tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 4, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PST
>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our land use and transportation meeting of monday , october 29th, 2018. we would like to thank san francisco government television. we have supervisor his fid and to my right will be supervisor jane kim. are there any announcements today? >> mixer to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk items acted upon will appear on the november 14th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> please call item one. >> item number 1 is an ordinance
imagining the environment code to require food vendors to supply single use plastic straws upon a request providing for sale of plastic straws clarifying that nothing in chapter 16 should be construed to constrict laws concerning the laws of individuals with disabilities. >> thank you very much. i know our wonderful staff in the department of environment will be here to make a presentation on the sight empirically originally had duplicated this file to work on issues and concerns stemming from the use of plastic straws from the disabilities community. today, we have this piece of legislation that was newly introduced because the law had taken up -- taken effect. here to walk us through that i will call upon peter from the department of environment. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i am a public relations and
policy coordinator for the department of environment. i want to thank supervisor tang for your continued leadership on this issue and for working collaboratively with the community over the past few months. i also want to thank ashley summers from your office who has worked very hard on this and we appreciate her patients with us throughout this process. over the past three months, the department of the environment helps bring together community stakeholders along with the mayor process office on disability to address the concerns that we heard about how the ordinance might impact access to straws for those who need them. what we would like to do today is provide you with a high level recap of the community stakeholder process and share what we heard and go over the proposed amendments. to walk you through the community feedback, i will turn it over to nicole, the director
of the mayor process office on disability. >> thank you. i want to thank nicole and the rest of her staff are working hard on this. although our legislation had an exception carved out for those who need it for medical purposes , i know that you have been working hard to make sure that those who do need it will be able to access those. thank you, nicole. >> thank you, very much. i am very glad to be here today to talk about why this legislation is so important to the disability community. so in response to feedback from the disability community, locally in the san francisco area, we have four stakeholder meetings that were very well attended throughout the month of august and october 2 really here about why the use of plastic
straws, in particular, was really important to the disability community. so first, as we know, a.d.a. compliance is important when it comes to public accommodations and we have a responsibility to continue to provide guidance that upholds compliance. we heard from the community that access to a plastic straw in particular should be allowed and businesses should be able to provide a plastic straw upon request. we also heard from the disability stakeholder groups that it is important not to have to disclose a person's disability in advance of asking for a straw and probably the most interesting and critical thing that we learned from stakeholders is it is really, as of today, there they aren't suitable alternatives to plastic straws are accessing beverages for particular people with disabilities who need to use them. so there is not a good solution
right now that works. community also said that education and outreach did businesses and it is needed. we want to make sure that we are not medicalized and people with disabilities and that no charge to a plastic straw should be requested when one is provided upon request. so why are we doing this? it is because of title iii of the a.d.a. which guarantees folks with disabilities unique enjoyment of goods and services by places of public accommodation. that is the unique enjoyment of business and services offered by most businesses. businesses need to make reasonable modifications to the ordinary policies and practices to ensure that people with disabilities can fully enjoy goods and services. what we are talking about here is if we have a beverage is sold , access to that beverage
has to be provided. the disability community stakeholders say that the only reasonable way for this access is through the use of a plastic straw, for some people. so here is what we found out and this was the outcome of the process. we found out that many people with disabilities, as well as those with temporary medical needs require straws in order to provide this access that we were referencing on the previous slide. this ordinance also does not create a new legal requirement for businesses to change their obligation to comply with the a.d.a. meaning the clause and what was described in reasonable access has been in the a.d.a. since the onset of the a.d.a. we are not introducing anything new in terms of responsibilities by introducing this particular legislation. the proposal brings in
amendments meant to reduce conflict between the a.d.a. and the business accessibility to provide access by allowing these exemptions. and we also know that a guidance document is needed to help businesses and the general public really understand how to better comply with the access of provisions of the ordinance. the document is under development and you have a draft that has been provided in front of you as part of this process, as well. with that, i will turn it back over to peter, unless there is additional questions for me right now. >> thank you, very much. >> i have a question. >> thank you for the presentation. i am just seeing this for the first time in trying to understand, i get the need for access and equal opportunity, but i'm not understanding the distinction if a restaurant has a paper straw, why did they have to have a plastic straw?
>> we found from the disability community that paper straws don't work for some people with disabilities, especially when you need to access a hot beverage. people say they will disintegrate and dissolve in beverages and you lose the function of that tool. so we found that plastic was the only kind of straw that works consistently for people who really need them to access the beverage because of the way that you utilize the straw as a tool and because of what happens to the straw in water in beverages, for some people. >> ok. thanks. >> thank you, nicole and supervisor safai. to your question right now, there isn't a suitable alternative on the market.
that doesn't mean to say that there may be depending on innovation, that is nonplastic but that would meet the kind of requirements or expectations for the various uses. what i would like to do is walk you all through the proposed changes to the legislation or the new legislation that is before you. there are broadly five changes to the legislation. first, it builds on the existing ordinance which requires that straws the only made available upon request and the spirit of the ordinance remains to reduce the automatic distribution of straws. so the upon request provision means if a food vendor make straws available they can only do so upon the request of the customer. so if a customer requests a straw, the default is intended to be nonplastic unless the customer specifically requests a plastic straw.
we are allowing food vendors to allow a plastic straw only if specifically requested. gestalt distribution will only be permitted at the point of sale or behind a camera -- camera. the other update, which we heard from the community, banning the sale of plastic straws in san francisco will create a barrier to access for people with disabilities. under the proposed change, retailers will be permitted to sell plastic straws and food vendors will be able to purchase plastic straws as needed for their customers. the most substantive change was the exemption -- to the exemption provision. the existing ordinance did have an exemption provision but it was less descriptive. the updated exemption makes clear as nicole described, that americans with disabilities at
supersedes this local ordinance and the provision also clarifies the legislation does not conflict with the obligations required under the a.d.a. and it also makes clear that food vendors would not be in violation of the law if they were to supply plastic straws or provide a plastic straw upon request. we also clarified that plastic straws can be provided during medical circumstances such as to patients or hostile -- of hospitals or hospice care that would be permissible. it was important to the community that effective education and outreach be done to businesses and the department is not only committed to doing that but the ordinance specifically tasks the department with doing that and we are already working on a -- on developing a multilingual outreach plan. and there were minor technical
changes. we are clarifying that the ordinance is speaking specifically about single use disposable items and when we are talking about the fluorinated chemical free requirement, we are only applying that to compostable food service where. the focus of the discussion has been without straws about the full ordinance, as you may recall goes well beyond that. in addition to making straws available upon request, the ordinance requires all food and beverage accessories like lids, condiment packages et cetera, to be provided upon request. it also -- they still ban the sale of plastic stirrers and toothpicks and those requirements will go into effect july 1st, 2019. by january 1st, 2020, we are requiring that all compostable food gear will be ppa certified
and this is a proposed amendment to the newly introduced legislation. we are aligning those two requirements. they have been separate before to give more time to industry and to go through the certification process and also more time for businesses to make the switch. and then also effective in 2020 is the ten% reasonable cup requirement at outdoor events, as well as the postconsumer recycled content option. in the end, the spirit of the ordinance remains intact. it will help reduce litter and plastic pollution. it will make the dining experience more environmentally friendly in san francisco and will also ensure access to straws for those who need them. i want to thank the mayor's office on disability to their partnership with us on this and we are happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you, very much.
thank you to both departments for trying to reach our collective goals together. supervisor kim? >> sorry. i want to make sure i understood what the amendment will do. vendors will be allowed to have plastic and nonplastic straws to distribute upon request, only. so the paper or plastic. >> that is correct. the intention is the default option, if a customer asked for a straw, would be nonplastic. if a customer does specifically request plastic, it would be available. >> will they be required to have those types of straws? what if a vendor decides only to have paper straws are only have plastic straws? i am just wondering what this actually means. >> sure. do you want to speak to that? >> thank you, for that question. the businesses are not required to carry the straws if they
desire not to have straws in general. a lot of restaurants have been moving toward that direction. we definitely do not want to go that route by having our legislation require them. however, we did here a lot of concern from the disabilities community. we are saying if you did, especially under a.d.a. requirements want to make sure that you are providing access to a straw, than you might want to carry a plastic straw. >> so once the ordinance is in effect, a restaurant could have no straws? a restaurant could only have plastic straws and a restaurant could only have paper straws or a restaurant could have both. as long as they only distributed when requested. that is the only thing that is the law articulate. >> that is correct. it -- straws can be provided only upon request. we have drafted a guidance document in partnership with the mayor's office and disability where we will, during our
outreach process make businesses aware of what their obligations are under the a.d.a. which goes beyond what is required in our local ordinance in terms of the equal access peace. >> will we be leaving any business businesses open to some type of litigation back a.d.a. accessible litigation if they don't have plastic straws? >> most restaurants will do what they need to do. they don't want to be sued for not being a.d.a. compliant. >> we thought about that. part of the reason why this
guidance document is so important is because it will help businesses understand that -- the best practices under the a.d.a., in terms of providing the plastic straw. we actually believe that providing the guidance document in advance will have to mitigate risk around potential for loss around access violations because the guidance document does say that it is best practice to follow obligations as they are under the a.d.a. and it provides for additional resources for businesses to consult with the department of justice or their own attorneys. because this is federal legislation, the local legislation that we have is careful to speak to the local requirements. but again, the a.d.a. requirements are also in place.
we have been careful to say, here is some best practice. follow guidance provided by the d.o.j. or your internees if you feel like additional consult there peerk and we crafted that language in consultation with the city attorney's office as well. does that answer the question? >> it does. by the wait, i support supervisor tang's original ordinance. i understand the intent to reduce plastic consumption. and i don't want to put any of our small businesses at more risk or increase exposure to litigation. i worry that when we leave it open ended for our businesses, they will be confused about how to move forward. i don't want them to decide to not have any plastic straws on site and get sued. i'm not saying that will happen, there may be a very low risk of
that. i would hate to hear about that happening in the future. >> rights. that is our intention through the guard -- guidance document. so we will bring that backwards. this document is in draft form and we will bring that feedback back to the city attorneys as we continue to follow the guidance that will go out of that issue. [please stand by]
straws don't hold up. there's a whole variety of issues with nonplastic straws at this point. unfortunately, are they flexible enough for someone to bend and reach their mouth. for the reusable ones, sometimes they are difficult to wash and that can be unsanitary. if the straw is too hard or soft, it may not hold up when somebody bites it or somebody may actually hurt themselves from biting a metal straw, for example. so hopefully, i think we all talked about in a stakeholder meeting, someone will come up with a new straw that really works for everyone, but unfortunately that doesn't exist yet. and we think one really positive change in the legislation was to take out references to medical purposes, because people with disabilities are not sick. our bodies sometimes work differently, and a straw is not a medical device, but it's a tool we use for something as simple as drinking a beverage, so in the implementation there are concerns about people who don't speak english, or use
american sign language. the question that supervisor kim raised about will businesses stop carrying straws altogether, and so we are hopeful that the implementation will address some of these. the bigger issue is that there were some big -- >> thank you. sorry. the time is up already. finish your sentence. that would be great. >> thank you. there were some big problems with the process here, that the legislation went through before consultation with the disability community and addressing some of those concerns. and those were out publicly in news articles. and we think san francisco usually does better. in the future it's going to be really important to do research and outreach ahead of time at the beginning of the process, so we can move forward together. we don't want to see communities pitted against each other. we can come together early on and move forward together. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> teresa, senior disability
action. this became more clear to me how important it was when i had a friend visiting as a travel companion to a woman who had been born with poisoning, so that she had no arms. and so i asked her, would you even know how to ask for a straw in english since your mother tongue is german? she said i guess i'd have to figure that out beforehand to know there is a straw ban, so that was interesting for me to hear her say that and then to be with her at different places and to search for a straw and to watch her eat again, because she has no arms and her hands extend from the shoulders, the idea of pointing to an image to ask for a straw. that would be my first thought. oh, you could always point to the image, just like we do when we're traveling anywhere, but if you don't have hands at the end
of your arms, that can be difficult. that means you have to physically get right up to an image. so i do -- i wanted to share that experience, and to say i hope we do find a way of making not only straws accessible, but also the image so that you can identify what it is you want. so thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to speak on item one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i have a couple of amendments i shared with you on your desk, so on page one, line three to four, we just want to clarify it wasn't that we are trying to require food vendors to supply single-use plastic straw only upon request. we are allowing them to. we're striking the word require and replacing that with allow. page five, line 18, we are aligning the different requirements that were spoke of around compostable materials and having all the requirements kick
in as of january 1, 2020. and on age eight, lines 21 through 22, we are changing the section to say in a self-service area or dispenser except for single-use straws, we're striking the word plastic, shall be made available by request only. so those are the amendments i would like to adopt into this ordinance today. >> make a motion to adopt these amendments. >> supervisor tang: okay, and we'll do that without objection. and then on the underlying item as amended. >> i'll make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: okay, thank you, without objection, as well. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, item two, please. >> clerk: item two is the resolution endorsing the bay-delta air quality management district's diesel free by '33 statement of purpose to cut diesel use to zero by the end of 2033. >> thank you very much. we have amy binart here from
supervisor ronan's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much. supervisor ronan introduced this earlier in september. this is a resolution that would endorse the bay area management quality district's diesel free by '33 effort. through this resolution, we'd be joining other cities and counties across california, including many members in the bay area, in setting a clear goal to reduce diesel emissions for the catastrophic and long-term public health and environmental damage. diesel emissions are highly toxic, causing immediate health impacts on residents who live in areas where these emissions are most concentrated, and diesel emissions are responsible for more than half of our state's black carbon, which is a significant contributor to global climate change. supervisor ronan is a member of
the board of directors of the bay area air quality management district, and so was sponsoring this legislation, along with supervisor mandelman, who's also on the board of directors. and through that position, she has talked about hearing testimony so regularly from residents and communities who are really looking for protections from this kind of emissions. so happy to answer any questions, but hoping that the land use committee can send this forward with a recommendation to approve. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any members of the public who wish to speak on item two? please come on up. okay. seeing none, public comment's closed. i guess -- do we have a motion on item two? okay, and we'll do that without objection. i think supervisor kim absent. all right. madam clerk, item three, please. >> clerk: item number three is
an ordinance amending various elements in the general plan in amending the central waterfront area plan to address and incorporate the central waterfront dogpatch public realm and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you very much. i wasn't sure if -- i thought supervisor cohen's office was going to be here, so -- and i don't see her yet. i might need to contact her first. so why don't we -- >> clerk: supervisor, we have sophia. >> supervisor tang: all right. would you like to speak first? okay, great. >> thank you, chair tang, supervisor safai, kim. sophia from the office of mr. cohen. the dogpatch public realm, which was built over the last 18 months, working very closely with district 10 residents and community groups is a model for interagency coordination, new
partnerships, and how to serve our residents as our community grows across san francisco. growth projections in the central waterfront could see a quadrupling of housing units and five times the number of people living in the area as there are now. however, public asset that is make a complete neighborhood, such as adequate open space, safe streets, that serve the industrial and residential demands have not kept up with all of the growth. this plan is a fantastic overview for the future of the dogpatch, reflecting the rich history of the neighborhood and planning for the monumental growth that is coming. notably, this plan considers much-needed infrastructure investments, creating a comprehensive plan to connect pier 70 and other large-scale projects coming online. retaining and supporting p.d.r. businesses as the dogpatch likes to say, we are p.d.r. and investing importantly and significantly in our open space and parks to keep up with the growing population. this plan includes design for
the complete streets and open space, has been developed in partnership with the ports and parks and rec. i want to in particular thank the residents of district 10 for being incredibly committed and engaged on this issue. with over five community workshops, dozen of stakeholder work meetings, focus groups, and several surveys, i would like to thank in particular the dogpatch neighbors association, the green benefit association, and a number of committed individuals. i would also like to thank you for the tremendous hard work on this legislation. we hope you'll approve this plan, and i'll turn it over to staff. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> thank you. robin abad with the san francisco planning department, the plan manager for the public
realm plan here with my colleague to deliver a few words and images related to the plan amendment, which is before you. sophia already recognized the tremendous interagency work and partnership that we undertook in order to deliver this plan to the neighborhood. i also just wanted to recognize some of the consultants that worked with us on our team. fletcher studio and neighbor land, who helped us really get into some innovative public engagement for this effort. at this time we are proposing a proposal for a general plan amendment before you. we are not proposing any planning code amendments at this time. this plan looks at the public realm of dogpatch. it is a complement, you might say an exponent of the area plan, which was adopted in 2008. this looks specifically at
complete street and open space infrastructure for the neighborhood, which as sophia mentioned, has not kept up with the pace of development and growth that we're seeing in the neighborhood. most critically, the plan isn't just a visionary document, but contains an implementation strategy that we worked very closely with the implementing departments, public works, m.t.a., the port, and recreation and parks to put together, and it gives the departments a real solid guide and strategy for making investment decisions for our capital improvement program over the next two, five, and ten years. with that i'll turn it over to talk about the plan's background and development. >> hi, i will go through it briefly over the slides, and you can ask questions later. so, why doing the public realm plan for this area?
in 2018 as part of the eastern neighborhood planning, the central waterfront area plan was adopted. since then the neighborhood has continued to grow and now we are looking at about a quadruple increase in population. public realm improvements have not kept up with the growth. realizing that we needed a clear framework and interagency coordination to actually carry out the vision and policies that was contained as part of the area plan. so in 2018, an interagency team was formed, and we set the primary boundary that are a little bit bigger than the area plan boundary to address connections to adjacent neighborhoods. in the beginning we had aimed for six key outcomes, which is setting up establishing holistic vision, committee priorities, and also for the public realm
improvements. it has a lot of overlapping city jurisdictions, so the plan aimed for providing platforms for interagency coordination. also we wanted to celebrate the neighborhood's unique characteristics, so we integrated the design into neighborhood characteristics and aimed for higher design standards. and also since this area has been an industrial neighborhood, it was important to plan for pedestrian infrastructure, especially there are some areas that are missing sidewalks and key and basic infrastructure. and lastly, but most importantly, this plan isn't just to create a plan. it was actually create an implementation tool that can be carried out by other city agencies. and, in fact, at the end of the process we were able to deliver some of the projects that are now under way, which robin will talk about a little more later.
this vision diagram is based on community input and also existing planning efforts, and we've looked at future growth areas and key destinations and make sure all the networks are connected and that the vision diagram provides a priority network of the public realm. and this became the basis of the implementation guidelines in the future. the next two slides show our community engagement process, which started in 2015 and concluded early 2018 when we released the public review draft of the plan. we engaged the community neighborhood groups. as mentioned, there are a list of neighborhood groups and institutions. also we had innovative survey efforts and ways to engage the community. and with the input and also feedback, we came up with recommendations for
implementation, which robin will talk about now. >> thank you. so in the interest of time, i'll just go very quickly through the remaining slides. the general plan amendment recommends policy language in these three areas, complete streets and mobility, open space and recreation, as well as maintaining the unique history and heritage of dogpatch. the implementation strategy goes into some very specific recommendations for where in the dogpatch we should be making improvements, and the kinds of interventions that make sense, given the land use mosaic throughout dogpatch, which has a varied set of land uses as you move from north to south. we also, as mentioned, did in-depth polling around public spaces to try and identify those which the neighborhood and the implementing departments felt should be up for renovation most soon and should be prioritized. there was some in-depth cost estimating that was also done as
part of this process based on conceptual designs we developed with the community, and those are also part of the implementation strategy that the implementing departments can take forward. and so with that we're available to take any questions from the committee. thank you. >> thank you very much. all right. this is exciting project. any members of the public have any public comment on item three? please come on up. okay, seeing none, public comment's closed. do we have any questions or comments here from the committee? no? okay. all right. well, i noted that there is a recommendation to send this forth to the full board as a committee report, given the timing. and so can we get a motion to send this forth with positive recommendation with the committee report? okay, we'll do that without objection. all right. item four and five together, please. >> clerk: item number four is an ordinance amending the planning
code to allow the use of affordable housing credits for a proposed development at 1629 market street and making appropriate findings. item five is an ordinance amending a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and strada brady llc and making anticipate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i'd like to turn these items over to supervisor kim now. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, supervisor -- chair tang and supervisor safai. the ordinance that is before us today is a rewrite of our development agreement on 1629 market street. if you remember, this is the plumber's union site that is owned by the plumbers' union and included both 100% affordable
housing, as well as market-rate development and park as part of the development agreement. this is, i guess, a renegotiation of this development agreement. it allows florida, the florida state board of administration pension fund, which is the majority owner of the south beach marina apartments, to come in as a partner with this project and apply their affordable housing credits to the project. for those of you that remember the south beach marina apartments, this was an expiring below-market rate project in the south beach area as part of the former redevelopment agency, where a percentage of those units were set aside for a number of years for middle-class residents. those units' affordability were set to expire about two years ago. we were able to establish the permanent affordability of these units, beyond the covenant years, and are currently
maintaining these units as permanently affordable, as long as by allowing the project sponsor to apply these affordable housing credits into the future for a different project. they have decided to partner with strada and community housing partnership on their project, and it matches the preservation of the moderate income of below-market rate apartments with the b.m.r. units at 1629 market street. so they will not be used as end fee credits on units, otherwise designated for low or very low-income households. they used the credits on a project with significant on-site below market rate component with approximately 17% affordability for very low-income levels, and this project will be managed by community housing partnership. i just want to recognize gayle gilman, the executive director, michael cohen, the cofounder of
strada, and larry madala jr., and i am very excited for the development of this parcel. it is very neateded on this corr of market street and south of market. here to present on this item is rich from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i will keep my comments brief. on october 11, 2018, the planning commission reviewed the ordinances introduced by supervisor kim, and they recommended approval of the planning code text amendments to modify the 1629 market street special use district, as well as to amend the approval of the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and strada brady. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have on the project or the planning commission's comments, and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. all right, i guess we'll go to public comment on these items. any members of the public who wish to speak on items four and five? okay.
>> good evening, supervisors. i'm from the u.c.f. school of pharmacy. >> and i'm michelle -- >> clerk: i apologize. you get two minutes each. >> that's fine, that's fine. just two minutes total is fine. >> clerk: okay, well you can speak first and she can go next. >> sure. yeah, along with the topic at hand here, we're in support of the affordable use housing because as pharmacy students, we understand how homelessness and poor health quality is duly related, especially with our current opioid crisis at hand, limiting homelessness is critical to release of the opioid epidemic. >> and, again, thank you, my
name is michelle, student at u.c.f. school of pharmacy. i'm also here in support of utilizing funds for the restriction of opioid use, as well as the promotion of opioid overdose treatments. as karan was mentioning, the opioid crisis is currently a huge issue for our entire community, and any negative impacts can trickle down to everything in our community, from our personal interactions, to public damage, so we want to support the use of funds in order to help patients who are experiencing opioid overdose or addiction. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james tracy from community housing partnerships, speaking on behalf of gayle gilman. we are overjoyed to be partners in this project on colton
street. we have partnered with strada to actually provide more housing than they are actually requiring as far as replacement for the demolished civic center, and we are also very happy that the south beach marina preservation is also part of this deal. it's taken a lot of hard work, but i'm glad we're finally here, and thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items four and five? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you, i did just want to clarify the last comment by a member of the public. the preservation already exists, so that was locked in in a previous deal. this is just the second part, where they'd like to implement where the credits go, so south beach marina harbor, that preservation has already
occurred. >> supervisor tang: house has changed again, supervisor safai is not here, so we'll do that without objection. okay, madam clerk, next item, please, item six. >> clerk: item six is an ordinance amending the planning code to modify the date by which projects that are eligible for the temporary inclusionary housing requirements must obtain a building or site permit and acquire appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. commissioner chang from the mayor's office. >> good afternoon, on behalf of the mayor's office, legislative sponsor of the ordinance before you. this ordinance applies a 30-month timeline for all projects that were grandfathered into prop "c." right now the 33 odd projects have until december 7, 2018, to have their site permits issued. we propose this ordinance because we're concerned many projects will not be able to
make this deadline, and we're committed to getting the projects built. over 4,000 units, 600 on-site b.m.r.s are at risk. we propose 30 months, because that's the current standard. 30 months from entitlement to have site permits issued. last week there was a lot of discussion about why this deadline was not raised as an issue before. in may 2015, the legislation passed, going into effect based on the outcome of the june election. this is the legislation that established the december 7, 2018 expiration date for the grandfathered projects. the planning commission was not supportive of a fixed date and recommended 36 months from entitlement. the issues around the december 7th rate were raised at that time. another housing ordinance passed on august 28, 2017. this established the 30-month use it or lose it clause, applying to all projects except for the grandfathered ones. last week we also heard you say that 30 months was too long, that projects shouldn't take that long to get through the
process. most of the projects left on this list are stragglers, because they are small developers inexperienced with processes and requirements. we hope that today you'll consider amendments that we believe are fair and will give all projects that have been diligently pursuing site permits the opportunities to secure them. giving these projects that are entitled 18 months from entitlement to secure site permits is fair and reasonable. we know that some projects will had not make it through, but we offer this as a compromise. thank you for working with us on this. for the projects not yet entitled, really there are only three. we'd like to see 18 months from the december 7, 2018, deadline. if these projects are given 18 months, they'll also have a fair chance of securing entitlement and site permits. in closing, i'd like to go through the three untitled projects. one filed in october 2015, three years ago. this project has been stuck in historic review while the department was developing the lgbt historic district context
statement. this is something the project has no control over. the 7th street project also had an environmental application that was filed in october 2015, three years ago. they are still receiving comments from planning. they completed all the required affidavits december 2017 in anticipation of a hearing, but continued to receive comments. that design negotiation took months to overcome and the design changes have impacts on the shadow study, requiring more technical analysis. the stevens street project, the environmental was filed nearly three years ago. this project is proposing the first small enterprise workplace. these are small units occupied by p.d.r., office, retail, and arts uses. something this board has supported through legislation. knowing this project would be unlikely to meet the deadline, it has converted to state density bonus using a 16.4 on-site inclusionary housing rate. together these projects will
create 227 units, at least 33 of which are b.m.r.s. you'll hear more individual project stories today, and i hope you'll consider our compromised amendments and spending additional time for projects not entitled. we want to do everything we can to give all projects a fair amount of time to get through the process. while we do everything we can to improve this process. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for sharing that information, and we are now joined by supervisor peskin. did you want to comment on this item, as well? not yet, okay. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: first of all, i just want to thank the mayor's office for working with my office and supervisor peskin on coming to compromise that we can all agree with, that would ensure that these development projects that were grandfathered in have a chance or opportunity to build the housing that our city sorely needs, but ensuring that we're putting a leash of sorts to ensure that these projects move forward in a timely manner to seek their
building or site permit, so that they can be built as quickly as possible. our goal is to ensure that we are building housing and that we do not give an extended timeline for projects to dillydally, as i would say, but that we incentivize them to go and seek these site and building permits as quickly as possible. and so i think the 18-month compromise from the entitlement will allow these projects and give them enough time to get their building or site permit, and ensure that they get built. and in exchange, we will maintain them at the significantly lower requirement of affordable housing, then projects that are moving through the entitlement process today. and so i'm happy to support this change at the board of supervisors. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin, did you want to say something first, or do you want
me to go and then you can talk? >> i would associate myself with the comments made by my colleague from district 6. >> supervisor safai: i just have some questions. i just want for clarification maybe you can answer these. 18 months from entitlement. can you explain that on the record what that means in clear terms? this is for everyone involved. >> sure. so, there was a bucket of projects that were grandfathered into prop "c," and they are all currently given until december 7, 2018, to get entitled and secure their site permits. they took various amounts of time to get through the process, and so we have a group of projects that are already entitled that are pursuing their site permits. >> supervisor safai: that's what i'm trying to clarify. i'm sorry, so entitled, they've gone through the planning commission approval and they've pulled their -- what? >> no, entitlement means the planning commission or department has approved the
project. the next step is to apply for the site permit. so these projects are all in the process of getting their site permits issued through d.b.i. >> supervisor safai: so by the time -- as long as they've pulled their first site permit 18 months after their planning commission approval, then they would fall under the -- and how many of these, as you've negotiated this new time, less than 30 months, have you spoken to all the different project sponsors? and how many of these do you think will be able to meet the 18-month deadline? >> we have not looked into all the sponsors since coming up with this 18-month compromise, but in our analysis, we think there are four to six projects that will not make the 18-month deadline. >> supervisor safai: do you know which ones those are? >> sure, i believe it's 651 geary street, 1515 south van ness, 519 ellis street, 2140 market, and then possibly 524
howard and 430 main. >> supervisor safai: can you say that again slower? 430 main, i got it. >> 430 main, 524 howard. >> supervisor safai: wait a second, please. >> sure. >> supervisor safai: 524 -- okay. >> 2140 market. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> 519 ellis. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> 1515 south van ness. >> supervisor tang: i keep debating, but they committed to 25% affordable housing. >> they did, but that's not in their conditions of approval, so
we're just going into what's grandfathered for them. >> supervisor tang: i see. >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry, 15 -- >> 1515 south van ness. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> and 651 geary. >> supervisor safai: and you feel like these will -- what are the reasons why you don't believe they will meet the 18-month deadline? is it because these were all -- >> based on their entitlement dates, we project 18 months out from that, so i believe in the spreadsheet you have before you, you can see 651 geary was entitled on july 7th of 2016, so they only have until january 7th of 2018, but we'd do december 7th or 18 months, whatever is later, to get their site permit. so for them it's really december 7th that would be their
deadline, and we don't believe that they'll make it. similar case for 1515 south van ness. they are just not as far in the site permit process as we would expect for them to have their permit issued by the deadline. same case for the other projects i mentioned. >> one project you mentioned, 140 main just got entitled may 24, 2018, so the 18 months will be a significant -- >> you're right. perhaps one of my colleagues from planning has more information why that project is in our question mark column. >> supervisor safai: you also said 524 howard, which was entitled may 17, 2018. >> i think those are both unique scenarios, if carle could share more. >> 430 main is under appeal, i believe, and 524 howard --
>> supervisor tang: 430 main is not under appeal. we settled appeal. in fact, we didn't even hear it. >> okay, we'll update the dates on that. the 18 months would help 430 main. >> that should be off the risk list. >> 524 howard after seeking with the assigned planner, they are pursuing their site permit. it's just taking a little longer. i think they were exploring a couple different things they also needed to wait for the transbay amendment that was trailing the overhaul. >> supervisor safai: do you think that one would also be off the list? >> if 524 howard should be fine, then they just got entitled in may. it should just be the first four projects i mentioned that we think are not going to make the 18 months, so 651 geary, south van ness, 519 ellis, and 2140 market. >> supervisor safai: and if i may -- >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor safai: as to 1515, the fact that somebody messed up and did not include those in the
conditions of approval is, as i understand it, being cured. so because that was a representation that was made repeatedly, it was an oversight, in public, it was an oversight that it was not included in the conditions, so for all intents and purposes, that is not on the list either as far as the supervisor is concerned. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. so, 2140 market, 519 ellis, 1515 you're saying, supervisor, you think that one is not impacted? >> correct. it is above the current inclusionary rate. >> 2140 market is 27 units.
then what's the last one? >> 651 geary. i can't find that one. >> there's no information on the entitlement process. they got entitled actually back july 7th of 2016, so they are very close to even losing their 30 month. so there must be some other challenges or obstacles with that project is my assumption. even if we extend them a full 30 month, they'd not likely get their site or building permit. >> i was on the team with the planner when she was working on this. if it was my recollection, they were -- the entitlement process was lengthy because it was in addition to an historic structure, but to your point, they are -- their 30-month deadline would be january of next year. january 7th of next year, so they'd actually only benefit from one month, if the deadline was extended 30 months.
>> supervisor tang: if we had extended it as the mayor had originally proposed, one additional month beyond the 7th. so only two projects. >> supervisor safai: might have been the magical month. yeah, so that's what i was trying to wiggle it down to. that's 55 units out of the entire universe, other than the four that are not yet entitled. to i want to ask you about those. are we assuming that 10 south van ness is off the table? >> 10 south van ness is pursuing an s.u.d. that will have them produce a higher rate. >> supervisor safai: that's the honda dealership. so then 111, 260 and 344 14th street -- i'm sorry. what i was going to say is, and this is what i brought up last time, and i think i heard you say this in your presentation, the application dates that they submitted