We think over 50 thousand permanent residents in San Francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. Making sure theyre a part of what we do in San Francisco the San Francisco pathway to Citizenship Initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and Community Safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the San Francisco since 2013 we started reaching the San Francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in San Francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. We think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in San Francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they dont have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience youre working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or theyre a u. S. Citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 thats when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of Community Resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other Community Services and benefits theres an economic and safety Public Benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over 3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money 86 million by reducing the benefit costs. Thank you. Ive been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. One day i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. Youre welcome. singing . clapping. introduce the San Francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. Citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back im an american now were proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. speaking foreign language. she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. You know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. Out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldnt count as it counts now. Its everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself theres a good life for everyone. Thats why. You have people from all the walks that life and theyre standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and thats really what makes this worthwhile. Good afternoon and welcome to the land use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 15. Our clerk is ms. Major. Please make sure to silence all cell phones. To be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. Items after today will appear on july 23 agenda. All right. We please read the first item. Item number 8 ordinance amending the planning code to require building setbacks for buildings fronting on narrow streets, modify front yard requirements in residential districts, increase required rear yards in singlefamily Zoning Districts by five percent, amend the rear yard requirements for through lots and corner lots in certain districts to permit second buildings where specified conditions are met, and allow Building Height increases to existing stories in existing nonconforming buildings in order to accommodate residential uses; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under planning code, section 302 thank you. We talked quite a bit about this last week. I brought in some amendments, and you brought in some amendments and they had to sit for a week. Today i would ask you to pass this onto the full board to file a recommendation. Thank you, supervisor. Before we open it up to Public Comment based on feedback that i have gotten in intervening weeks , i would like to suggest some changes to section 172 that would exempt the residential special use district from that provision. I have those amendments in front of you on page 13, and page 16. I am also informed by deputy City Attorney that we will have to make a corresponding page, corresponding change on page ten. With that we will open it up to Public Comment. Hi thank you. While you are reviewing that lets open it up to Public Comment, item number one. Good afternoon supervisors, i am with livable city. I am echoing supervisor mandlemans sentiment that you know there was a lot of great discussion last week and hopefully this can move forward, to the full board this week so it can be acted on before the recess. This has been a long time cooking. What this would do, the cottage portion of it would allow you to do something for housing that we can do for garages. If you look at the planning code. It will pitch allow you to put a garage in the rear setback which we should probably not allow anymore. The idea was, if you can add storage for cars and a rear yard , is it impossible to add a unit that people can live in . With a yard in between the two buildings. That was the genesis of this conversation. We appreciate all of the attention that has been paid to it. We would like to suggest to amendments, they are hopefully non substance. If you look at the planning code. Everywhere that these alleyway height limits do apply in the limit. It is noted in the zoning tables for the district. If you look at the height and vault line, it says heights and vault controls this but it also says 260. Whatever. We have been trying over the years to make the zoning control tables as complete as we can. A compendium of all of the provisions of the planning code. We ask that you would add to tables 209. 1 and 209. 2 a note that says that these additional alleyway height controls apply in those Zoning Districts. if you can do it without re referring. If its going to delayed a week we can get it in if its non substantive, adding that note will make it clear to neighbors, make it clear to project sponsors that they need to look at these height controls in addition to the other height controls. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is karen curtis. Last week when i was here i was here on behalf of the aia. This week we have not had a committee get together and talk about the amendments. Im here is a personal sadness and with a few comments. One may be taken care of, i spoke to tom before the meeting, this is case 12 line 24 and 25. We want to make sure the height amendment can be used for any use not just an adu. It is a pretty impractical spot to put in adu. And then the other is that i know the Planning Department has asked for the planning setback to be 10 feet, instead of the proposed 15. I would argue that that is more of an rdt issue. There may be cases where the 5foot minimal is not acceptable. Mandating the ten you are losing an extra 5 feet of space. At what that does from a building standpoint is when you have gone from 15 feet down to 10 feet, now you can add a bathroom in a powder room. When it goes from 15 feet to 5 feet you have room to add a kitchen and a bedroom. Density is really the goal. Maybe keep the 5 feet and rdt when the porches, setbacks and green space require more. Those are my comments. Thank you. Any other items of the public ever item number one. If not, we will close Public Comment. Oh, go ahead, sir. If there any other speakers if you will line up to your right, my left. First and foremost i am a concerned san franciscan and also a local artist and technologist. With homelessness, poverty and plaguing our society. It is the mezzanine that gives people, of San Francisco, salvation from their daily lives for many residents of the city. We must do our best to support the efforts, platforms of entertainment without a bit of an escape from the darkened streets, our people will flee for greener pastures. Causing damage to our economy. I suggest we band together and support venues like mezzanine so the city can prosper and we can all build a stronger community. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public on this item. We will close Public Comment. There is one amendment on the floor, colleagues. As to page ten language you can work that out before it goes to the full board of supervisors. Just to clarify that, page ten amendment is eliminating the reverence to section 207 corresponding to the amendment that peskin has proposed. We will take those amendments as to the three requests for amendments by members of the public i dont even know how we could grapple with the 209. 1 notes, at this time. The City Attorney is nodding his head. I said to the project sponsor that if we were to delve into that and talk to the planning apartment as to whether or not it requires a referral and relook at that tape, we could continue the item with the sponsor. The sponsor would refer not to do that. Is that correct . It that is correct. As to the other two suggestions. One of them i think was taking care of and the other one, i think there is not respectfully a desire to do what is due to the thrust of legislation is introduced. I dont think the committee is interested in taking that one. If there is no objection we will send the item, as amended to the full board with recommendation for hearing next week. Madame clark, could you read the next item. Item number 2, 190248 ordinance amending the planning code to revise the nct3 district controls to allow arts activities, philanthropic administrative services, and public facilities as a principal use on all stories, revise the upper market neighborhood commercial Transit District controls to allow arts activities and Institutional Uses as a principal use on the first and second stories and as a conditional use on the third story and above and to allow general entertainment as a principal use on the first and second stories, modify the requirements for Liquor Stores and bars in the nct3 and upper Market Street nct districts, add additional conditional use criteria for Liquor Stores and require Liquor Stores to comply with standard location and operating conditions, and add additional uses to the definition of open air sales; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under planning code, section 302. Repent several forward last week. At least one of them we would bring back to you. What we are bringing back to you today that would not describe last week is non subs. I will tell you where it is in case you want to look at it. The changes are page ten and 12 and are highlighted in the copy for the ordinance i just handed out. On page ten lines 14 and 19 were adding a note to the arts activities and Institutional Uses categories and on page 12 line six and seven we have the note which defines arts activities in the upper market as active uses under section 145. 4 planning code. I think with that, i would ask that you accept these amendments and forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. Subject to Public Comment . Are there any members here of the public for item number two . Supervisors, i am executive director to support this moving forward today. With these amendments, the online version, we are glad you have fixed all of those with the amendments that you talked about thats exactly as was discussed here in committee. We strongly support this going forward. I live between the mission on the castro, there is a lot of small and local businesses that are closing. We just heard about eureka lounge which was a great eating and drinking place in the castro, et cetera. It is a tough time for locally owned businesses in tran07. Anything we can do to get rid of the red tape and trying to open a business, months if not a year of delay where you have to lease a space before you can even get permission to open these neighborhood serving locally owned businesses. Of course as an executive director of a nonprofit our whole sector has been disappearing from the city. If we can open areas either on the ground, or spaces that dont currently have a residential use to nonprofit to arts uses. To these other endangered sectors of the San Francisco economy that contribute so much. I think the upper market legislation is in good shape. Im hoping it will be a model for reform and other Zoning Districts. Thank you. Any other members of the public here from seeing none. Public comment is closed. If there is no objection take the amendments described by his supervisor mandleman and send this item as amended to the full board with recommendation without objection. Item number 3, 180939 ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to create the oceanview large residence special use district to promote and enhance neighborhood character and affordability by requiring conditional use authorization for large residential developments in the district; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1. To provide context for this item. I want to thank the department for spending and acceptable amount of time. We have been working on this for two years. There has been foz to attempt you have to go through a conditional use. We asked them to make an argument if its an extended living situation we allow for that. We provide for that. But we also want to encourage the development of more accessory dwelling units in those situations if you do go above that. Some would argue that it would be an enforcement issue. We had a meeting prior to this, again, it was a 14 bedroom 12 bath. It was actually approved. Now it has merged and evolved, and taken a different form. Now its turn into four separate residences and one singlefamily home. Now they are talking about doing a Childcare Center which i am all for. The idea that once plans are approved and the neighbors have gone through a process there has to be a mechanism for there to be further conversation and oversight in those situations. We think even when it is an enforcement issue this will allow for the context and the Planning Department to look back on and say, in this particular special use districts, in this area of the omi, this is where we need to start the conversation. We feel like this is a good balance area i want to thank aaron starr, along with other members of the Planning Department staff. We worked on other things before and also members of the community which spent a lot of time and patience giving their input on this. We feel like this is a fair balance. We also feel like it helps to inform the subsequent legislation that is coming forward. We think that this could help the floor to area ratio conversation is the right way to start. That is where we are. Is there someone from the Planning Department that wanted to come up . If you want to speak on that i would appreciate it. And then we can open up for Public Comment. Diego sanchez from the Planning Department. On june 13 the Planning Commission considered this ordinance and a substitute of form. The commission is in complete support of the ordinance for several reasons including the following. Basic as ud on land or dents regulations. While also incentivizing residential density through 80 use. It also establishes conditional use considerations that are quantifiable that require routine design review. In essence they are very easy to implement. That concludes my presentation. Im happy to be here and answer any questions. Supervisor safai brought up one issue about enforceability. How does one actually and force, not the fa are provisions that would be through the typical enforcement mechanism. Somebody would say that the plans represented for business bedrooms and they believe there were six, we would send an enforcement planner out there to verify what is out of the site. We have thought about that. We know that right now there is really no legislation, as i said. We hear from a neighbor back in 2015 all the way to 2017, its a 13 bedroom, 11 bath home. There was really no reason to not try to hide that. What we would like to do, i mean, in a more Perfect World and i think in a better way and our conversations we would rather that we broke up into two separate units. Yes, if someone wanted to be creative they could put library, family room, so the bedrooms are harder to enforce, if people are not more open and brazen about it. The second piece of what we think is very enforceable is the bathroom threshold. Its harder to pretend you have a bathroom. While youre on the subject, relative to unit size equity. Was there any conversation at the Planning Commission. Right now the current proposal is that the 80 has to be 33 of the primary unit and, i mean, i think this circumstance as the supervisor said, somewhat unique to district 11 because of the book ending by large educational institutions. I mean, ever trying to create a different housing, was there any discussion about raising that to a higher percentage . There was no discussion. Were going to start out with 33 and see how that works. There is a fluid process, if things go up or down, i think we can come back here and do that. I guess another question as to the fa ours themselves, where theres a differentiation between the fa are for in h2 and in our h1, how did you come up with those numbers of. 25 fa are boost. The height the idea is in the rh2, if youre going to do a larger how she would have to do to units. It was more of a directional, not so much as sciences,. 5 versus 7. 5 or something to that effect. Its more directional. Understood. All right, are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item number three . Are there any other speakers after this individual . If you would line up behind him that would be great. Your testimony again, you set up there and say it is not proper and safe to have several People Living in one housing location that yet when it comes to Affordable Housing here and all nationalities, particularly asian people who are explaining how adults are living in a oneroom sro with a Community Bathroom and kitchen facilities. Very little objections was taken place by this board and the overall administration. Its a conflict of demonstrations by your administration and its a conflict of interest of managing the money. I want to further explain to you that redevelopment rule 410, i demonstrated were 15 of all all Affordable Housing that comes out of the Mayors Office on housing its supposed to be for very low and low income bracket people. Youre not following your own rules and regulations. That is why you have this damn problem in the first place. For example at mission rock, 1500 units, if you follow redevelopment rules as part of your charter and business at menstruation law, 15 of 1500, 225 people who are economically disadvantaged would have housing opportunity. You failed to include them. You also have a building that is under construction. You make the requirement to be attentive to the building, where have to make at least 39,000 a year. That means that people who are in low income brackets that is not making that 39,000 a year, everybodys income that is below that range is not included in the housing opportunity. You claim to be equal opportunity housing organization. By the same response we have some conflict here with the ami. 2019 it says 39040 . On the other scale is says when youre making 10,000