meet the total needs of households. it's important that we look at that. they have a lot of information available to them with their experience in counseling
consumers about how they get into the loan program so that has a lot to do to help you to craft programs that are relevant andmeet their needs. again thank you so much for moving this forward and to be continued till next month and have a great fourth of july weekend . >> thank you. arethere any members of the public would like to speak on item number one? we're going to move on to the remote call in line. we have four listeners with three in the queue, let's take the first caller >> good afternoon supervisors. that wasn't murder with young community developers . i'm calling in to discuss my strong support for supervisor melgar housing innovation program that will allow homeowners to access financing to construct units on the property. without this type of program only high income property owners would be able to
leverage the upcoming residential legislation to construct a new unit. the rhs legislation must continue to be catered towards existing laws and prevent the destabilization ofour neighborhood. this program must be sufficiently funded along with supervisor mar's program to meet the diversity ofhomeowners . sufficiently funding this program will help ensure implementation of the residential program meets its racial equity goals and ensure better equity . lowincome property owners and sensitive communities need these programs tobuild units as well as generational wealth . this program must also include strong controls that prevent the program from the abuse just a situation wherean owner can transfer of property . which we must ensure this program is only for modern income homeowners, thank you for your time .>> thank you for your comments, next speaker please . >> good afternoonsupervisors , this is anna from san francisco tenants union and the race and
equity coalition. well, $10 million is a drop in the bucket it goes to develop finance and support additional housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents including loans andtechnical assistance or moderate income property owners to construct av use and other new units on their property another thing i like about this is it would provide downtown , down payment assistance loans for the acquisition of units by low and moderate income tenants who are at risk of displacement from their rental units due to anticipated sale of their tendency income and building and the desire to purchase their rental units and also the acquisition of single-family homes and condos and units by low and moderate income tenants who are at risk of displacement due to the sale or conversion
of the single-family homes. so yes, let's move this forward andhopefully we will get more money into the program , thank you. >> thank you for your comments, let's take the next caller please. we have five listeners in the queue. >> good afternoon supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we've always taken a very much all of the above approach to trying to figure out solutions to our affordability and displacement crisis and want to express our support and appreciation to supervisor melgar as well as supervisor mar and mandelman for bringing innovation to the table. this is just the thing we should be pursuing, trying to get creative andfigure out scalable ways to house more people . as mentioned by the previous speaker the 9 million is not enough considering the scale of
the problem. we continue to invest in subsidized affordable housing and figuring out ways for government to incentivize solutions that there's not enough money for usto subsidize our way out of this . so every idea like this that we could put over somebody's head is a game changing event. so again, i want to express our support and appreciation or the supervisors for making this effort . >> thank you for your comments. let's take the last caller please. >> good afternoon supervisors. mom and on behalf of eb go for context. it's the public charging station with more than 800 stationsacross the country . really speaking to that. >> i'm so sorry.we are on itemnumber one . forthe housing . >> isn't this item number
three? >> we will loop back to you when we get to the item you need to pressá3. >> okay. let's take the last caller. we are on item number one. >> this is ms. temkin. i'm calling to express support for the idea of thismeasure . $10 million isn't a huge amount but it is helpful and it includes communities that are powered in san francisco and having units measured so i appreciate the efforts in this area and i'm looking forward to hearing more. >> thank you for your comments and it looks like that is the last caller in the queue. >> president:thank you madame clerk, public comment is now
closed . i would like to make a motion that we move this forward with a positive recommendation. >> don't we have to continue? >> of course. >> i like to make a motion tha we amend this and continue it . to july 11, july 11 is the earliest. >> on the motion to amend as read into the record by supervisor melgar. [roll call vote] and on the motion to continue itemnumber one of the minutes, supervisor peskin . [roll call vote] >> chair: thank you colleagues. madame clerk let's call item number two. >> item 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code to prevent housing and community development workforce to
collect fines and penalties for violation of those pending court provisions governing affordable housing and amending the administrative codeto allow the office of community development to use proceeds in the affordable housing enforcement fund for all planning enforcement activities and affirming appropriate findings . members who wish to provide public comment on item number two should call the number 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2499 861-0736 then press pound and pound again. if you would like to speak for item number two you just need to pressáthree and the system prompts will indicate you have raised your hand . >> we have with us sheila mclachlan of mohcd. >> good afternoonsupervisors. but to provide a brief introduction and pass it over to my colleague to talk in more
detail about what we're proposing . the goal of this piece of legislation is to streamline the enforcement process of violations and planning code revelations for affordable housing units to bring more clarity when planning. there is no policychange that will result from this legislation. the proposed legislation will not change the rules of enforcement that applied to a developer or tenant . the proposal does address administration of enforcement and fixes inefficiencies in coronation between mohcd and planning.in particular it will ensure mohcd is able to directly bill for our time and materials and receive penaltie . this infusion of funds will support our capacity to lead enforcement work. the result will be clarity on who leads enforcement action and who will removedelay and process but they need to enforce violations which are primarily predominately when owners are subletting their affordable units . the proposed commitments are
theresult of close partnership between planning and now to go into our specific details tomy colleague jackie . >> if i may and may be just to the chair. >> go ahead . >> i think enforcement is a good thing and having more enforcement i guess i just had three questions and i realize there's an ou. one is does mohcd have additional staff oris it falling on your already stretched staff and 2, just way it's written , it looks like the zoning administrator has the ability to delegate this. i assume that just happens by virtue of the mou and nothing beyond that andnumber three which is not to you what to planning . it's if anybody and i can talk to them but why two of your commissioners dissented which i remember hearing but i don't remember where i heard this that they were followed that
left-hand and right-hand wouldn't coordinate well and that as a result nobody would be doing everythingor something like that . those are if you want to address those. >> is it okay if we do the presentation first?>> i just wantedto throw this out .>>. >> good afternoon madame chair and supervisors. my name is jackie so. i'm here in my capacity as the homeownership and below-market rate compliance manager and if we could have the powerpoint backup i just wanted to walk through a few slides that will walk us through some of the details here. this graphic shows us kind of in rough terms the major milestone during the development process all the way until occupancy. and as you can see during the initial stages, the planning department is the lead. the developer goes to the
planning department for their plans and get their approval for things like that but then later as they near construction the developers then come to mohcd to do pricing and marketing all the way through occupancy so there's really two agencies are very much part of implementing affordable housing requirements fromthe city . along the way, there are varioussources where restrictions come from. we have the planning code, planning commission conditions of approval, notice ofspecial restriction . our commissioner of housing procedures annual and in the case of homeowners who purchase an affordable unit , enter into a declaration of restriction on the loan they may receive at a promissory note. so it's also important to know that this process is really
applicable to a broad umbrella of affordable housing which of course the majority of that is inclusionary housing units that come from section 415 it also includes affordable units that are created through the state density bonus program home sf. other planning code sections, regulatory agreements, developmentagreements and also voluntary affordable units . so a broad umbrella of affordable units . next slide please . this visual effects kind of a summary of the affordable housing enforcement cases that we worked on over about a 13 year period so you can see this is not anything brand-new. we've been doing enforcement for some time. mohcd flagged 153 compliance cases where projects moved into marketing and occupancy stage development. you can see there's just really a small, small part which we
wouldconsider preconstruction violations . the green segment about 44 of the 153 or around 30percent , these were cases that came up during a post-construction period where mohcd worked with planning to resolve the issue so these may be cases that fall along the lines of short-term rental or the rental building owner didn't provide reporting to us. things like that. but as you can see the overwhelming majority of the pie, 70 percent were cases where homeowners were violating their restrictions.and these were cases that were not referred to planning. these were cases that mohcd worked with the attorneys to resolve and this is where we had technical expertise.
the homeowner violates their declaration of restrictions . their deed of trust and these are not documents that the planning department would be able to kind of have that expertise and wheelhouse. so it was really in stepping back and looking at this history of enforcement workthat planning and mohcd embarked on that we then crafted the legislation that is now before you . we also have next slide if you'reinterested . seems like you've all had a chance to take alook at the draft. and part of that , the meat of it is that details the types of cases that we've seen over time. and to answer some of your questions supervisor, here we do believe that compliance is really important. we don't have, we do have staf that work on it .
we need more staff and that's part of the reason why we have been working hard with planning on this legislation and we are thrilled that we have their support. they also agree that mohcd needs additional resources to do enforcement work. there's more that we can do and we'd like to do more but we are just doingwhat we can right now. so that hopefully answers one of your questions . you had questions about the mou, can your people's questions>> i think those around answer. i was asking about the way the ordinances written . it says the ca can call upon mohcd and i was assuming that the mou is that calling upon. it's not like in every case
tori has got to sayyou can go ahead and enforce . >> i think we have a fairly good sense and because we have such a wonderful working relationship together, we know which agency would best lead which type of enforcement case so that is the intent of the mou. it's to spell that out but to also have stability in instances where there is a new type of enforcement case or if there's a specific situation in a particular case that warrants the agent take a look at even though mohcd may typically take the lead so there's. >> ability. >> and going back to what you said through the chair about the staff which is you acknowledged you don't have enough assuming that we passed us which is quite likely , and you are in the enforcement business and you can recoup money, are there an specific enforcement positions
envisioned in the budget where about to vote on next month ? >> not next month. we need to first collect some funds and see what those levels are before we can make staffing decisions.>> but you don't have any staff to collect the funds with. it feels a little bit like a catch-22. i'm not on the budget committee . i'm happy to give you staff and that they will generate enough funds to pay for themselves. >> we do have existing staff that are working on some enforcement cases .for example we have some cases the city attorney's office in the queue. so our hope is by the time this legislation becomes effective we will have someproceeds to deposit . but we don't have immediate staffing plans at the moment . >> and if there are no further questions i'd like to introduce
andre maloney who is our legislative affairs planner from the planning department who will present on what happened at the planning commission . >> thank you . >> good afternoon supervisors, department staff. the planning commission for thisitem at their regularly scheduled hearing . there were questions about the mou. it is required as part of legislation. it is not required to be certified or complete before the legislation so it'sstill in the works at the time we went to the planning commission so supervisor to your question about the two commissioners , i believe it wascommissioner imperial and more who voted against the legislation . their questions revolved around the fact that would have liked to have seen the draft and understand the specifics better. we did come back to the planningcommission two weeks later, last thursday with the
draft that we sent to the clerk and your offices last friday and gave the commission an informational presentation . but otherwise the commission did vote to approve the ordinance the 26th on the may 26hearing. so mister t rva is here and available to answer any additional questions you may have . >>. >> i do have a couple of questions for mohcd. the first you've already answered which is there's no immediate plans for you staffing and billy being really smell your with the folks that do this. it's hard for me to believe they would have the bandwidth to do the things they already do i know some of this is already being done by you anyway. and it probably takes longer because you're going backand forth with planning trying to
figure out is it you or visit us so this is a good thing. i appreciate that . but i'm worried that by formalizing it and having it be on mohcd that it will stress you're already stressed work staff. so i'm wondering if you can just provide a little bit more context as to once this is signed, you know, what's the plan? >> and as i mentioned we do do enforcement work now. it's been part of our typical business process for some time. a lot of this is work that we find out issues of noncompliance particularly with homeowners. and they may be for example we monitor them on a regular basis and we keep in mind through
thatprocess they may not be with the other unit as they are required to so we're able to , wehave staff redo that monitoring work and we have a position for that .we've now have gotten it down pretty well that once we find evidence that we work directly with the city attorney's office and we go through the civil penalty route to bring the owners back into compliance. so we do have homeownership monitoring staff who help out withcompliance work . my role is also dedicated in part to do enforcement work. we have our rental compliance and monitoring analyst houston is doing enforcement work as well so you know, we do have staff thatwork on this . we would love to havemore staff . i believe we are very eager to put together a plan to increase
our enforcement staff. i just haven't had time to talk to our other deputy directors about what that would specifically look like so i can't timing and all that but i'm sure we would love to have more staff by next fiscal year if that's possible. >> thank you and the other question i had is that there are some things that are or at least clear that there should be planningenforcement. for example anything leading up to the certificate of occupancy being issued . and there's things that clearly it's mohcd.like the compliance factor folks by the individual units but there are some that are in between. so i'm thinking for example you know, in the bmr units there's obvious construction defects or they didn't put in the kitchen or the whole bunch of issues
that you don't find outabout until . until the owner goes and looks at the unit and it's kind of an in between so i didn't quite see that address in the mou but is there something you're still trying to work out? >> i think that it does contemplate situations where there may be violations, multiple violations . some would fall under planning review, some which fall into mohcd's purview. we have a wonderful working relationship and one another on a regular basis. so the lines of medication are open. something that you just described has happened before and we worked with planning to resolve it . so i think the mou does contemplate that we would have a means to discuss who would be the enforcement lead on a particular case and figure that
out. so we did attempt to itemize all types of enforcement cases that we have seen through time. there will be cases that maybe unique or we haven't seen yet and we will have to get together to figure out who's going to be the enforcement lead but something like construction defects, they won't be able to resolve that. we may see it and we will bring it back to planning sothat they could help the owner to update that violation . >> thank you so much okay. if there's no other questions or issues colleagues, let's take public comment. >> thank you medicare. anymembers of the public who would like to speak on this item .
seeing none were going to move toour call in line. if you would liketo speak on this item you just need to press star 3. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on unit . itlooks like we have five listeners . >> with that public comment is now closed. colleaguescan i have a motion ? >> happy to move this with the recommendation . >> on that motionsupervisor peskin .[roll call vote] >> that motion passes. madam,thank you all so much for the presentation . madam clerk let's go to number three. >> item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create electric vehicle planning charging locations, allow conversion of automotive service stations to electric vehicle charging locations without traditional use
authorization and principally permit conversion of other automotive uses to electric vehicle charging locations to provide zoning control tables to reflect these changes and require annual reporting by the planning department members who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number 415-655-0001. the meeting id, 2499 861 0736. then press pound and pound again. if you have notdone so already and would like to speak on this item you just need to press start 3 and you will hear the system indicates you have raisedyour hand inconfirmation . >> thank you very much madam clerk. we have a brief presentation from the department of the environment and also planning . so welcome . >> i will wait until the presentation is and in the meantimeafternoon committee members. chair, members of the public . i am deputy and transportation program manager at the
department of the environment joined by the legislative manager from san francisco planning. together we will present the contextand details of this legislation. next slide please . according to the latest greenhouse gas emissions number transportation sector is responsible foralmost half , 47 percent of the city's emissions. the color portions indicate barriers areas exposed to harmful levels of pollution and outdoor air which can lead to often preventable health problems. the map on the left shows air pollution exposure zone in 2014 and the map on the right was updated in 2020. comparing 22 exposure is worsening particularly along major trafficthoroughfares . so to reduce traffic pollution and to reach our net zero emissions goal by 2040 must take muni and electrified
vehicles on the roads. of course electric vehicles and our mental and health benefits than on the evidence of the electricity they charge. the rest of the city. >> is increasingly free of greenhouse gas emissions and in fact green power sf, our primary provider as the goal of providing 100percent greenhouse gas electricity by 2025 . next slide. speaking of the future, ev is inevitable. the california air resources showed staff regulations requiring all new vehicles shall be zero emissions by 2035. their plan follows governor nuisance executive order in 20/20 that call for phasing out new cars with gas anddiesel engines within 15 years . next slide please.
the transition from fossil fuel toelectricity is accelerating . currently however this transition is much easier for single-family residence because of home charging. in california residents in single-family homes are three times more likely topurchase electric vehicles . however 70 percent of ourcity's residents live in multiunit dwellings . many don't have access to all or workplace charging. many parked their vehicles on streets. access to ev chargers must be available to all drivers including those in multiunit dwellings. also in the process of developing this legislation we receive feedback from the planning commission and stakeholders to also support charging for fleet ev. next slide. again for those without whole or workplace parking they will need public chargers. san francisco needs like times
more public charging by 2030. currently wedon't have enough and in 2020 analysis call for 20,000 chargers by 2030 but today we have a little over 1000 . next slide please . ev users are divers so their charging solutions, home, workplace, retail, curbside also be divers . the city has done a lot to increase theseoptions . the city has policies to advance charging in commercial and municipal garages the public utilities commission and green power have incentives and ev friendly rates for home and workplace charging but when it comes to dedicated a serving ev and flee charging locations, we need to do more. dedicated ev and free charging locations are like gas stations with ev. according to a 2020 study these charging locations are the best charging solutions for san francisco residents without
visitors, commuters as wellas fleet vehicles that lead on the way charging . next slide please. >> can i ask one question? >> goahead . >> why are youthrowing in flee charging in the same sentence ? >> because we received feedback from the stakeholder engagement and the planning commission and also in the 20/20 study it dealt into flee charging. >> i think that we all have the same question. >> i'm tripping hard on ev's. so yes. i'll wait.>> thank you supervisor . >> back to slide eight. so this legislation will advance, accelerate give a kid a ev charter locations.
currently the planning code does not have a classification for dedicated ev charging locations. project applications require developers and planning to work out permitting pathways on a case-by-case basis and projects must conform to existing planning use categories that are in perfect fit and those limitations more appropriate for fossil fuel facilities. this legislation into cut the red tapemaking the permitting process easier , faster and clearer. it does that by creating ev an flee charging as automotive uses . it allows conversion to automotive service stations and gas stations to ev charging locations without conditional useauthorization and principally permits conversion of other automotive uses by like parking garages to ev charging locations . without existing auto uses this legislation will update to make evcharging a bit more
permissive under conditional use authorization. next slide please .so to recap, this legislation revises land-use zoning to move san francisco from transportation to and all electric future. it creates clear zoning pathways with existing automated use and reduces the lanes in addition to workflow for the planning department while expandingopportunities to increase charging options in more neighborhoods. next slide please .again, this legislation facilitates conversion of existing auto uses like parking lot and automotiveservice stations to ev charging locations. although it does not require conversions , this legislation does create new possibilities . it modernizes our fossil fuel based infrastructure efficiently and takes pressure off of mrs. whileminimizing impact on pedestrian safety . after all by uses.
this legislation makes it easier and faster to expand public charging which enables residents and visitors to realize the health and environmentalimpacts of ev's . now i'll pause and transition to the presentation to my colleague to highlight the updates for the zoning table . >> thank you. welcome mister starr . >> next slide please. so the approach we use to determine where charging locations are permitted was to first prioritize our auto infrastructure. to that end this legislation permits the conversion in whole or in part of any existing auto use at all zoning districts to ev charging locations.here it allows ev charging as a right anywhere gas stations are currently permitted such as pd districts, eastern neighborhood mixed-use districts . ev charging would require
conditional use authorization and allneighborhood commercial kind of town districts ,and c-3 districts .and these district gas stations currently require either conditional use authorization or are prohibited making ev charging a more permissive use. and finally the legislation prohibits ev charging locations where there is not already automotive use in residential districts. this isconsistent with our current gas station controls. next slide please . the proposed ordinance also creates a used definition for fleet charging.flee charging can include anything from delivery service suites like fedex to autonomous vehicle fleets. given its industrial nature we anticipate flee charging to be amore intensive use . to that and flee charging is only permitted in our industrial districts pdr won the, 1d and ddr two. and because pdr 1b is intended
to be a buffer between residential and industrial neighborhoods flee charging has required in the industrial zone. fleet charging within the required conditional use authorization in c 2 and c 3, and c-3, eastern neighborhood mixed-use district and rc districts. and throughout the rest of the city flee chargingas a principal use would not be permitted . however this legislation allows for fleet charging to the accessory use in the fleet charging locations that would allowfleet services to reserve or designate one third of the charging fans at ev charging locations . next slide please. so in closing we know ev's are coming in san francisco needs more charging locations in order to increase adoption. we need five times for public charging than we have today.a
charging is important for san franciscans or for san francisco since75 percent of our residents live in multi family units and in addition to private automobiles fleet vehicles must be electrified to meet our goals . to that end this legislation creates a clear path to make it easier to develop flee charging locations by principally permitting theconversion of existing auto uses to ev charging locations in all districts creating clear permitting pathways for each zoning district . passage of this legislation will have accelerate the reduction of harmful health impacts from air pollution exposure and help us reach our 20/40 net mission zero goals. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have . >> i'll start by asking a similar question as i did in the last item . do you know why 2 of your members are dissenting in this matter? can you describe what their concerns were? >> supervisor, i'msorry.
it was a while ago . >> not crucial but i think actually i remember. i think they had concerns over loss of jobs in pdr districts and the concern that there would be too much flee charging in our pdr districts. one thing the commission did to address that was to recommend fleet charging the all out with conditional use authorization in every commercial district to spread out the curtain of that and the ordinance has been amended to reflect that. >> got it. i think apparently according to the show we all havesimilar concerns about flee charging an uptick shot at expressing them . can you characterize your commissions hearing what the position of general motors was as represented bycrews and their lobbyists ? >> i believe that ev or ev companies in general wanted to
have more options to locate flee charging so they are particularly looking at our rc districts and rnc districts to open up their locations. primarily in sort of the historic garages that were built in 1920 to be the ones that they electedthe most . >> while we have not called item for you were you aware of the city attorney's concern that the conditional use provisions in this item and the next item conflict? >> i am. the next item delete it entirely which if you take the changes out of this one and delete it entirely solve the issue. it was modified in this ordinance to allow the gas stations to convert our automobile service stations to ev charging without having to go through conditional use but if that provision is removed then it should be more
dominant. i know that at some point a few months ago i think it was planning staff or maybe it was mayor's staff or maybe environment staff asked my office if we had any issues and one of the things that we brought up is i don't think the monumental issue is that the definition was of electric vehicle charging location was limited to a singular charging port as compared to potentially for what we want which is multiple ports i don't think that ever came up. i don't think that ever got. weraised the issue and i don't think that was ever raised by your staff to the commission . any thoughts on why itwas so narrowly defined and why we're not setting our goals higher than mark . >> i think that if someone's not going to install an ev charging location and justput
one in. it's a large investment into it and it would almost likely be , they're not going to just put in one so i don't think we thought of it as a particular concern.it also allows you know, you can convert half the parking lot to ev charging or you can convert half the gas station so it allows more flexibility . >> so it wouldn't hurt your feelings if we change it to morethan one ? >> itwouldn't break my heart . >> and then what i think i guess i'm learning we're all concerned about. and i see this as somebody who has stars from i can't put point any fingers inside the city and county of san francisco. there's only angers can point towards sacramentoand the public utilities commission . that really did i think a disservice to this city and other cities and the public as
it related to the newfangled thing of the time which was tmc's where they refused to make data transparent. where they refused to deal with issues of equity. where they refused to deal with issues of passenger safety and pedestrian safety. and i have those exact same worries in the emerging field of automated vehicle technolog . and every, not only as it passed state puc of future behavior but there around the city very reasonable comments and requests as we are the guinea pig for ev's have not entirely but mostly been met with the same kind of laissez-faire regulatory response as it relates to everything
equity, disability . city for pedestrians. you name it. and i fear that general motors, the company@ to kill our local tax and state legislature but failed by one vote you expressed to me that this piece oflegislation which i think is too generous to them, they think is not generous enough . and i have some serious reservations about the notion that one third of this otherwise laudatory goal for the 70 percent that the department of the environment is working to salt for one third accessory used for fleet charging is to me in the ev world comes into compliance with our reasonable desire is a
nonstarter so i'll quote back to my colleagues members of the public which is i would take although i do have a question for staff or the city attorney. i would take out any fleet charging accessory use from this legislation until crews want to play ball with policymakers in this town and itdoesn't mean contributing $250,000 to proposition a . that means talking policy shop in a way that is talking about thesevery important things in a dense urban context . the one question i do have an eye by the way completely agree with the thrust of this legislation. i agree that we need additions in this changing landscape but one thing i have been led to believe is that i guess this may be a question for counsel
but that counsel may not be ready to answer is in the current unregulated,undefined world that we are living in , that the av folks are being treated as utilities and can actually do fleet charging in certaininstances as of , can somebody explain that last bit to me? >> we have the zoning administrator. >> why don't i turn it over to him. >> good afternoon supervisors. goodto see you, corey t zoning administrator . you hit the nail on the head in a bit in the sense that there's two parts to this legislation. partof it is we need definitions and the second part is once you define audi regulated ? on that first part over the last few years we did start to see applications and proposals
come in and questions come in on both sides like the retail ev charging proposal and the non-retail fleet charging proposal for the retail version was fairly straightforward in the sense thatunder the correct code it would essentially meet the same definition as a gas station . basically a retail facility for fueling the vehicles. the definition is specific to gas so it's easy enough for it could be an auto service station if you're providing a certain amount of repair. for the fleet that was much more difficult because we do have definitions for different types of parking but fleet charging is not parking. it's turnover it's charging and if you leave the actual use is not parking . it's the charging use but a private nonretail use and basically, the only definition that would land on even though it was not a good and is part of the impetus for the need for this legislation is you go to installation because it talks
about serving orproviding utilities including electricity etc. . so it's admittedly not a great fit but it was kind of the closest thing we had in the code and it was one ofthe key reasons why we needed this work to come forward and create new definitions that were addressing a new land use that we hadn't seen before . >> that's very helpful. that utility where you landed was the zoning administrator's interpretationuntil we came up with this type of definition . so my question and maybe i don't know if this is counsel or to the zoningadministrator which is if we were to come up with this electric vehicle charging location definition , fleet charging definition and we were to sayand fleet charging shall not be an accessory use to ev lcs , we still have the definition and you don't have to toss them under your interpretation under utility.
>> that would negate that issue entirely by creating this new definition and all fleet charging would fall under this definition. >> and that we could do by conditional use and conditional useonly and get rid of the accessories . >> once you create the definition youcan choose to regulate it however the board sees fit. >> . [please stand by]
test. >> it is apples and oranges. i am worried about that kind of change, you know, without any process. can you tell me a little bit what you guys were thinking about that? >> sure, and i can hand it back over to the legislative process. i agree 100%. there needs to be two definitions. they are different uses. there is no debate the fleet charges, private fleet charging
may look similar on the ground to retail fleet charging. parking spaces with ev charges. as land use it has potential to operate more intentionally that is why the proposal is to allow differently than the retail version. i agree. that is what the attempt in the legislation is to define separately and regulate differently. i will turn it offer to commissioner star to speak to the legislative intent on that. >> thank you for the question, supervisor melgar. this ordinance has evolved over time and changed. originally we put in accessory use because we were sequestering all of the fleet charges to one area of the city to help spread it out. however, at the planning commission they recommended to include neighborhood commercial districts with c.u.
had we started at the beginning, perhaps with the c.u. we might have not had accessory use. it was intended to provide flexibility for the fleet charging throughout the city. >> chair melgar: supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair melgar. i want to concur with the sentiments expressed by my colleagues. it is hard for me to see the situation on the fleets where we would not want be to have conditional use. i will take issue with the department of environment framing of the reduction of red tape. i think there are real issues that come along especially on the fleet front. i don't know that conditional use. i think it is unfair to that aspect of our planning code to frame that as being red tape.
i think we are talking about what would for fleets we are looking at potentially exponen shall increase in vehicles accessing those sites. that trigger important issues including how it lines up with vision zero and preventing fatalities and injuries on the streets. we can have that conversation around the appropriate way to address fleets, but i would certainly concur with all of the comments both colleagues have raised. >> thank you, supervisor preston. madam clerk. if there is no other comments. >> i will do mine after public comment. >> one other question, chair melgar. >> chair melgar: sure. >> in the presentation there was reference to folks in multi-unit
buildings trouble finding chargers. someone with a single family home with no basement or garage it is an issue for those without a garage. i am curious. maybe it is for the department of environment. i know chair melgar represent bely tweeted about this. in addition to these central locations as part of the plan to get to the five times where we are more de central approach. la is in front with light pole charging stations. not directly at issue. it relates to the strategy for scaling up here. are there current plans for that de centralized model as well? >> yes, there is. i have gone back to the traffic. we know the charging and the
pieces to making the puzzle work. some like those in multiunits will use the ev charging locations. there are options for those shopping at retail center, gallery they can use while shopping. having. >> they are moving to charges. all of pieces are coming together. >> chair melgar: madam clerk. public comment on this item. >> any members of the public for item 3, please approach the podium. no members. if you would like to speak press star 3 to be added the queue. on hold wait until the system
indicates you are unmuted. we have 11 listeners with eight in the queue. first caller, please. >> good morning. i am with the all electric autonomous vehicle company. thank you for improving the electric vehicle charging infrastructure. they will have a role by 2040. reliable charging infrastructure is key to reducing reliance on gas vehicles. it is a good first step for the city. we look forward to working with the city. thank you.
>> caller: good afternoon. christopher peterson on the league of conversation. we urge you to support the electric vehicle charging ordinance. many vehicle owners in san francisco do not have convenient access to chargers. to accelerate the transition we support efforts to make electric charging stations more convenient and accessible. it is a good step in that direction. we have automobile missions at appropriate locations for chargers. we should no longer allow or delay installation of chargers. it is taking the position how to
sort out issues of fleet charging and autonomous vehicles. the league supports the ordinance with respect to the charging for individuals. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> i am calling on behalf of tony secretary treasure of 665. we applaud the efforts to increase access to charging stations. we have concerns. we ask the board to remove amazon type uses. a case-by-case basis for public discussion. >> next speaker. 10 listening. five in queue. >> good afternoon. research director with san
francisco electrical construction industry. we are glad to see this move forward. i don't want to too up more time. we are working closely within stalling the ev chargers. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of. [indiscernable] we urge the commission to adopt this ordinance. i mentioned that the ev market is tolerating the number of charges we did in different cases to measure. the lack of ev charges is a huge hurdle to address in the infrastructure. we cannot express the importance
of ev charging to provide outside emissions reductions by commercial charging in particular. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am with. [indiscernable] san francisco. district nine constituent. i urge support to speed up administrative side of putting in ev chargers. as supervisor preston noted. those without garages or in multi-family buildings will only have fast chargers which are much more expensive. if we have large charging places like parking places that people can put cars overnight, they can get a much cheaper charge that
would be closer to what people get at home. i think that is important. however, this measure should make it easier and faster to put in chargers. we need a whole lot more chargers as soon as we can get them if we are helping ev adoption. however you deal with the fleet, just make it a clear pathway because all vehicles whether they are fleet, amazon, no matter who they are, we have to go to ev. no more gas. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. district 10. we agree with the intent of the legislation environmental and climate goals of making ev charging more accessible. we are concerned about the impact on low income
communities. this does not require c.u. for converting sites which results in loss of blue coallar jobs. -- collar jobs. we ask c.u. be required unless all jobs are retained. five year look back from eliminating jobs ahead of time so they will qualify. we are concerned the legislation legislation. [indiscernable] it is automated. most at risk of conversion. we need auto shops in san francisco. it is counterproductive if they have to drive out of the city to get serviced at affordable price. fleet charging will be concentrated in district 9 and 10. they will very likely be replacing blue collar jobs. the jobs for spaces that are
automated. communitied rely on those jobs. equity in terms of where the fleet charging stations are located. it talks about the housing areas. that is not the case. near schools. we should leverage existing lots such as churches, schools and malls. that would be more equitable. we must ensure there is equity analysis of impact job loss and geography of charging stations. i urge you to reevaluate this. thank you. >> again if you would like to speak have not pressed star 3 do so now. otherwise we will take the last caller in the queue. >> david pilpel. i express no particular view on
the land use implications of this, although it makes sense to have a definition than the va make the determination. i guess that is okay. my concern is about the move to electric vehicles for city fleets and implications at city parking facilities in the city and elsewhere. the issues that the city continues to have with pg&e about electric infrastructure and inter-vening facilities. whether it is a parking lot at central shops or something up at moccasin or the airport or county jail at san bruno, all of these locations where there are city vehicles parked as the city
fleet becomes more electric vehicles and more electric vehicle charging struckures will be needed which further compound the issues. it may be slightly off topic today. i suggest at future hearing on the central shops budget later this week or just at future hearing that somebody ask about how the city's fleet moves to electric vehicles and infrastructure on the city side. thanks for listening. >> that completes the queue. >> chair melgar: public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i will take a shot. if not the city attorney does not like doing this without us having checked in first.
let me see if i can take a shot at it. i assume fleet charging has to stay in the automotive use section 102 larger definition, is that correct? i am looking at page 6 line 19 that adds electrical vehicle charging location and adds fleet charging. i would take it out there if you would let me, but i think it needs to stay in there. there are two subcategory res nonretail and retail. it is on the nonretail side. doesn't show up on the retail side. larger automotive use definition, is that correct? >> that's correct. that is how it is organized. it needs to be listed there. >> supervisor peskin: that is what i thought. not related to where we are going with fleet, i would propose on page 7 line 2 that
seas one or more to strike one or and instead say more than one electrical vehicle charging stations so that we define it as more than one. not this aaron but the other aaron. i would then suggest we strike the accessory use sentence in that same definition of electrical vehicle charging station which we are all in agreement on on page 7 at line 13. strike that last sentence of that paragraph. then we would need to make a conforming change on page 11 at section 204-point to conform
with the definition, right? i think you just get rid of 204.6. i see the city attorney nodding. if we are all in agreement about our av concerns, i think on page 14 line 15 we would change the three p's in the charge to c's. page 14 line 15. bottom of the automotive use category chart. those three 3's. they would become three c's. i may be getting in trouble. mr. star are you freaking out? >> the zoning administrator has a friendly amendment. we list when something is not accessory use.
medical cannabis and the section is not with me right now that lists things not accessories. if you want fleet charging not to be accessory use list it there. >> supervisor preston: thank you for that. we would want to incorporate that, madam deputy city attorney. i think that addresses everything. i did have one be question. relative to existing garages. what is the regiment for changing existing garages into fleet charging? >> it would be whatever the land use controls are for that zoning district. you would use existing garage to fleet charging. >> supervisor preston: say that
again. >> c.u. to convert existing garage to fleet charging. >> supervisor preston: that is the desire until we work things out with crews. >> it is underlying zoning district doesn't matter if it is a garage or what have you. >> supervisor preston: when this is a principal use, how does that -- sorry if this sounds ignorant, what does that mean relative to other uses. if vehicle charging is permitted use and there are other uses, how do they play together? >> more than one use on one site? >> yes, you could have electrical vehicle charging station at ground floor. housing development above it or whatever. >> you just need building permits to memorialize each use.
you can have multiple uses permitted on the same site to be documented. you have to get a permit for it. >> was that too much too soon? >> it is a lot. deputy city attorney appear son. i anticipated some of your amendments. i chatted with the drafting attorney. i didn't anticipate all of them. some i haven't run by him. in an area regulated by state law with complicated tables i am anxious about doing this on the fly. if you want to come back i will see if we can figure that out. >> supervisor preston: we will make item 4 as long as possible. >> colleagues should we continue this to -- >> supervisor preston: we might be able to do it. >> chair melgar: after 4:00.
>> i will see what i can workout. >> chair melgar: can we -- what do we do continue to until after item 4? suspend that. let's call item 4. >> ordinance amending the planning code to increase density on lots with auto oriented uses where housing is permitted but which do not currently have any residential use or legacy business and to remove the conditional use requirement to change the use of an automobile service station or automotive use to another use and amend zoning control tables to reflect the change. call 415-655-0001.
if you have not done so and would like to speak press star 3. the system will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair. >> chair melgar: this is a piece of legislation introduced by the mayor's office. i don't see anyone here from the mayor's office. i wonder if mr. star will be making the presentation. >> welcome. mr. paulina. are you there?
i can't hear you. >> he may have stepped away from the meeting. >> chair melgar: mr. star, who is presenting on this? >> i am not on the item. we have presented the planning commission recommendation. we don't normally do a second one. >> chair melgar: there is no one to present on this item. we will go into any discussion. here is monica. >> thank you, chair melgar. monaco, planning department staff. as mr. star shared we provided our planning commission report. i am available for questions. i wanted to make sure you are
aware. >> chair melgar: clarify for me. this legislation has been changed since the planning commission heard it, right? >> yes, that's correct. a number of those revisions are presented to you during the march 7 or 8 committee hearing. those included changing the provision regarding the on site from 10 to four years. incorporated allowing the last vehicle used to be considered as the authorized use on the property. i can pull that up more specifically for you. i apologize. i thought that was incorporated and presented at the last
hearing. >> chair melgar: i understand my colleagues have proposed amendments. i will go to supervisor -- >> supervisor preston: if i understand it correctly, the primary author, the mayor, was amenable to exception for. this is the way i understand through the grapevine for rmrc and designated article 10 historic districts. i saw those amendments. i don't want to speak for anybody not here. i am comfortable with those amendments. >> chair melgar: supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i am fine with the amendments supervisor peskin described. i continue to have an issue i raised at the last hearing.
i have raised in discussing this last week with the mayor's office and the representative of the mayor and planning. the issue and really this legislation has two big parts. there is the making it easier to change car use to other uses which i am fully supportive of that effort. that is not where i take issue. where i take issue on the second part removal of density restrictions which in some cases can dramatically increase the number of units the developer can build on the site. i will say in my district we have this exact issue. we have a project from 16 to over 60 units overnight. by the upzoning. another one from about 50 to
over 150. 52 to 170, if i am not mistaken. i don't have a problem with that. what i have a problem with is doing that and not exploring whether the city should demand more of that developer in terms of affordability or other community benefits on the site. what i would like to hear from the mayor's office or planning or both is the same thing i asked last week. why are we not doing that here? historically in the city when we have engaged in up zoning. we have looked to increase affordability rates as part of that process. in my district we had one incident where we did not do
that. we made exactly this change dramatically increased number of units on the sites. after a few years came back and corrected the mistake of not required higher affordability rate. there was a feasibility study done by planning to determine what that rate should be. i assume i asked privately i didn't get an answer. has there been any feasibility analysis to determine the feasibility of additional affordability as part of the removeval of density restrictions? if so, what did it say? if not why hasn't it been done? >> i don't know who is available
to answer that. the planning department representatives are not here. >> chair melgar: i believe ms. flores is on. >> supervisor preston: on page 9 there is a provision that seems to conflicted with the legislation that we just passed that supervisor mandelman brought that we heard a number of times. i commented the chair for her process. d subparagraph 1. that appears to me that it would obviate the rents control provisions of supervisor mandelman's legislation. it would no longer require a waiver which is what allows for the agreements which allows for rent control. if we include that sentence we
just undid supervisor mandelman's rent control in multiplex. >> chair melgar: can you answer these questions ms. flores? >> yes. thank you. with respect to the first question regarding how many feasibility studies. plans is supportive of additional affordable housing in general. i have yet to see any specific work on these efforts for this ordinance. i would have to look further to get back to you on that information. regarding the additional question, supervisor peskin, subsection d1. it was less in place just because we were not aware of the
timing of the recent legislation in front of you the last couple weeks. we want to retain that specific language in case this specific ordinance made its way through the legislative process ahead of supervisor mandelman's legislation. we do recognize the overlap there and we also noted internally that supervisor mandelman's legislation was more expansive in reach as this ordinance relates to the other uses the best approach is to keep it in for now to make sure that if this was the only lemming laying moving forward we would be able to capture those
specifics. >> supervisor preston: it sounds like that provision is no longer necessary given supervisor mandelman's legislation? >> that's correct. >> supervisor preston: as i read it i might have the same question relative to subsection 2 whether that would obviate the ability to impose rent control for waivers. as i -- i am sorry for doing this on the fly. i did re-read over the weekends. next section is sub e. i have questions as to how it would and then corey left. how that would interpret words not related to permit residential density shall continue to apply. what is related to permit residential density?
that is a pretty broad. that, too, gives me rent control concerns. >> where property owner may seek conditional use authorization for additional residential density. that would be an example of rh-1 lot, very large rh-1 lot so the property owner would be able to request conditional use authorization for an additional unit for every 3,000 square feet on the property. up to three units total on the property. this specific subsection e would remove that requirement for the
rh-1 example. if there is -- i am trying to think of nonresidential density environment. >> how about c.u. for a planned unit development that has increased residential density that would be an exception and there goes your ability to get more affordability or impose rent control? that would be related to residential density as many puds are. >> yes. >> that i am thinking of bringing that to our attention. i will look at that specific language as we continue with the hearing as well.
thank you. >> i am happy to do that if you have things to address first. i would like to do that before public comment. the response raises more questions for me. thank you. first off on the general comment that planning generally supports more affordability. i would like to know if planning recommended that affordability rate increase as part of this legislation to the mayor's office or that a feasibility study be done. >> affordability rates are not specifically recommended as part
of this ordinance specifically. >> that is what i am trying to find out. with their recommendation the rates be increased in exchange for the increased density under this ordinance? >> i have stated they were not included as part of discussion for this specific ordinance. >> why not? >> just parallel simultaneous review of separate legislation and supervisor mandelman's legislation and those related and similar efforts regarding increased affordability for ordinances are very difficult to be able to move forward to the
general public and moving forward through the legislative process. this was very, very focused on small sub sets of lots. we were really looking to be focused on the auto uses and were hoping to move forward on the basic small subset of parcels. >> how many parcels or lots across the city does this apply to? >> we had a conservative estimate. i am pulling up the map and stuff to get our rough estimate for you. that would be a total of 131rh
parcels and 627 nonresidential parcels that would meet the criteria. however, that are parcels that are unlikely to be developed through this program. we filtered out parcels are a high floor area airio of 2.4 or higher with no density bonus through this program. filtering out more left 120rh parcels and 500 nonresidential parcels that would be eligible and be a good potential or good match for this density bonus.
>> that is big. i wish i could say i am surprised. it is a little hard to wrap our head around why we would not discuss higher affordability requirements on the potential of zoning and elimination of density controls over 758 parcels city-wide at which estimate is that 620 of them would actually be eligible and potentially using this. analysis of all properties a hell of a lot of development and affordable housing we are leaving on the table. do we not have anyone from the mayor's office here to address this legislation? >> to signed into teams.
>> i would love to hear from mr palino or someone from the mayor's office this issue around increasing affordability as part of this. >> the question? >> if question we heard from planning that increasing affordability rates as part of this density de control up zoning was never discussed. can i confirm that? if it hasn't been discussed, why not? >> i apologize, supervisor. i am not familiar with the conversations. i can't attest if that came up. i can check with my colleagues and get back to you. i can touch base to get clarity on that for you.
>> if you could get clarity whether a feasibility study was requested by the mayor's office around increasing affordability on the site. if not, why not? get someone to answer the questions. i got to say this is not a mystery these issues would come up. we discussed with planning. we knew there would be discussions here today. i don't know why we don't have one ready and able to answer these questions from the mayor's office. if we want to put this one over, too. i don't know how we proceed on an ordinance designed to eliminate density controls on 620 sites city-wide. 758 sites city-wide with no
serious discussion around affordability. it is really mind blowing. we can agree with the desperate need for affordable housing and what we established is neither the planning or mayor's office of housing has any plans to meet affordable housing goals. that is admitted in the hearings. one would think abissent the plan to create affordable housing the one thing that is mayor's office is working on for profit market rate development we use maximize affordable housing on site when we up zone as we have done in the past. when we didn't do it on the ct we had head of planning admitting mistake. my predecessor corrected that
mistake. i don't want to be cynical about these things. i get that the press release goes out. nice language. are we serious about regulating and housing affordability or compete everything for media? i originally thought it might make sense to divide up this legislation, figure out how to move partings of it forward. we need answers on this issue of affordability rate if this legislation is more than just a media opportunity. a chance to move housing policy forward. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston. i think that there is a fundamental question of policy that has not been answered. i think that since we took care around these issues of
affordability and also getting to a point where we have consensus on multiple issues in this committee, i would be inclined to continue this until we have both the answers to your pertinent questions and folks from the mayor's office who worked on this to talk about it. if there is no further questions or comments maybe we can go to public comment and come back and take action. >> supervisor preston: i am happy to move what we discussed. >> chair melgar: until everything is ready. public comment. >> item four? there are no members in the chamber. we will move to remote. if you are on hold continue to
hold until you are unmuted. if you have not pressed star 3 already, do so now. it will show that you would like to speak on item 4. we have five listeners. four in the queue. first caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. christopher speaking on behalf of the san francisco league of conservation voters. we support the san francisco affordable housing. the city's walkability and public transit system. san francisco is appropriate location for multifamily housing. the types of multifamily housing, nature and cost of housing. converting the automobile uses to multifamily housing.
address both crisis. it is important the ordinance makes a real world difference. as the community considers potential amendments, it is important that the amendments are under potential development. i am disappointed that the mayor's office hasn't been present for this hearing to address the questions that we are raising. hopefully they will be present at a future meeting. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello.
>> turn down your television in the background. >> caller: thank you. hello. i am donna her wit. i am a resident living in the outer hills. i am a homeowner with a mortgage. i am concerned about our stock of housing supply. i am a member of hac. i do support the purpose. i believe that these automobile related spaces could lead to a faster approval time. i also think the approach would be more likely to be welcomed to a specific community. it would improve appearance,
bankruptcy in the neighborhood. -- diversity in the neighborhood. we need housing at all level in san francisco, right now i am not overly concerned about the percentage of affordability for these units that would presumably be small, four units of housing. thank you for listening. >> next caller, please. >> we are a member organization of the planning coalition. i appreciate supervisor preston's comments for high standards of affordability. the lack of discussion on this legislation. we will not asking for anything in return. we should discussing a approach for 100% affordable housing.
legislation you are hearing is proposed works against our vision. re-purposing for new opportunities for blue collar jobs with make this conversation a quality discussion. we need more time to discuss what this would look look. it is important for blue collar jobs. we use these and people are homeless. these are held by people of color the divide between the poor and rich. we need housing that is affordable. we urge you to table this legislation to work together an approach that is 100% affordable housing development. >> five listeners. two in the queue. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i am a d3 resident.
hard to imagine a greater change than converting lots for cars to shelter. we have a choice. we can continue down the path that means pushing san franciscans further and further from the jobs that give them a living, entertainment, restaurants that give them joy and family that gives lives meaning. this has pushed housing costs to the stratosphere to pollute the automobiles that choke awakenvironmental sustainability. as a result these past transportation systems spiral. inconvenience of items. the alternative is system with enough homes to live where they want to. live close to jobs, amenities and loved ones with abundant housing into cars into public
transit systems to make this its own return. the greener, cheaper lifestyles as much housing as we can build near all of the things that may being lives valuable this. is one step in that alternative direction when all lots can earn approval. i encourage of the passage of legislation before you today. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i have spoken previously in support of the legislation. we need to do everything we can to intensify changing from automotive uses to housing for people. the line of questioning.
i was listening. i totally agree. we should always use research and facts to help drive policy. there is a variety of item was that have been discussed buy-in committee and the board thinking about reconvening the technical advisory committee to explore what inclusionary rates city-wide. years ago and things got delayed. there is a good opportunity there to make sure we are using the information that we have at our fingertips. the experts to figure out what is the optimal inclusion percentage based on what we are doing in certain situations. that process is all cost associated with the project. it does make sense that we can add other valuable pieces like inclusionary on site affordable housing. what i am concerned about is
going over the top of that mountain to push projects to the point of infeasibility. that is what we are seeing now with the number of projects in the pipeline that we're approved but no longer work because the overall cost package with actions good thinks but infrastructure. parking, affordable housing that everybody wants f.the cost is too high then figuring out that perfect in management. [indiscernable] >> that completing the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you. with that public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> i am happy to move amendments. i want to concur, madam chair. i guess politely to say, look,
the way it works here regardless of the substance of the legislation where various political actors are at is when you offer a piece of legislation, you show up to talk about and answer questions regarding that legislation. i don't know if this is by design. with all due respect it looks like you are 75 feet from here sitting in your office. i don't know why you want be in the board chambers. this is rather odd and perplexing. we had a very good policy conversation. i appreciate planning department staff for being available and responding to supervisor preston's very well stated policy comments and concerns and i appreciate the work we did earlier around the amendments i will offer and we presumably pass. this is quite odd you are not
here to talk about your own legislation. >> chair melgar: did you want to go ahead and move this? >> supervisor preston: i lieu move the previously discussed amendments with regard to rm, rc, hd. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i concur with supervisor peskin's comment. none of these are a surprise. they have been discussed. there is a way to seriously do policy, build consensus, workout
details of legislation and have it presented in committee and move forward. especially a issue with broad agreement. i don't think you will find a member of the board of supervisors that does not want to take car serving, gas stations and figure out ways to create housing and maximize the amount of affordable housing there. i will just say for this one supervisor not well-taken. i think the message and the strategy is loud and clear here which is that rather than do the serious work about looking at how much affordable housing we can get up zoning. a conversation this city was once able to have before my time on the board between planning, former mayors, board of supervisors. i think the question was how much of an increase should we be
seeking in the commitment? we have now moved to where we center legislation announced with great fanfare, by press release, eager to pick it up. intentionally written without even addressing the issue on everyone's mind which is housing affordability. no feasibility study, no analysis whatsoever. then not showing up at the hearing to talk about it. the only conclusion i draw and i would love to be proven wrong. the mayor's office is not serious at this moment be in time about moving this legislation forward and seems to have decided that it is more politically advantageous to force the board in a position for the legislation we need to continue items and then that predictably follows with additional attacks on this
committee and the board. i hope we can talk seriously about how to create more affordable housing to get the most out of up zoning. speaking for just myself it is frustrating that we can't be in a position to have a serious conversation about this because the mayor's office did not show up with the people working on this legislation to address the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston. i want to chime in to say this committee has done some great work in the last few months. we have waited through a lot of contentious policy debates to move forward with the consensus. i am hoping we can do the same for this legislation, but i think it is crucial to do that
to be able to in face the issues and have answers to questions if there is a point at which affordability or the build ability of the lot is not feasible because of any increased affordability. we need to look at the numbers and answer those questions. i am addressing the public comments that said that. i hope i am going to make a motion we continue to july 11th. when we come back we have answers to the questions raised during this meeting. i will continue to work with the mayor's office to make sure when it comes back things are ready both in terms of questions you raise, supervisor preston, supervisor peskin in terms of the relationship to the legislation, the scenario you came up with. the puds.
let's continue this to july 11. >> on the motion made by chair melgar to continue item 4 as amended to the 7/11 meeting. >> preston, melgar and preston. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> three. ordinance amending the planning code to create electric vehicle charging location and fleet charging as automotive uses, allow conversion of auto motivesertrations to electric vehicle charging locations. >> we already took publicment. >> chair melgar: we were waiting
to hear from city attorney pearson. >> we weren't able to finalize. would you continue for introduction next time. >> supervisor peskin. >> i was hoping to do it on the fly. we can't and shouldn't be. this may be too early to ask. are these -- do you think these are non substantive we can do them. the question is when you go from p to c that may be substantive. deputy city attorney star says we are good. >> it is premature for me to weigh in on it. i would like to speak with rob to better understand the impact of the changes. i will hold off on answering that question. >> supervisor preston: god
willing they will be non substantive and we can get them out the door next time. >> chair melgar: continue to july 11th, madam clerk. >> on that motion supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: that passes. do we have any other item on the agenda today? >> that completes the agenda today. >> chair melgar: we are now adjourned. thank you.
>> i don't want to be involved in the process after it happens. i want to be there at the front end to help people with something in my mind from a very early age. our community is the important way to look at things, even now. george floyd was huge. it opened up wounds and a discussion on something festering for a long time.
before rodney king. you can look at all the instances where there are calls for change. i think we are involved in change right now in this moment that is going to be long lasting. it is very challenging. i was the victim of a crime when i was in middle school. some kids at recess came around at pe class and came to the locker room and tried to steal my watch and physically assaulted me. the officer that helped afterwards went out of his way to check the time to see how i was. that is the kind of work, the kind of perspective i like to have in our sheriff's office regardless of circumstance. that influenced me a lot. some of the storefronts have changed. what is mys is that i still see some things that trigger memories. the barbershop and the shoe
store is another one that i remember buying shoestrings and getting my dad's old army boots fixed. we would see movies after the first run. my brother and i would go there. it is nice. if you keep walking down sacramento. the nice think about the city it takes you to japan town. that is where my grandparents were brought up. that is the traditional foods or movies. they were able to celebrate the culture in that community. my family also had a dry-cleaning business. very hard work. the family grew up with apartments above the business. we have a built-in work force. 19 had 1 as -- 1941 as soon as that happened the entire community was fixed.
>> determined to do the job as democracy should with real consideration for the people involved. >> the decision to take every one of japan niece american o japanese from their homes. my family went to the mountains and experienced winter and summer and springs. they tried to make their home a home. the community came together to share. they tried to infuse each home are little things. they created things. i remember my grand mother saying they were very scared. they were worried. they also felt the great sense of pride. >> japanese americans.
>> my granduncle joined the 442nd. when the opportunity came when the time that was not right. they were in the campaign in italy. they were there every step of the way. >> president truman pays tribute. >> that was the most decorated unit in the history of the united states army. commitment and loyal to to the country despite that their families were in the camp at that time. they chose to come back to san francisco even after all of that. my father was a civil servant as well and served the state of california workers' compensation attorney and judge and appellate board. my parents influenced me to look at civil service s.i applied to
police, and sheriff's department at the same time. the sheriff's department grabbed me first. it was unique. it was not just me in that moment it was everyone. it wasn't me looking at the crowd. it was all of us being together. i was standing there alone. i felt everyone standing next to me. the only way to describe it. it is not about me. it is from my father. my father couldn't be there. he was sick. the first person i saw was him. i still sometimes am surprised by the fact i see my name as the sheriff. i am happy to be in the position i am in to honor their memory doing what i am doing now to
help the larger comment. when i say that we want to be especially focused on marginalized communities that have been wronged. coming from my background and my family experienced what they did. that didn't happen in a vacuum. it was a decision made by the government. nobody raised their voice. now, i think we are in a better place as country and community. when we see something wrong we have change agents step up to help the community affected. that is a important thing to continue to do. you talk about change and being a leader in change and not knowing whether you have successes or results. the fact of the matter is by choosing to push for change you have already changed things. through inspiration for others, take up the matter or whether it is through actual functional
change as a result of your voice being heard. i think you have already started on a path to change by choosing that path. in doing that in april of itself creates change. i continue in that type of service for my family. something i hope to see in my children. i have a pretty good chance with five children one will go into some sort of civil service. i hope that happens to continue that legacy. >> i am paul, sheriff of san francisco. [ music ]
the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based
partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe,
clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there. there's so much involved with becoming a firefighter. and as a component of being a woman in the field, it takes a lot of perception. it takes belief in yourself.
it takes asking the right questions of people who already have the job so that you have the confidence to build it and it takes someone telling you that this job is a possibility for you. my job has given me 25 years of satisfaction. the primary thing is that i grew up here in san francisco and i'm serving in the city where i grew up. i transitioned to community training and i was able to build disaster resilient padre of volunteers and bringing us all the latest information so that we can be ready for a disaster. pride and loyalty are the heart of a firefighter. it's in the way we do our job from the very smallest thing from our everyday checks we do of our equipment. from the way that we treat each other and the community we come in contact with every day. and loyalty is to our own families is to the pride we have in this department. it's to the other members when we're out in a dangerous situation keeping each other safe. it goes throughout every aspect of being a firefighter.
i'm really proud of the way our department approaches diversity, equity, and inclusion. i was hired in a class that had 45 people and 17 women. it was an accomplishment at the time, but there were many women that came before me that laid the ground work and i had to see it to be it. someone had to recruit me into this job. i didn't know it was a possibility for myself. and so the importance of young women seeing what it takes to be a firefighter, seeing themselves when they look at me. it really brings myself a lot of pride and joy in this work.. >> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite
district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of
tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since
the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung
out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd get >> we worked very hard with the san francisco venue coalition, the independent venue alliance to advocate for venues. put this issue on the radar of
the supervisors and obviously mayor breed. the entertainment commission and the office of small business and we went to meetings and showed up and did public comment and it was a concerted effort between 50 venues in the city and they are kind of traditional like live performance venues and we all made a concerted effort to get out there and sound the alarm and to her credit, maybe breed really stepped up, worked with matt haney, who is a supervisor haney was a huge champion for us and they got this done and they got $3 million into the sf venue recovery fund. >> we have represented about 40 independent venues in san
francisco. basically, all the venues closed on march 13th, 2020. we were the first to close and we will be the last to reopen and we've had all the of the overhead costs are rent, mortgage, payroll, utilities and insurance with zero revenue. so many of these venues have been burning $1,000 a day just to stay closed. >> we have a huge music history here in san francisco and the part of our cultural fab lick but it's also an economic driver. we produce $7 billion annual' here in san francisco and it's formidable. >> we've been very fortunate here. we've had the department of emergency management and ems division and using part of our building since last april and
aside from being proud to i can't tell you how important to have some cost recovery coming in and income to keep the doors open. >> typically we'll have, three to 400 people working behind the teens to support the show and that is everything from the teamsters and security staff and usualers, ticket takers, the folks that do our medical and the bar tenders and the people in the kitchen preparing food for backstage and concession and the people that sell key shirts and it's a pretty staggering amount of people that are out of work as a result of this one verne you going tarkanian. it doesn't work to open at reduced capacity. when we get past june 15th,
out of the into the blue print for our economy we can open it it 100% and look at the festival in full capacity in october and we're just so grateful for the leadership of the mavor and dr. coal fax to make us the safest ♪ america and this is been hard for everybody in san francisco and the world but our leadership has kept us safe and i trust them that they will let us know when it's safe to do that. >> a lot of people know about america is military stuff, bullying stuff, corporate stuff. when people like me and my friends go to these foreign country and play music, we're giving them an american cultural
experience. it's important. the same way they can bring that here. it sounds comfy buyia, you know, we're a punk band and we're nasty and we were never much for peace and love and everything but that's the fertilizer that grows the big stuff that some day goes to bill graham's place and takes everybody's money but you have to start with us and so my hope is that allel groups and people make music and get together because without out, hanging together we'll hang separately, you know. >> other venues like this, all over the place, not just in the san francisco bay area need to exist in order for communities to thrive and i'm not just talking about the arts communities, even if you are here to see a chuckle bucket comedy show and you are still experiencing humanity and in specific ways being able to gather with people and experience something together. and especially coming out of the
pandemic, the loss of that in-person human connection recovering that in good ways is going to be vital for our entire society. >> it's a family club. most our staff has been working with us for 10 years so we feel like a family. >> what people think of when they think of bottom of the hill and i get a lot of this is first of all, the first place i met my husband or where we had our first date and i love that and we love doing weddings and i expect there to be a wedding season post 2021 of all the make up we haddings and i hope that many people do that because we have had so many rock ep role
weddings. >> i told my girlfriend, make sure you stand at the front of the stage and i can give you a kiss at midnight. at this got down on one knee at the stroke of midnight. it wasn't a public thing, i got down on one knee and said will you marry me and is he she had are you [beep] kidding me and i said no, i'm dead serious and she said yes. we were any time homicideel of the show. we just paused for new year's eve and that was where i proposed to my wife. this is more than just a professional relationship it's more than just a relationship from a love of arts, it's where my family started. we'll always have a special place in my heart. >> venues, you know, represent so much. they are cultural beckons of a
city. neighbors can learn and celebrate and mourn and dance together. venues and arts and culture are characterized as second responders to crisis and they provide a mental health outlet and a community center for people to come together at and it's the shared history of our city and these spaces is where we all come together and can celebrate. >> art often music opens up people to understanding the fellow man and i mean, taz always necessary and if anything, it's going to be even more necessary as we come out of this to reach out and connect with people. >> we can sustain with food, water and shelter is accurate and does anybody have a good time over the last year? no. >> san francisco is a great down. i've been here many years and i love it here and it's a beautiful, beautiful, place to