Transcripts For SFGTV CCII 3717 Commission On Community Inve

all other members of the commission are present. the next order of business is item 2, announcements. the next regular scheduled meeting will be held on march 21 2017 at 1 pm room for 16 good item b announcement of prohibition of some electronic devices during the meeting. these, be advised the ringing and use of cell phones pagers and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at the meeting. these, be advised through chairman nehru ordered the removal from the meeting room of any sound producing electronic devices. c announcement of time allotment for comment. these be advised the member has up to 3 min. to make public comment on the agenda item unless the commission adopts a short period on any arrogant strongly recommended members of the public who wish to address the commission the loud speaker card so that the completed part that commission secretary. the next order of business item 3, report of actions taken on previous closed session meeting if any. there's no reportable actions. the next order of business is item 4, matters of unfinished business. there's no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. first consent agenda 5-8 approval of minutes february 7, 2017 mdm. vice chair >> mdm. sec. to have any speaker cards for this item queen >> i do not >> since we don't have any-is there anyone who like to speak on these items and see mr. james over there?. for the next one. okay. hearing none, no request to speak on them up close public comment and i'll turned to my commissioner -fellow commission members for the comments and questions? no questions? to have a is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> so the motion to approve the minutes of february 7, 2017 has been moved by commissioner bustos and seconded by commissioner singh. mme. sec. please take a piece roll call >> pimentel aye bustos aye singh aye mondejar aye the vote is for aye and one absent >> okay. the motion carries. i'm secretary please call the next item >> next-door businesses regular agenda five-be authorizing a permanent loan but i will square this lp in amount not to exceed 12 $12,986,000 for low income family rental housing house griffith public housing site 2000 release walker dr. and updated replacement housing plan in adopting environmental funding pursuant to the california environmental quality act bayview-hunters point the development project area. discussion and action resolution number 11-2017. mme. interim director's >> good afternoon commissioners through the chair at this is phase for of the house griffith redevelopment. one other note you've approved a predevelopment loan on this item as well as the schematic design and this is just the next phase in that process. we have jeff white here who's the program manager will be presenting and we also of the development team for any audience as well. >> thank you director sesay. again jeff white housing program manager. this item is related to the four phase of the redeveloped of the house griffith public housing should also give a brief update on the progress on the first three phases. house griffith has been redeveloped as part of the oss initiative i'm presenting for a list be the senior development specialist who's out of the office of a brief leave. you've seen her before on many previous house griffith items. as you know, hope sf is a multisector initiative with the goal of eradicating generational poverty. the initiative to rebuild four of san francisco's most socially isolated public housing communities including house griffith into vibrant mixed communities and reconnect them to their neighborhoods and the greater city. per the terms of the dda, ocii has five point will complete the horizontal infrastructure related to alice griffith. five points predecessors selected mccormick born and salazar to develop the affordable housing in alice griffith. in addition to ocii and five point the house griffith revitalization team members include the mayor's office of housing and community development, ocd with the mayors hope sf team the san francisco housing authority whose a current owner and operator of house griffith, and then urban strategies who's implementing the social service program at alice griffith. our nonprofit development partners for faces 1-3 sorry, one in three are [inaudible] and phases two and four is tabernacle community development corporation. as you know, the housing authority received a $30.5 million choice neighborhoods initiative grants also known as a seeing eye implementation grant the us department of housing and urban development. 221.3 5 million of the grant was for construction of the new units. maynard is for services and community improvements. see an eye funds are being used on the first three phases of the house griffith with the first three phases in construction we are on schedule to meet the seeing eye deadline. the current development plan has alice griffith and redeveloped in six phases on the seven lots. the new alice griffith development would include one-for-one replacement of all of the 256 public housing units was the additional of 248 new affordable units. tax credit units. the first three phases are on the three large blocks around a religious water which are adjacent to the existing public housing. phases one and two are currently under construction in both phases are due to be completed by the end of next month. block one at a really us walker and carol is phase 3 and that's started construction in february of 2016 and on schedule to be completed in november of this year. once the public housing policeman units have been built the housing authority will transfer vacated land 25 point two develop proper for development is markedly inclusionary workforce housing. in october 2014 the commission approved a master agreement that governs these land transfers and resulting site reconfiguration. this slide shows a description of the types of units and incomes served for all components of the new development. there are categories of the affordable units which includes public housing replacement and tax credit units and those will serve 50% ami and below. they are also 279 workforce and inclusionary units which will primarily serve families between 120-160% ami. consistent with the purpose of principles to minimize displacement residence main on site during construction. the construction of the housing units will be faced with the new units being constructed before any housing is demolished. the development is plans of the residents will likely only have two [inaudible] move once to new units. all existing tenants will have the opportunity to up up up occupy the new units. housing authority is responsible for implementation of the relocation plan and five point pays all the local relocation cost. the services program at alice griffith and hope sf sites is being overseen by the mayors hope sf team to urban strategies has been providing on-site services to residents at alice since 2010 to ensure they would be able to participate formally in the planning of the new development and to ensure that they're able to be successful once they move there. currently, support services on-site have been funded primarily by the seeing eye grant. c and i grant. the alice griffith degree of almonds probably support in the community. alice griffith inclusion in the hunters point shipyard at candlestick point, page phase to come up project resulted in extensive public review with hundreds of meetings since 2007. both the hunters point shipyard citizens advisory committee and the former bayview-hunters point project area committee supported a larger project that and alice griffith's revitalization. it continues to support the alice griffith project. alice griffith it's up as an active tenant association and about a team along with urban strategy am ocd hope sf and oc site staff meet regularly with both groups. given the extreme habitability problems that can't exist at the site alice griffith tenants showing strong support for the site's revitalization. as you heard when you approve the schematic designs for phases 1-3 they been very involved in the design and opponent process for the new alice griffith. as i mentioned phases 1-3 are under construction to these phases have 306 units with 207 units being public and hoping housing replacement units. nbs urban strategies [inaudible] tabernacle and sf housing authority have been working with residents for the past several months to move the new public housing replacement units next month and in early may. the development team of ocii staff also began early outreach for the new affordable units in phase 3 earlier this year with the approval of an early outreach plan in january the mailing to coc holders and february of this year, last month. in july two rental readiness workshops for cop holders will behold so the be ready when the application process begins in september. i've a few slides they give an update on sp small business enterprise and workforce goals. we have really strong numbers on the professional services you can see 80% small business enterprise. 70% san francisco sbe, 47% minority owned businesses and 7% minority and women owned businesses and 6% women owned businesses. construction and supplies similarly numbers. 54% small business 47% san francisco small business-i'm percent minority owned business, .1% minority and women owned business and 2.1% women owned businesses. in your packets there are-there's a bios of these local businesses working on alice griffith. for construction and workforce to date on phases one-three you have the numbers on this slide. phase 1 is 36% san francisco, 19% w hunters point and 56% minority. 5% women phase 233% san francisco 70% bayview-hunters point and 57% minority. at 3% women. phase 3, 34% san francisco i'm a 14% babies hundred .56% minority and 5% women. today we're asking for your approval of several items related to phase 4 of alice griffith. on the map phase 4 is the wedlock on the slide. to give you some context. there's also some information on future neighborhood amenities in transit in and around the site. block five was originally part of a larger phase for good luck five is now available for development but the next two-the next other phases in phase 4 among blocks eight and 14 will be available for several years. as a result, by moving block five into phase 4 and living forward with the project now, it allows the delivery of some tax credit units that were previously planned. the development team decided to shift the block five unit mix so that four and five units not needed for public housing replacement were changed to smaller units sizes one and two bedroom units and resulted in an increase unit count at block five. that was in part related to the current household composition of alice which has skewed toward smaller household sizes. as household competitions compositions change over time the development team continues to look at the household sizes in preparation for the alice griffith phases one to be based on the current household sizes abided by the housing authority pays for split between public housing replacement and new affordable units with further updated and therefore a need for -as there's a need for more smaller units. so this slide shows the split between public housing replacement units and new affordable units at predevelopment loan approval and compares it to the proposed new mix your staff recommends allowing the second director of ocii and the director of ocd to approve a further shift up into the time of the close of the construction financing based on the needs of the existing residence at the time. we will have more information at the time because folks love in moving into alice one and two. the developer is now requesting a gap funding commitment for construction in order to up like for [inaudible] for the 4% loan tax credits and the tax exempt bond financing. the maximum ocii loan amount for the project will be 12 million $.986 thousand and we hope to have a term of 55 years and an interest rate of 3%. with the authority given to the executive director of ocii and the direct of ocd to prove a decrease down to zero or send as a part of the final financial plan for the project if one or both of these phases require a lower interest rates remain compliant with the irs requirements. the final action for your approval this afternoon is the updated replacement housing plan. the current 256 units at alice griffith are mix of 12 and three bedrooms - excuse me - one, two, three, 45 adam units. the public housing replacement will be to an 56 units also including all the bedroom sizes but the exact unit mix will reflect the unit size needs of the existing residence in among the existing residences greater need for one, two, three and bedroom units the lesser need for four and five bedroom units. however, pursuant to the community redevelopment law crl section 33415.5 of the california health and safety code, we are required to rebuild the exact unit number and mix. i will call these crl replacement units of the new tax credit units. for example we are building fewer four-bedroom public housing replacement units to reflect the existing household composition. we are still propagated to build [inaudible] bedroom units. in april 2014 the commission approved replacement housing plan. for the first three phases of development of alice and no demolition will occur at alice griffith prior to the completion of the first three phases. we currently anticipate the demolition to begin in 2018 and be complete to like 2020. the crl new tax credit placement units we built on-site at the new alice griffith developed and on to your bike 100% of ford housing parcels at candlestick, 11-80 and 10-8. the affordable the levels of these units will be set at or below the affordable the level of the existing units. this slide shows replacement units being built in the first three years of the purposes of crl requirements. when the first three phases when these three phases are complete by the end of 2017 ocii's obligation to build 12 and three bedroom units will be met and exceeded. in total 303 units at or below the affordability of the existing units will have been built. but we will still need to provide 50 four-bedroom units and 16 five bedroom units. here is the updated plan which addresses ocii's intention to fulfill this obligation. we will be providing 10 of the four-bedroom units and three of the five bedroom units required by crl in phase for which we started construction in july it will be providing five of the four-bedroom units and one of the five bedroom units in the nearby candlestick 10-811-a good reminder of the units we placed in the last two phases of alice griffith. thank you these phases is not complete unto the extent a sufficient number four and five bedroom units are not included in the [inaudible] staff will update the plan antenna by other sites within ocii's jurisdiction for purposes of fulfilling crl replacement housing obligations. before i finish, i'd like to review the project schedule. later this month the developer will be submitting an application for allocation for tax-exempt bond financing. alone income housing tax credits. construction is expected to start in july of this year and will be completed in october of 2018. so that wraps up my presentation for you today. before we take public comment and questions i like to introduce a key members here today. if you want to stand or raise your hand, we have [inaudible] was president of the alice griffith tenants association. daniela gravelle with mccormick and salazar. pauline-with nbs, and use of freeman also nbs. and dr. james mcrae. thank you. and-from five point and all other davis from five point. he is not here. okay. elizabeth chilton with san francisco housing authority. lisa-with them ocd hope sf. in isaac-with urban strategies. thank you. >> thank you mr. white. adam sec. to we have any speaker cards? >> i have three speaker cards. >>[calling public comment cards] >> commissioners, i'm terry anderson anderson foundation. community-based organization that works with ex-offenders. men and women in and out of drug rehab. living in district 10. my question is that i would like to have an understanding if there will be community benefit money for organizations such as anderson anders works with ex-offenders but ex-offenders in the city of san francisco percent of what largest concentration in district 10. we know how they represent public housing. so, my mission statement is, to break the cycle of recidivism is through job opportunities. now here we are affording the rebuilding of public housing projects. how many of these people will be afforded the opportunity to work on this particular project we, the community organizations within district 10 will be afforded financial support to be able to support clients within the projects? so it is within my preview that i am before you to ask that other organizations that arts also have an interest in this particular area, as far as the men and women to live in public housing as well as in the area, be given an opportunity to work with the clients. also i would like to be i have it put on notice, why can't the residence be given a financial incentive of having their rent paid as a part of the ability to purchase these units so they can be part of this project? instead of always having to deal with being renters? why can't we have money that they are paying for the rent go towards a purchase agreement so they can deal with having ownership within these units? it is time to be able to recognize if you're just want to tear down a unit and build a new unit and have them still as renters, they are not gaining any financial asset. as you have dealt with-thank you. >> thank you. >> o james risen of bayview-hunters point. 19 city to i remember when it first opened alice griffith projects. they look nice then but years afterwards they found out community found out, that the materials they used were third grade materials. why those buildings started tearing down like they did. way before this particular development that were three-story buildings there that they had to tear down in the alice griffith projects. what i hope is with this development, they use grade 8 material. i support the project 100% and i also ditto on what terry anderson before me spoke on. but i think it is time to train some of those residents in-house griffith to be landlords and also have opportunities when they build these different facilities in alice griffith may start [inaudible] trained those people in those housing projects to be able to work in the childcare centers and work in the different stores and store ownership of the community , or this committee or city should invest in the tenants so they become self-sustaining, have opportunities to pay the rent, because if you don't have a job you can't pay your rent. that's for everybody and anybody but i just hope that this project helps the community more than just having low income housing can help them to become self-sustaining and viable citizens indeed bayview-hunters point community. we need that badly. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. james. >> the cards >> good afternoon my name is [inaudible], resident of alice griffith and i'm excited for the project coming up. i am a mother of seven and three grill to grandchildren so i support the project i'm involved in it so please, thank you so much for listening to the project coming out because i've great relationship with the people that [inaudible] they show us the opportunity and i see it's coming. right now, i'm enough four-bedroom and i encourage a lot of people when the four-bedroom is available, go forward. tomorrow is not a promise that this is a great opportunity and i think all of the colleagues that came out and showed us opportunities for bringing don't like to the alice griffith. god bless everybody. >> thank you. >> >>[calling public comment cards]the commissioners my name is alan norman pres. of bayview merchants association. bayview-hunters point. resident for over 70 years. and i'm coming before you. i'm in favor of the project, too, but the way it stands with you guys sitting up here, getting your little reports from these people that work for you and looking at papers and stuff and not really knowing what's going on in the community, you need to start walking the walk and doing something other than just talking the talk because all you do is set up here and talk about what you're going to do but you don't do nothing. you talk you don't walk. you don't do none of that. you don't do nothing about contractors out there being driven and going brock because of certain contractors that you and the developer himself are allowed to work out there and cause people to go bankrupt and everything because the laws on the books that you are supposed to reinforce to make sure that people out there who are business people get treated fairly. you could not come out to try to enforce them. we are in favor of the project but not as far as it being administered. the way it's administered and the way you're overseeing it anything. the owner can come to you at any time for anything and you will go ahead and give it to us but you never want to find out how the business people live in bayview-hunters point got down. did all [inaudible] city hall and everywhere else to bring this project out there and then this new five point thing and this five-point thing is not a good deal for nobody. first was [inaudible] back to change their name because the reputation is so bad out in the community could they change from benard to five point and so you can go out there shopping centers just like the one in walnut creek. isn't nobody became walnut creek money. so how are we supposed to get [inaudible] and everybody knows that going out there and looking at the construction and the layout of the different buildings out there those houses are not being built for anybody who resides in bayview-hunters point. those are billed for the yuppies that you're bringing in from other places. but give us an opportunity to work on the project then if we work on a project you want to make sure that we get paid. we just want to set up and have us come down here complaint you every week and you sit on your duff and not do anything. talk about having a meeting that is not on the happen because you're too lazy to come here and help some people that can't help themselves because they put all the responsibility so all you have to do is say, yes, we are doing this and don't do nothing. >> thank you mr. norman. >> >>[calling public comment cards] >> good afternoon commissioners. i name is mindy kanner. i work with andrews and anders peer i got a call yesterday from a young lady who was incarcerated whiz from alice griffith and she wants to get back in her unit. she needs $781, tools, were close, and there's nowhere to go to help people with [inaudible] this is something that comes up every day in public housing. you need to set aside money for barrier removal. it's very easy to incarcerate people, $60,000 a year and it's very difficult to get $1000 to put someone to work. so i implore you to look at some budget budgetary money to appease him and women up in these public housing units to get back to work. they want to go to work. they see it happening outside their door every day that they see people going to work. they have barriers to employment that, to me, $1000 can help somebody is not very much money. incarcerating them is a lot more difficult. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any more speaker cards? >> no more speaker cards. >> okay. drano for the request to speak on this item i will close public comments. i now turn to my fellow commission members for their comments and questions. yes, commissioner singh >> there's a four bedroom and five victim who gets [inaudible] on those >> what is the requirement? >> yes. what to get a five bedroom hold >> tousled bedroom size would be the household +1. the minimum size household for a four bedroom would be five people. >> what is the end for that? >> the rent? i can tell you that. just a second. daniela from nbs knows the answer below, with the developer. so there are two types of units here. for returning public housing residents they require 30% of their income up to a certain rent. i don't have that on me but it's a low rent for a 4-5 bedroom unit. >> when are you going to have it? >> i don't have it with me right now. basically these are for tenants who make up to 50% of the area median and the computer is also just tax credit rent tax credit units that are for residents in the general public look onto a lottery process. there are no five bedrooms for those residents but the four bedroom rent is $1454 per someone who makes 50% of the area median income. >> that's very low income. they can afford $1400 a month? >> these are federally set rents. >> for people who are under that. one other question. the interest rate is 3%. >> >> that is correct. 3% >> [inaudible] for how long? >> they said it between 3-0% as a result of negotiations with a tax credit investor. they sometimes need a lower interest rate to limit the losses and to ensure that compliance with irs regulations are met. >> is 55 years right? >> that is correct. that's the term >> it just a long? >> yes. it's just a long. >> thank you. >> commissioner pimentel >> i the question on [inaudible] what are the relocation costs and what is the process reviving the relocation for the tenants? >> okay. on the return to elizabeth tilton at the housing authority to address that. >> what are the relocation costs and then what is the process for relocating the tenants? >> so the relocation costs? relocation costs for the tenants, unit? >> yes. >> the relocation of us are mitigated by the housing authority. we cover the-each resident will have an option whether they want a self allowance and that is a fixed allowance fee that's determined by the federal hwy., association. and if you would like i can give you those amounts. so for one bedroom apartment it's considered three rooms furnished that would be $1165. for a two-bedroom apartment which is for rooms finished would be 1375. 83 bedroom again two additional rooms furnished is $1665. a four bedroom apartment is $1925. a five bedroom apartment is $2215 and then it goes up to eight rooms furnished and that's 2505 and each additional room furnished is considered to an 65. now with the alice griffith site there are no units that are over five bedroom that would be the cap. again five-point covers those costs and then they also have the option of a commercial mover in the commercial mover is provided by the housing authority the housing authority pays the commercial moving company directly. so there is no cap. >> you had another question, sorry? >> commissioner bustos >> so i don't know if it's a question or comment. mr. norman has come up and said a lot about the work that we are trying to do here. as you know mr. norman we been trying really really hard to do what is right by redeveloping did wrong. i'm a little concerned about the comments. i think the project itself is worth approving and moving forward. however, we been through this road before the contract is not being treated correctly. i know we try to talk about that so maybe we need to revisit that conversation did mr. norman we could go to bayview. we had a meeting in february in the community which is something that i was very proud that we did. because it's about going out and being with people that maybe we need to do something else because if there's concerned about how people are being treated, especially the contractors that we have pushed so hard that we pushed the developers quite a bit, i think and i think we've done a good job of making sure that the developers, whether it be lennar, five point whatever name they want to use, or even mbs, that was about really making sure that it was a lifting everybody up. now if there's an issue about how people are being paid and how smaller contractors are being treated than that something we need to have a serious discussion about once again with confidence that our interim director could help us do something like that is i think it's something that's serious. he did not push to have it so that small businesses go bankrupt. that was not our intention at all. let me finish. our intention was to make sure that we lift up the community that it's a win-win for everybody. but if there still issues going on that i think we need to take a look at that in a very serious way and bring in our attorneys, bringing other folks to say let's take a look because it's not the spirit, it's not part of the spirit of what we were trying to do here as a commission. the latter part of reed obama wins existing to now ocii. so going back to the project, this particular project, mbs you were hearing what has been a concern so i hope you take to heart some of that and i hope you take to heart some of the issues around how we invest in the people especially the residence of alice griffith. so long time coming and i hope that we are able to do right by them but i think the project itself is something that should go forward . the other issues will definitely take a look at it i think you have the commitment of all of us here including our chairwoman commissioner rosales to take a look at it. so it's not necessarily a question. more of a comment of this project and of the issues surrounding get so thank you. >> thank you commissioner bustos. i do have a couple of questions. i also support this project and i just need some clarification because you earlier said there were like 4-5 bedrooms and so my understanding is whenever the existing configuration of the buildings, how many one bedroom, two bedrooms, 4-5 bedrooms left replace it the equivalent replacement. yet at the same time i understand that there was some survey done that there will be less five bedrooms and less for bedrooms. so i just need to clarify how was the conversion of that and why would they changed? >> sure. i will address that. there's one way to think about it is this to him or talk about replacement units this two types of replacement units. so one is the replacement the one-for-one replacement of the public housing units. so for every units that is being demolished eventually to be a replacement unit. but those units will be replaced with the appropriate unit size that's required by the household. in other words over time, i can right now there are some units in the existing alice griffith that are you could say folks are over house. there might be two people in a four bedroom should i don't know if that's an exact number, but what you say as an example. the ideas of the public housing replacement units that's based on-is every the same number 256 units but the configuration of 12, three, four, five bedrooms is based on the existing need of the household that's in place at the time. that is something that is continuing to change because people have lives and get married, died, have kids, etc. so the household compositions are possibly changing. so that is the public housing replacement unit and then on top of that, or in addition we have the community redevelopment law requirement that we replace a unit, the same composition of the units that we demolished. so if we demolished for bedrooms we need to replace four bedroom units. that would be in that example, let's say you only have a need for 24 bedroom units pursuant to what is in the public housing right now at alice griffith, then he would only build two of those public housing replacement units. does that- >> yes. right now a family has five bedrooms and then you are assessing the need of this family that has five bedrooms and a are now down to three or four. so you are saying you convert the five bedrooms two- >> public housing replacement unit would be for the upcoming nokia five bedrooms and it be something appropriate to the current household size. >> so what happens to the other within the five bedrooms now down to two bedrooms? you have to build another three, one bedrooms? as a replacement week >> we would have to build five bedrooms somewhere else and i would be a tax credit unit we would build in cases five or six of alice or what we are also doing is putting some of those cra placement units to the projects in candlestick. >> so not necessarily at the alice griffith b was that is right. it can be any of the areas where ocii has jurisdiction but that would be it could be transbay can it be missionary or to be the shipyard. >> okay. >> thank you, jacket just to recap us do things we are ensuring that all the existing households that house griffith will get house so the bedroom size of the needs their needs and on top of that were going ahead and ensuring that the exact unit mix is going to be also built through ocii funded projects. so both needs are being met. people are there today will get their needs met in house now at alice griffith on top of that we are ensuring the unit sizes that were originally built a unit of alice griffith back in the day of being replicated in either out house griffith or to the extent they don't need that because of the household size we will incorporate them in her portfolio going for. >> at the current residents understand this week >> of the current residents are having there-again sometimes these terms are used interchangeably but relocation. and replacement units. so alice griffith residents are being relocated into a new alice griffith units that is size to their household. separately in your package you have a replacement housing plan which has to do with just a physical replacement of unit sizes may be at alice griffith or maybe elsewhere but isn't tied to the people living in those units today. they are being taken care of through the relocation plans the housing authority and the funding you heard about earlier. so the people are being-their needs are being met so the exact unit size when removing and then we are also placing the unit mix in our portfolio in general. so it sort of were meeting to needs to alice griffith and other projects. is that clear? >> that make sense, thank you for that. okay. let's see. i think i may have one more question. we are close public comment but it looks like-can we open it up? >> is your discretion to do so but you are right public testimony is close. >> so we can open it. but me if there's any more questions. i think those are the questions i had. so we are going to open public comment. state your name. we thank you so much my name is [inaudible] i just want to open up to that question that you say, yes but like i said i'm on for bedrooms but on educating a lot of people because sometimes your household changes so what we want to do-i'm very involved in the community a lot and educate a lot of the residents. sometimes i don't need a four bedroom. down the line the kids move on and all that stuff right now, i'm for bedrooms. i've six children. my parents live with me. i feel like i should be in a five bedroom. so the more you are in a five bedroom of course your rent is going to go higher. that's why i like this what we're doing right now. to educate them. sometimes you don't need-that's why things happen. you don't need a four bedroom. some people they live in five bedrooms and it's only three or two. i don't judge but i educate a lot of residents because the higher your bedroom the more money you pay the electricity and all that stuff. so that's why i believe they are not down [inaudible] with a educate them, do you really need this? we don't do anything behind doors. i'm very educated to the community. because we are people. we want to do the project so they can understand. so they can come to the community of a lot of things happen is you don't live there. i am very involved in the community, educates residents not even talk to them in the level they were at. that's why i bring it up because we work together with [inaudible] writer and i ask questions i think for you bringing that question because anything could happen. anybody i want that bedroom but i only talked the residents. it's a four bedroom is ready go for it. we been waiting for these years and years and years. i am excited. i'm excited. that's why i'm involved so let him know, he yesterday is gone. it doesn't matter whose names but you've got to represent who you are to the community and i love where i'm at and i think you guys for listening to what i say and god bless you guys. >> thank you. one more comment. >> again my name is terry andrews of anderson and his foundation and him and speak again to the availability of people or renting and when you tear down these units they come back being renters but you've already demonstrated in west point carried down units allow people to purchase units. renters should be able to be given the lease with the option to buy. renters, when will they be able to have participation of ownership unless they are given the opportunity to do with some creativity on financing? if you tear down. and they come back as units menu tear down other people's units than they are able to purchase units renters have been left out and people throughout our city are coming to this particular area of this potato district for home purchases. throughout the city. so people who live in these units they should be given the option with the lease to buy in these units. that has been dealt with and at no time. since we are consulate building objects in public housing, these people living renters all their lives one generation after another should be given the opportunity or purchase. why should everybody else but the city, peer who want this for years and now they are up there and the poor folks they still are winners. what is wrong with this picture? it does not at all. >> thank you. are there any other questions? fellow commissioners? okay. >> it's very difficult. the woman is saying she has six children and 2 pounds. how much money do you need to afford 14+ in the rent. it just a comments. not a question. >> i do have one more question. it was raised earlier about community benefits. whether a community benefits that an implanted with this project or is it more like the whole? i know we approved the committee benefit package the last meeting. >> well, the alice griffith project is part of larger hunters point shipyard phase 2 in candlestick point project and certainly we think the key community benefit bringing her abydos vitalist alice griffith developed this neighborhood but in and of itself there are a variety of services and things coming along the choice neighborhood grants but that's really revolves around this project in general. i don't know of anything else-i'm not sure there's anything else that would be an extra. again this is one part of the larger project which is as you mentioned in reference there's a larger community benefits plan by the master developer but this project before you today is just the alice griffith phase for itself and it's just following that project approval path. >> the alice griffith they're all rentals? >> yes. because the public housing units are rental units and the new tax credit units are also rental units which is consistent with a financing mechanism that we have with low income housing tax credit. the units are required to be rental. >> okay. thank you. okay. we have a motion to move. a motion to move was made by commissioner bustos second bite commissioner pimentel. madame sec. please call roll call >> commissioner pimentel aye bustos aye singh aye mondejar 20 good commissioner rosales is absent the boat is for aye and one absent. >> call the next item >> item over six of the common on non-agenda items. madame vice chair >> we have any speaker cards for this item? >> yes. i have one. oscar james. >> good afternoon again. oscar james. i do know how many of you saturday attended the lack cuisine in bayview-hunters point but it was a marvelous turnout. we have a lot of people from the community and from the city that participated . i was in the vip portion of the black cuisine and all of our food went and everyone loved it and liked it but i just hope they made a lot of money for the black cuisine. one of the main things i got up for is when we-when i first [inaudible] and we were relocated out of joint housing up the hill we got $4500 for relocation with a certificate of preference. one of things we started with joint housing. i don't know if alice griffith can do that work know, but it should be away possible for them to do get some type of assistance for down payment assistance to buy those homes out of alice griffith. a lot of those people live in those projects all their lives. they pay rent. the old projects we are paying $50 something $59. but from 1944 until the 1968 when they took over those houses, we, as a young people at that time talked with justin herman and the hon. [inaudible] and cut at $4500 and [inaudible] the navy also put some of that money together. we encourage a lot of people at that particular time to buy homes i was one of them who bought a home back then and what my home cost the den and what it would cost you know i would not be able to afford living there. but those peoples were living in the projects when i was living in the projects in the 40s and what have you. they pay for those units. it's one thing to keep going from paying rent, paying rent, paying rent to not have an opportunity to buy and stay in your community that's what we really need out in bayview-hunters point. for all of our renters both in potrero hill, artie street projects, all of them should be able to purchase and own homes. so maybe some kind of way you can you guys can look into that and make it come to be a reality. that's all i have to say. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. james. >> i like this commission. >> thank you. do we have any more speaker cards >> no other cards >> let's call the next item i will close the public comment is closed. all the next item >> next-door a business item 7 report of the chair. madame vice chair. >> so the vice chair doesn't have a report. >> next-door to businesses item 8 report of the interim executive director mme. interim director. >> okay. next item please >> next order of business is item 9 commissioners questions and matters. madame vice chair >> commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? >> good job. [laughing] >> thank you commissioner singh. okay so next item please madame secretary spews next order businesses item 10 closed session. there's no closed session items. next-door business is item 11 adjournment >> i favorite item. adjournment. so we are adjourning at 2:11 pm. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >> >> all right, good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation committee for marsh 6th,2017 and i'm mark farrell, and join by supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor katy tang and want to thank the clerk of mr. victor young, as well as any philim jal jackson from sfgtv for covering today's meet ing please science all cell phones and electronic dao vices and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the march 14th, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you for read thosing rules. mr. clerk, can you call item no. 1. >> item no. 1, ordinance amending the downtown support special use district to authorize a monetary contribution to satisfy required on-site open space requirements, exclude certain features from the floor area ratio and gross floor area calculations, and dedicate the monetary contribution for light and safety improvements at victoria manalo draves park. >> thank you very much. with the request of the project sponsor, the ordinance sponsor, i should i say, we're going to entertain a motion to continue this item until march 20th. but before that, colleagues, if no questions, i would open up for public comment. anyone wishing for comment on item 1, seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] . supervisor tang. >> ly make the motion to continue to march 20th. >> yes. >> 2017. >> motion by supervisor tang and seconded by supervisorpisckin taken without objection. mr. clerk, please call item no. 2 please. >> item no. 2, ordinance amending the commerce and industry element of the general plan to update the guidelines regarding overconcentration of eat and drinking establishments in a single area. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair farrell. and supervisor tang. so before we get to the substance of this matter, i just wanted to raise a couple of procedural issues and first, i'm not pointing a finger to the current chair because we were at the transition, but this happened at another general plan amendment and i'm not sure you were chair yet or not? as you know, we have 90 days to accept or reject them and lately what has been happening is that they come right at the end of the 90 days. and in this particular one, i think it was transmitted -- it was approved by the planning commission on december 1st, transmitted to us during the holidays decemberte 22nd and the transition of committees and what have you. as a result of that, we don't actually have the opportunity to have very much of an in-depth hearing, because this has to go one way or another as a committee report for tomorrow's board meeting. so it's not the kind of thing we can ask a bunch of questions and continue it a week and that is a procedural thing as to the general plan amendments, as they come from time to time, it would be really neat if we could schedule them after, i don't know, 60 days or 30 days or 45 days. that is just one kind of comment for the committee. and was actually thinking about the fact that planning sent it december 22nd instead of maybemaybe 2nd and the issue to planning, the last time one of these came along when it got to the full board, we actually rejected it at the full board. again, we're up against a timeline. but at that time, i tried to suggest to planning that amendments to the general plan are pretty weighty, lofty things and that there should be more extensive outreach, particularly to members of the land use and transportation committee and maybe they reached out or not? i don't know. but that meeting has yet to occur and i'm happy after we hear staff presentation to raise a series of policy questions as to whether or not this is necessary, and the best public policy? but i will reserve that until after planning's presentation. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. to your comments about scheduling, i agree with your sentiment. now the chair of this committee for the past four weeks i think we were doing our best to schedule anything that needed to be due haste so we could actually have the chance to discuss them before they are approved without our discussion. but to our planning department, let's work on that moving forward. certainly for the next two years. with that. >> thank you, supervisors. and just to respond to supervisor peskin, i did reach out to each one your offices and met with your staff to go over it. i think i did it probably a month ago with angelo in anticipation of such a situation. and we did try to get it earlier, but again scheduling was an issue and the small business commission really wanted to hear it. i'm glad they did. they did recommend approval. so it was worth it. but let me get on to the presentation: so good afternoon, aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs and the item is say general plan amendment that would remove specific numeric concentration standards from the commerce and industry standard element such as restaurants and bars, seek conal use authorization and similar controls would remain in the planning code. so just a quick refresher on this, i'm sure you are all familiar with the general plan and planning code, but the general plan is like the city's constitution. it sets goals and policies that are the basis for the city's land use decisions and general plan is required by the state of california. it's official city policy of the city and county, so it is mandatory and not just advisory and the mayor and board have final approval. ed planning code is the city's land use implementation document. the plaque code contains specific controls such as numeric controls intended to implement the visions outlined in the general plan. the planning code must be consistent with the general plan and the board or planning commission may initiate changes. so this update would remove -- would amend the commerce and neighborhood -- neighborhood commerce sect of the general plan commercial and industry element and proposed change reye's move specific numeric control for restaurant concentration from the general plan. the describing-through language more than 20% of the total occupied would be replaced with "an overconcentration of," so removing the specific numeric concentration and making it more general and then below, removing 20% and directing the reader to the planning code to actually find the percentage required. and then it was also removed language that caused specific neighborhoods for greater concentration and overly prescriptive spacing requirements and that language would all be deleted. however, similar language numeric controls would be -- would remain in the balancing code if needed to better respond to individual neighborhoods. so implementation impacts: planners would still reevaluate the concentration for eating and drinking uses for cu applications and instead of 20-25% it would be 25% and instead of sesaluting the concentration for the entire district called for the general plan only concentration within 300' would be calculated and concentration-levels will on the be used to inform the department's recommendation and planning commission's decision. other cu findings, public support or opposition and other factors would still be used in evaluating conditional use application. a little background on the commission action and outreach, the planning commission recommended approval on this december 1st of last year. the small business commission recommended approval on february 27th of this year. north beach continues to be a destination dining and entertainment zone and that is why it has a higher percentage as compared to another neighborhood-commercial districts. i think this one size fits all is not the right road to go down. then the notion of overconcentration, and while section 3.03 and conditional use that aaron starr talked to exists in the code and there is no definition of what overconcentration means in the general plan and i for one, i just don't see this is necessary. we're all in receipt of an email sent -- i believe yesterday, from the middle polk neighbors, by their president, moe jamal that speaks to these issues and i for one, just don't really understand why this change to the guidelines for specific uses and again, i underline "guidelines" is necessary. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i hear supervisor peskin and what he is saying and actually felt the complete opposite, but let me just clarify one thing first. under the neighborhood commerce section we eliminate the percentage requirement. however, if we're looking at eating and drinking uses, and you are considering, say cu, you still look at concentration of storefronts and 25%. i think the cu part is what has really been a huge hiccup for our businesss in district 4 and i know one size doesn't fit all and i agree with that statement and i think that is where this 25% actually has kind of come into place in a slightly negative way for neighborhoods like ours. where we actually want more restaurants and more concentration. this for example, 25% came up when we talked about a two-block commercial area. and one of the wonderful restaurants that was going to help revitalize part of our district almost got caught up in this; right? so for me, actually, i think eliminating the percentage is important and in the next land use and transportation committee, to see other specific controls tailored to particular ncds or districts and to put in more stringent requirements where that might be necessary, such as the mission or wherever else. but neighbors in the outer ones where i'm trying to attract more restaurants even to be looked at, even if it's not a hardline for commissioners to decide on. i see how one size doesn't fit all, but in my personal opinion i would like to see the percentages removed even for the cu requirement. i know it's an unor down vote and i'm not going to try to change anything right now. >> so i don't really see that the one size fits all. i see it as taking something that is making one size fit all and allowing more variation per neighborhood, like you are talking about. so in the future, if you wanted to sponsor an ordinance that changed the concentration for your districts, you can do that. but right now we're sort of tied by being consistent with the general plan and so this allows that to happen. >> may i just one last follow-up question is why did you keep the 25% consideration for the cu process for eating and drinking uses? >> we are just trying to maintain that control, and what we have actually found is that restaurant concentrations throughout the city are usually much higher than 25% and that, in fact, is an outdated number to begin with. so we would like to go back and sort of evaluate more, with more outreach and go ahead and see what appropriate number is? and if that is one number throughout the city, then fine, but it's more nuanced to other districts that would be the out come. >> personally i would like to see for the cu requirement for eating and drinking uses to somehow mirror what you did with the neighborhood commerce section in terms of just saying looking at the balance, we understand an overconcentration could, you know, could be threatening to the community. instead of putting even 25% commercial frontage component? i don't know if that is possible to consider? >> it is. our office would be happy to work on yours with perhaps drafting language to that effect. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin. >> it's a little bit like the formula retail discussion where you have some neighborhood-commercial districts that ban it, some that require conditional use and other areas of the city it's permitted as of right. so what i want to make sure is that the underlying admonition in the general plan supports having a diversity of uses and businesses in a commercial area. so i mean, i remember the the old formula retail discussions and some supervisors who were dieing to have formula retail come to their districts, and there were some supervisors already inundated by formula retail and wanted to see no more. and so what i want to make sure is that the underlying admonition in the general plan respects that and i want to make sure this isn't being turned on its head and if folks on want to see higher concentrations i respect that. the dangerous road we're going down is -- and i say this as the district 3 supervisor, is that the general plan has had specific guidelines that specifically call out a neighborhood. this is actually a little bit of the problem that we had over the last general plan amendment that came here, that specifically called out chinatown and this one is specifically calling out north beach. so the road i'm worried about going down is this seeming need by the department to take out neighborhood-specific references that are there for a reason. because indeed, north beach, starting in the 1990s and this has all been statistically proven has seen the loss and this is not just because of zoning, but because the amazon effect seen the loss of oodless and this is a parable and last board of supervisors rezoned the old rossy's market to be a restaurant and lo and behold, it's thank god now our latest cold hardware in san francisco. we want to have zoning that maintains those kind of neighborhoods-serving uses, and that is how -- somehow years ago north beach got its designation in the general plan. so i'm saying why do we have to take it out and make it a one size fits all solution? >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. to those commentss through the chair to supervisor peskin and to mr. starr, if this particular reference to north beach is removed from the general plan, that there could be some particular control that supervisor peskin could later introduce specific to north beach? that would actually maybe have the same exact requirement in there? so that it's not housed in the general plan, but maybe a legislative zoning change? i don't know. >> he can introduce an ordinance to do that and make a specific concentration and have the language for north beach. i will say originally when we brought it to the planning commission in october we did not remove the language for north beach because representatives from north beach came out during the hearing and taking extension. we didn't come to a consensus with north beach or telegraph hill dwellers. they wanted the percentage left in, but from my understanding of the conversation they weren't comfortable with their neighborhood being called out. statistic -- the staff who did that outreach unfortunately has moved on to oakland, but that is what i understand from the meeting. >> i honestly don't know the history of it, but i found in my records a letter that i was copied on from october and i have not been able to actually speak to the author of the letter, stan hayes. but he does not seem to say that they wanted north beach taken out, at least that is not how i read the letter. they do raise another interesting thing though, mr. starr, which is that they believe that this whole discussion is inextricably linked to changes in article 7 of the planning code and thought it would be better if they were heard together? but that option is not before us as our 90 days actually expires march 24th, which does subject to public comment we could continue this for a week? and then send it as a committee report? because that would still give us two readings on the 14th and 24th. so we do have that option, if we want to noodle between myself and the department to figure out how to get this right? >> okay. colleagues, any further questions or comments? well, open up to public comment. anybody who wishes to speak on item no. 2? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ] >> so just in terms of my comments and i appreciate the dialogue here: you know, from my experience in the districts that i represent, i do -- i actually tend to side with supervisor tang that not having as much specificity in the code is the way to go. not all districts are created equal, but neither are the different commercial corridors in each district and being able to do that like we're going to do with potentially item no. 3, if this is going forward, i think it's fair to supervisor peskin's comments about taking out an area that he represents out of the plan right now, if you will, and replacing it. appreciate that concern and comment and would anticipate that would be legislation followed pretty closely here. but i do think having that flexibility, i will say one of the first things that we had when i first came into office there was a ban on new restaurants on fillmore street in district 2 and it was the first piece of legislation that i actually passed here at the board of supervisors because it was causing -- there were so many empty storefronts and the changing nature i would rather have in the code itself and be able to amend it that way, rather than larger plan amendments. to supervisor peskin's comments i think the changing nature of our retail corridors is -- judging e by the volume of cardboard my family disposes of every week, whether it's amazon as parents of three young kids and supervisor ronen hasn't experienced yet, but will soon and our corridors will be ever changing for the foreseeable future given this trend. i would be in favor of putting it forward, certainly to the full board. i have no problem putting it forward with no recommendation, if that would make a difference at all? but i'm mindful that there is potential dialogue to be had, and we'll see where our colleagues are on the board of supervisors tomorrow. supervisor tang. >> thank you. so i am also in favor of having the general plan language be more broad. i think that even the language that is in the neighborhood commercial section -- correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe it was based on a point in time when a study was done in showing that restaurants were actually again very threatening to our communities and while that might be true in some neighborhoods today, still, in others, i think it may not be. so i think the broader language in the neighborhood-commercial section. i will look forward to working with the planning staff on further changes to the planning code regarding cus for eating and drinking uses. i actually don't like the 25% commercial frontage language still in there, but we can again work on that next. i would again just in response to supervisor peskin's issue about particular neighborhoods, and needing certain things, i agree. and think absolutely we could follow-up with further legislation to codify certain requirements for particular neighborhoods, if need be? so i am ready to move this forward with positive recommendation today. and i will make a motion then to send this forth to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. >> i'll be the second. roll-call vote. mr. clerk, can we do a roll-call vote on the motion? >> yes, the motion is to recommend the matter as a committee report to the full task force to be heard at tomorrow's meeting. on that motion, supervisor peskin? >> no. >> peskin, no. supervisor tang? >> aye. >> tang, aye. >> chair farrell? >> aye. >> farrell aye, motion passes. this matter will be recommended to the to affect to appear on tomorrow board of supervisors agenda. >> motion isa proved [ gavel ] . >> mr. clerk, will you call item no. 3. >> item no. 3, ordinance amending the planning code to create the calle 24 special use district and revising the - zum, revising the zoning map to reflect the calle 24 special use district generally bounded by 22nd street, potrero avenue, cesar chavez street and capp street, as well as 24th street to bartlett street. >> thank you, mr. clerk. so this item was sponsored by supervisor ronen. and the mayor's office, it looks like. and i know supervisor ronen has been working on there for quite some time. >> yes. >> before even taking a seat on the board of supervisors and i would like to turn it over to her. >> thank you so much. thanks for hearing this item. so i see many people here from the cultural district, latino cultural district and thank you all for being here. what i would like to say if the mission is the heart of the latino community, then 24th street is the center of that heart. it's the special place where parents drop off their children for program and taking tours on the balmy allyell murals and where they gather for brunch at fortune yawn and gallery deraza and these are just a few examples why the board of supervisors in 2014 identified this t as the latino cultural district and this body recognized the significance of the district and while it's a special place it's also an area facing the brunt of the city's affordability conscience. when we talk about affordability we often think about housing, but small businesses are also being displaced at rapid clips that is changing the very nature of our neighborhoods. the legislation that i and the mayor co-introduced and before you today is key to preserving the vibrancy of the district and using land use tools to articulate what characteristicks to see and new businesses coming into the neighborhood. i'm pleased to share that both the planning commission and the small business commission unanimously voted in support of the 24th legislation including minor amendment that i will soon explain. through the sud we seek to preserve what makes the latino cultural district an transmitingive and dynamic commercial zone. the sud sets aside up to one-third of the corridor for eating and drinking establish thes and makes room for other types of business like retail and personal services that neighbors rely on. and the sud welcomes new businesses that support the rich latino history and character of the area and are committed to local hiring, working collaboratively with other businesss and supporting legacy businesses like dances mission, that have contributed to the neighborhood for over 30 years. this sud is one tool in a much larger toolbox of standard errorsing enhance the corridor. soon you will hear from the office of commending and workforce development about the invest in neighborhood initiative that provides a broader array of support and incentives to the corridor. colleagues i have one amendment that i will ask for your consideration in adoption after consulting with the zoning administrator, his office suggested that we clarify that limited restaurants seeking to become full service restaurants are made exempt from the concentration controls that was always our intention. however, the zoning administrator thought it would be important to make the exemption explicit. i would like to give special thanks to deyawn ponce de leon and lisa pagan, jamim torres and francois chan from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development and diego sanchez from the planning department, erica aguyo and mr. garcia from the 24th council and marlina burn from the city attorney's office and sheila chung hagen from my office for their long time incredible work on this piece of legislation. colleagues, thank you so much and i will ask for your support coming forward. but i would like to call up diana ponce de leon and diego sanchez for brief presentation before your questions. >> good afternoon, san juan thank you, supervisor ronen for that introduction. i'm there the office of economic and workforce development and i will provide a presentation today to provide you with some context and background of what has led to the development of the special use district. as you heard supervisor ronen mention it's really a clintive partnership between the city and the community. this is part of the mayor's invest in neighborhood initiative as some of you may be familiar with we have 25 corridors in the city that we focus in. it's an interdepartmental initiative. we work with departments and develop a strategy and work with the community on informing that strategy of what to prioritize and what to work towards to create healthy economic, vibrant commercial districts. one thing i want to clarify there is two boundaries mentioned one is the latino cultural district and a separate one, which is what is proposed before you is the special use district. the main difference in the blue is the latino cultural district and sud excludes properties facing mission street. the latino art, the mural and institutions and services that they provide, small businesses, diverse offerings of goods and services, the affordable neighborhood, affordability of goodss and history of waves of immigrants, latino immigrants and different waves throughout the years. it's really working-class neighborhood and has been since its inception. that possibly started running their business from the ground floor. and many of those have been running for generations. so what makes veinticuatro unique? with the concentration of latino heritage, which is why it was recognized as latino cultural district and also it's a special place because of its history, its until businesss and cultural significance and where many generations of working-class have found refuge in san francisco and while we have a high concentration of latino heritage assets, there are also many other characteristics that describe it today. efforts to preserve or retain these assets and what makes them unique does not mean freezing it in time and it doesn't mean we're overlooking improvements, public safety or cleanliness. there are many example as -- examples around the city to preserve their existing character and protect their assets from market trends. chinatown, north beach, and even within the mission special use district. part of character we have a high concentration of businesses along 24th street that have been in the neighbor for more than 30 years. this is only a handful of them. we have about 22 institutions currently that have been serving this neighborhood for more than 30 years. and four are currently on the legacy registry, with one on the way. so while the cultural district is an historic and cultural asset, it's also a way that we're using it as an economic strategy. the attraction of arts, culture, events to the area, create a natural uniqueness created -- made up of businesses and institutions and residents and creates an experience that cannot be replicated by internet retailers, and create and opportunity for the area that may lessen the challenges, as some of the supervisors mentioned today that retail faces today and it becomes a catalyst for attracting more creativity and visitors and creating opportunity for workforce and connections across economic sectors. so this is the timeline from when -- through invest in neighborhoods we began to work with the neighborhood. each of our neighborhoods has a profile and conduct assessment based on priorities of the area and we go ahead and implement services. this is one of the programs and projects that the neighborhood prioritized to be implemented, and we have supported that and worked collaboratively with them on that. the resolution was passed in 2014 by the board of supervisors and it was recognized while this was symbolic, the next step was to look at what zoning-appropriate regulations would be put in place to preserve some of the character that exists within this neighborhood? so it's been about two years in the works. the special use district is only one of many tools. it doesn't solve for many of the challenges, but can be used in conjunction with existing services to mitigate these. in general the services and support provide by invest in neighborhoods can be split into two categories. one is business strengthening and the other is enhancement of cultural assets and to also make the point, this is not just coming from the city and not just coming from our department in terms of the services that we can provide, but on the ground you have the capacity that is growing of the calle veinticuatro and to look at issues and be engaged in lands use and quality of life and economic vitality and arts in addition to everything that the city has provided collaboratively. currently the storefront retail mix on calle veinticuatro and retail mix of 23%, eating and drinking at 32% and personal services, 34% and we have a level of vacancy of 11%. however, this 11% is the combination of those that are actually advertised to be occupy and some are under construction. so we have 8 that are actually available for lease. this chart shows a general trend of increase in eating and drinking and decrease in other services. it seems moderately spread out throughout the period, 1992-2014, which demonstrates the stability of the other service areas. so over time it's been increasing, but not at a huge rate as you can tell. here we have had some decrease in grocery and professional services, but at a rate that seemed healthy to this point. in the pipeline for restaurants we can expect four new ones. two occupying previous spots and two taking the place of two previous retail spaces. so this slide demonstrates all of the information, and more that isn't on here that has shaped the sud, and what went into it. we looked at pros and cons and argued back and forth and looked at data and emails and reviewed and had meetings in the community. so this represents over time this time period of two years that what has gone into it in order to get us to this point. so to maintain the diversity of businesses via use type, these are some of the things that we want to accomplish with the zoning regulations that we're proposing: to maintain the diversity of businesses, to protect the small storefronts, protect existing retail spaces, protect legacy businesss and promote the prevailing character that makes calle veinticuatro. making it what it is today. with that, you know, we looked at these are some of the characteristics that really kind of make up the essence of the calle veinticuatro special use district and creating a balance that we believe is healthy in the corridor and one regulation proposed is to institute an eating and drinking thresholds at 32%. new restaurants would be able to go in and by that, i mean those that will change the existing potential retail and professional to restaurant. so there is -- this would not prohibit new restaurants from coming in. they can still occupy existing eating and drinking establishments. those are grandfathered in without triggering 35% threshold and we're also proposing to trigger conditional use authorization in three cases. one is in the merger of storefronts and currently there is an interim control that prohibits merger of storefronts. through community input, one of the recommendations was that it become a cu, rather than a storefront merger to allow for flexibility, on that. the second one is required conditional use authorization for a business that will occupy a previously existing location of a legacy business. the third is to require conditional use authorization for medical service, which those types of uses tend to be appointment-only, and closed off to public and what we want to -- we want to build upon the traffic on the street, the pedestrian traffic and other uses. this map is just to give you a sense of scale of the 35% threshold would be looking -- it follows the cu model in terms of measurement, which you all were discussing earlier with the 25%. it's the same type. it applies the same measurement calculation. so you would be looking at from a proposed spot to turn retail space into eating and drinking establishment within 300' and look at that concentration. if it exceeds 35% by establishing the new business, you wouldn't be able to turn it into eating and drinking and this just gives you a sense of what that looks like. here is a list of existing conditional uses in the gray, those are currently existing and not proposing to change except with the exception of the store front merger. we don't think it's appropriate for 24th street and means more mergers would be over-the-counter, and they would be allowed to merge storefronts within going through conditional use and we lowered to appropriate scale of 799. meaning any small storefronts that are merged would go through conditional use authorization. the other two we're proposing to add through conditional uses is medical services and for any business that is proposing to occupy storefront that used to be occupied by a legacy business. unless it's vacant for three years. so if it's been vacant for three years, that is abandoned and they don't have to go through conditional use authorization. so as part of the conditional use, we're proposing additional findings on how a business can contribute back to the district. it must meet four out of six proposed findings: these represent some of the aspects that are important to the character of the special use district. they represent many of the things that our businesses are already doing, and what new businesses will be encouraged to continue. for example, retailers that partner with local artists and jewelry makers and provide a variety of products that are affordable to a variety of households and income-levels. we have several examples in the corridor of those that are partnering with each other, providing space for local entrepreneurs to use their kitchens as commercial kitchens and be able to cater and grow from that. i also wanted to provide an example of the allowing of change. this chart is 18 different business changes that have happened over a 2-year period. that i was able to recollect and none of these would trigger any additional regulations, those that are being proposed today. the new businesses will be able to come into the corridor and businesss will close and change over time as they have done. on average, the business turnover between 2003-2014 is about nine a year. so this is pretty standard what you are seeing here. much of this is also impacted by leases, and terms possibly, but yes, so there is room allowed for change within these regulations that are proposed today. so this is just an example of a barbershop would be able to become an art gallery and visa versa and there would be no additional restrictions placed on that. while the proposed regulations are not a silver bullet, and zoning has limitations the sud is one tool to help strengthen and maintain the elements that are so special about this district. we believe we found a balanced intervention inform by extensive community and city dialogue. some regulations -- some believe that the regulations are too much, while others believe it doesn't go far enough. as a public entity we have an important role to listen and find the common goals that unify us. it's an approach that we believe that greatly benefits the culture and economic vibrancery of our neighbors and defines the character of our city. this diagram recognizes the strengths, channels opportunities and above all the common goals for the areas as we have heard it. in the neighborhood and in many meetings from many voices. in the center is our commitment through investment in neighborhoods and actions that we're talking to support and build upon the special assets within this area. a vibrant corridor that is unique, safe and preserves the cultural history and regulations contained are limited and balanced and will not solve for public safety, dirty streets or freeze everyone in time. or prevent many businesss from leaving or coming. they focus on retaining very specific characteristics that zoning can regulate and make this area so special. they allow for change and provide an opportunity for businesses to contributing back to the area. we ask you to support these measures and we look forward to answering your questions. but before we go on to questions, i want to introduce diego sanchez from the planning department to provide a summary of the planning commission's discussion and recommendations. >> good afternoon, supervisors. diego sanchez with the planning department's staff. supervisors on february 9th the commission heard the proposes ordinance and why staff sipts the land use controls in this ordinance. overall, supervisors the controls seek to maintain the 24thing street corridor vibrant, distinct corridor and its neighborhood-serving qualities. for example, you have heard the eating and drinking concentration controls build on existing planning code controls for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. where existing planning code controls draw concern at 25% threshold, the sud would institute a prohibition at 35%. this is being proposed to help main at the maintain and prevent any one use dominating and maintain the character of the area. requiring conditional use for the replacement of a legacy business also addresses the need to maintain the area's distinctive character. the contributions of legacy businesss were recognized by the city first in creating the legacy business registry and by its voters in the passage of 2015's prop j. the city's general plan, also makes explicit mention of the benefits of long time retailers that they provide in a neighborhood corridor and in this spirit the sud proposed to extend land use controls to deter the displacement of legacy businesses. similarly, the smaller storefronts found if the area also contribute to neighborhood character and provide a diverse offering of retail goods and services, requiring a cu requires their losses indeed found necessary and desirable, as well as compatible with the neighborhood. because certain medical service uses such as a dentist, chiropractor and acupuncturist, tend to close by early evening or see customers only by appointment, pedestrian activity may suffer from a glut of these type of uses, requiring the medical services to secure conditional use provides another layer of analysis, that will help assure that the new uses contribute to pedestrian activity, along the corridor. as a reference, this has been done in other ncds, for example the castro, 24th street, noe and upper market street where certainly quasi-office uses that may not lend to free flowing pedestrian activity were made to secure conditional use authorization at the street-level. finally, the sud proposes that all requests for conditional use also be found compatible with the six stated purposes. these are used to help to assure that new us ins seamlessly integrate into the corridor and contribute to its character. the sud explicitly recognizes achieving these stated purposes will be a multi-agency effort between the planning department, the mayor's office, and other sister agencies. supervisors, at the february planning commission hearing, public comment was overwhelming in support of the proposed sud. the planning commission deliberation largely echoed the support as well. there were concerns about the you implementation of six purposes and staff recognized these concerns and reiterated the multi agency between the planning department, the mayor's office and other agencies will be required to realize the goals of this special use district. supervisors, the planning commission voted unanimously to favorible recommend this sud to the board of supervisors with an amendment to exempt existing restaurants looking to add alcohol service from the proposed eating and drinking concentration controls that would -- that is the same amendment being offered by supervisor ronen this. concludes my presentation, and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? supervisor ronen? >> i wanted to just take the opportunity to call up commissioner william ortiz cartagena, if you have any remarks to add on behalf commission? >> just to add, we heard this, i believe last week on our last session. and we're follow the totally have a favor and i'm biased because i was born and raised on 24th street so i have seen the changes, but that is exactly what we need in our district. thank you, supervisor ronen. >> thank you, commissioner. so let's open it up to the public comment and i have some cards here. sam moss. scott weaver, gabriela lazana, rodrigo duran. >> good afternoon, supervisor. i hope all is well today. i'm here on behalf of mission housing development corporation. i'm the executive director and one of the largest landlords of 100% affordable housing, certainly the largest in the mission. we fully support what is being before the board today and the calle 24th district in its entirety. mission housing has thousands of square footage of commercial spaces along 24th street and we do believe that all of the issues being discussed and the proposed solutions to them through -- you know, through tireless and countless hours of community organizing are extremely beneficial for the 24th street corridor and in that regard i want to reiterate we support what before the board today. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i'm gabriela, one of the owners of cafe located on 24th street the corridor in question in this session. my business is being in the neighborhood for 11 years now, compared to the rest of the businesses in the area. my business is in its infancy. it's family-owned-and-operated. my parents support themselves out of this business. i am here standing before you to ask for your full support on this measure, as without them my business will disappear in a few years. it is very important for me and for my family, and for the neighborhood that businesses like ours, small, family-owned remain in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you so much, next speaker. >> good afternoon, everybody. my name is rodrigo duran and i'm here representing carnival san francisco and it is a multi-cultural festival happening for 39 years now and it fits -- and happens in the heart of this special use district. i think our theme this year is very relevant to this conversation. it's the heart of san francisco and carnvale and gabriela's cafe, we support each other for 39 years now. especially for folks who would like to see these commercial regulations changed, there are places in san francisco where they can execute their plans. it's a prime example where they would want to go. just to conclude again, we would like these regulations to take place. we need and we want these small businesses to remain affordable. we want them to be neighborhood-oriented and we want them to be culturally-relevant to the mission district. gracias. >> thank you. >> good afternoon of supervisors, i'm born and raise san franciscoan and also with housing corporation and to thank supervisor ronen's office and john, mary and everybody else who made this possible, working for a lot of years to do this. we're in full support of the special use district, as sam mentioned earlier, we have property on 24th street including section a residential properties. and the residents there do want to make sure that the businesses around them are thriving. these are obviously much-needed regulations to not only ensure cultural aspects along 24th street, but preserve neighborhood-serving businesses and characteristics of a vital visitor destination as well. in addition they employee a lot of residents and there is even an economic incentive to safeguard this one-of-a-kind legendary san francisco district. lastly in a time of increased xenophobia within the american political landscape it's a civic duty on your part to proclaim directives to safeguard the latino cultural district, especially in

Related Keywords

United States , Mission District , California , Oakland , Bayview , North Beach , West Point , Telegraph Hill , San Francisco , American , Terry Anderson , James Mcrae , Stan Hayes , Elizabeth Chilton , Sam Moss , Aaron Starr , Anderson Anders , Sheila Chung Hagen , Jal Jackson , Oscar James , Katy Tang , Alice Griffith , Reed Obama , Alan Norman , Rodrigo Duran , Justin Herman , William Ortiz Cartagena , Francois Chan , Terry Andrews , Moe Jamal , Mindy Kanner , Diego Sanchez , Daniela Gravelle ,