tv BOS Land Use Transportation Committe SFGTV October 25, 2021 1:30pm-4:31pm PDT
and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice chair supervisor dean preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgov for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> the meeting note wills recognize that members participated via electronic participation and invite participation in the following ways and with the channel 26 and 78, or 99 and sfgov.org and in the public call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. you can call the number on the screen 415-655-0001, meeting
i.d. 2498 050 3583. that meeting i.d. number is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. and you will be muted and in listening mode only during discussion. when the item of interest comes up, please dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television and radio. you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. you can email myself the land use and transportation clerk and my email is erica.major at&t sfgov.org and it will be made part of the official file and comments may be sent via u.s.
postal service and industrial calls and good let place and 94102 and items are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. madam chair? >> thank you very much, madam clerk. please call item number one. >> item one is an ordinance to amend the planning code to update inclusionary housing program requirements and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making findings of consistency with the general plan. and the meeting idea is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, please hit star 3 to line up to speak. the system will prompt that you have raised your hand in confirmation. madam chair?
>> thank you so much, madam clerk. and we have supervisor hillary ronen here with us today who is the sponsor of the legislation. thank you supervisor ronen, for introducing this to the land use committee, an and the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, president melgar. the legislation before you today is intended to close significant loopholes and gaps in our planning code requirements for affordable housing in mu market rate residential development. the planning code section 415 regulates the inclusionary housing program under which developers mitigate the impact of new market rate units and as has been shown in multiple settings including regularly updated next analysis and prepared for local requirements. the construction of new market rate housing stock increases the consumption of goods and services. and many of the workers who provide the good and services are in low or lower wage jobs and therefore need affordable
housing. as a city we address the need for affordable housing in several ways by investing public dollars to build and preserve affordable housing and by requiring that market rate developers pick several options under the community housing to mitigate the impact and paying the affordable housing fee, building units on site, creating new units off site or dedicating land for affordable housing. for on site below market rate units or bmrs, the assumption is they match the tenure of the building. rental bmrs in a rental building. home ownership bmr in a condo building. the back story on what prompted me to work with planning and mohct to draft the code amendments is earl yer this year i became acare of several buildings, two in my district, where the developer wished to change from ownership to rental in order to maximize the current higher revenue potential of market rate rentals. one of the projects, a 2100 mission street, was approved
with on site bmrs but is still pending final planning department sign off on the developer's request to fee out and another building. until the year the bmr units remained in limbo since completion in 2016. and require that the project fulfill the i inclusionary obligation with on site units. the project is approved with ownership affordable units in an all ownership building. after construction the developer had switched to renting the market rate units but was trying to retain the bmrs as ownership. the reality is having a small number of affordable condo ownership units in the market rate rental building isn't feasible because banks won't finance the purchase. with nothing in the code to guide the situation t planning commission had no other option than to allow the developer to fee out in april of this year
despite the project having been approved in a committee meeting with the promise of affordable units on site. the upshot is that the developer received sign on from a completed project in july 2017 and has been renting out the market rate units and the bmr units sat empty. for nearly four year this is project failed to meet the obligation. this is very real impact on people who are struggling to stay in san francisco, the city, and my district lost out on this housing. i introduced this legislation before summer recess and substituted the version you see before you that includes some additional details that we worked on over is summer with the change of elected and inclusionary options after project approvals and sets a clear timeline and enforcement mechanism to ensure timely marketing and occupancy and with
the cleanup and amendments. the amendment wills reinforce the housing obligation to amend the code to, one, require public hearing and planning commission approval for the subsequent change and to that are more onsite units and -- bhr units. number two, requires public hearing and planning commission approval in any change for rental and ownership to the principle project to ensure feasibility. and number four, requires project sponsors to submit time line for construction to planning and mohcd and set deadlines for recording notice special restrictions and the initial marketing plans.
and finally, prohibit if you would to the occupancy until they have approved the marketing plan. and carley is here from planning with the presentation joined by her colleagues of the mayor's office and housing community development who are here to answer any questions. i am so grateful for the partnership and the expert advice in drafting this legislation and of course, my incredible chief of staff who has worked for a very long time with this entire team of excellent people to create this legislation before us today. supervisor channing is an early endorser and with the legislation and with that, if it is okay to turn it over to carley for a presentation, that
would be great. >> thank you so much, supervisor ronen, for your hard work on this and for fixing something that needed to be fixed desperately. thank you for being here. please begin your presentation. >> thank you, supervisors. it looks like i don't have that capability to share my screen right now. >> we have you as presenter. >> the share button is grayed out. >> let me pop you back up. >> can everybody see the pdf in the screen? i am just maximizing it now.
that was an excellent summary of the legislation. i will try to breeze through it and planning commission unanimously recommended the approval of the ordinance on october 14, 2021. and today i want to discuss three major components of the proposed amendments and the general overview of various clean up items included in the ordinance and a brief summary of the commission discussion of the item. first on tenure and whether it is an ownership or rental unit. project sponsors have sought to provide affordable units and are speaking to build and form four main problems are tribute with the ownership projects and from
the first time home buyers and to require 50% of the building to be sold as ownership units. if they are sold as affordable ownership, they won't see conventional mortgages at competitive rates. if they are a different tenure than the market rate unit and if the result is the imbalance in power and which favors the market rate ownership. and the planning code requires affordable units to be comparable and are not comparable. as described, they establish clearer definitions for rental projects and ownership and required the bmr tenure match
the market rate and to change the tenure for the project and change from fee to on site or on site to fee and the method of significant delays with what is either sold or released at the same time as the market rate. the method of compliance and seeking the tco. and changing tenure would restart the seven-month process of pricing and marketing the affordable units. the department is put into the position while we told the tco on the project which also withholds the progress on much immediate needed housing and dwom in the city and to release tco fully knowing the project will not meet the code
requirement for inclusionary housing delivery. in a few instances the sponsor has thought to modify after a lottery has already been completed. there is no sent process on a project after it is constructed. the project is different depending on the tenure of the project with the project completed and once the project is completed, they have to issue a letter to con forget and affordable housing laws are complex and a project may provide on site affordable units to satisfy the requirements for a variety of programs to meet obligations as well as meet transportation demand management point targets.
under the inclusionary program, the below market rental ownership units and rental units range between 5 # a% ami and 110, while ownership is between 80 and 130% of ami. so by using on site to qualify for state program, you can qualify for a larger density bonus with the rental project or more points with a rental project than ownership project. changes to the tenure can have major implications on the approved project or the occupied building. the project would need to provide a different number of on site units to qualify for the same density bonus. and for example, and the 100 rental units to provide 15 units to qualify at the president and to qualify for the same bonus.
this will require from fee to on site and nor will have projects that switch the fee and the frustration of the agenda items that have no discretion and the ordinance establishes objective criteria for the commission to consider and the timing and the monitoring requirements for bmr marketing. the planning code and the sponsor is required during the
construction of the building with the with the affordable market rates at the same time. and planning and staff can anticipate the project will be out of compliance but until the market rate units are released or sold, we don't have a lot of teeth to initiate that request and this keeps housing off the market. so what this ordinance does is establish two deadlines. one for the project sponsor to complete the required notice and to submit the pricing determination and requires the sponsor to submit an estimated
construction schedule so mohck and plan canning be proactive to reaching out to sponsors approaching the deadlines. and there are cleanup items in the ordinance and mainly that the ordinance requires regulatory agreements for from the planning code or state law require regulatory agreements. this is adding that the other density bonus and the ordinance replaces the references and makes the definitions throughout article 4. and finally, the commission wanted to provide a to recommend
approval of the ordinance and the first was the protections for residents in bmr units when the project is converting off occupancy. the procedures manual does include certain protections for projects going from rental to ownership and we will continue to develop those in more detail as we continue to update the procedures manual. the commission wanted to make sure that implementing this ordinance would not create any further delays in the delivery of housing. and so that will be something that we'll be working on through implementation process and to and thank you for the time and thank you for the time today. thanks so much. >> thank you very much. and supervisor peskin.
>> thank you, madam chair. i am happy to hear from other folks if supervisor ronen would like to hear the rest of the presentation. i was going to highlight the with the apt time to talkn't a them and to thank you supervisor ronen and folks of the planning department for modernizing and dealing with some of the issues around conversion and tenure. and i wanted to, as we enter this new world or emerging world of state density bonus and various state preemptions, i wanted to revisit the concept of in lieu payments, and i think historically and i didn't believe it to be true that the
policy desires of this board and many boards of supervisors has been for onsite and to that when jane king was on the board, and we had a much higher percentage for an in lieu fee out and the lower percentage to onsite. and i am seeing to my mind way too many folks avail themselves of the in lieu and not on site. and i am wondering and this may require fancy foot work with the city attorney given the palmer decision and whether or not in ownership and with the revisit to get rid of in lieu payments
all together. and to say you have one door to go through and that is on site or do it at another site. but not take the in lieu payment and doesn't meet the fundamental policy goal of diverse income strata on site. i wanted to throw that out there and look forward to working with supervisor ronen and her staff to explore that and with the planning department. but maybe it's time to say goodbye to in lieu payments. i wanted to use this as an opportunity to raise that. >> if there are no other questions to my colleagues, do
we have a presentation? is she here for questions? great. >> an i have a question for miss benjamin about the marketing and the new marketing process with the capacity to do this within new datelines established. and two, whether you see this to open the doors to folks who have traditionally not participated in whether the new timelines give you greater opportunity in the path, marketing has been kind of hit or miss and with some developers. and particularly with the particular populations and like
african-americans or mono lingual and i am wondering if you can tell us how you see this. you are muted. >> there we go. thank you. thank you, supervisor melgar. maria benjamin, mayor's office of housing and community redevelopment. >> right now the construction timeline, that the project submit us with the new time lines to deliver projects in a more efficient way. requiring that timeline eight
months out and the developer comes right before and they have construction and the that is beneficial and the second part of the question? >> so that works for you and your staff because you know, and i am wondering if you see this ls an as an opportunity for your partners in the home ownership counseling agency. they will also have time to market to the underserved. the expectation they know eight months in advance and if it's going to be a rental project or an ownership project helps everybody. it is a different group of people that you market to. and in a lot of cases and so
having that expectation up front is absolutely going to be beneficial to having counselors and helps us with the pipeline and getting the marketing stuff out there for what is coming so that folks works towards homeowner v.i.p. an enough time to maybe address barriers they might have before it is right there on their face at capacity. we have so many people coming to them for assistance to prepare for home ownership and even to prepare for rental opportunities. so this will help them figure out the projects that are coming to help people apply. >> thank you very much.
this is great improvements. so if there are no more questions or issues, colleagues, and to be added as a co-sponsor. there there are no more issues or questions, let's go to public comment please, madam clerk. >> confirming that with the callers in the queue. >> i'm sorry. i failed to acknowledge vice chair pes kin. >> you are muted, though. >> sorry about that. thank you, chair melgar. >> i wanted to be added as a co-sponsor as well and thank you, supervisor ronen, for all your work on this and to the
staff. and these are comments and fixes but also kind of tricky ones to figure out how to get them right. i appreciate you digging in and doing the work on this. i also do want to echo the comments that supervisor peskin made around that sort of decision point. where in lieu and the incentive to go in lieu which is the opposite of what is the policy of the board and i would suggest that i don't know and would defer to the city attorney and we have quite a bit of latitude in the way the fees are set and the cost we assess to
incentivize developers to do the affordable housing not on site. and that is something all of us have seen in projects in our district. so look forward to seeing what you come up with on ways to so since we are doing it now, please add me as a co-sponsor as well. thank you, supervisor ronen. madam clerk, let's go to public comment now please. >> yes. confirming that i also have supervisors peskin, melgar as sponsors. we are checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already, press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait and you may begin your comments and it looks like we have six listeners on the line and four in queue.
unmute the first caller please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter papadaphilous and thank you for bringing forward this legislation and being so responsive to the growing problem in the community. and i want to especially thank with the housing and community development and reunderstand we are strong collaborative partners in that is very strong that the requirements are going to significantly improve the outcomes and also inthur that community voices that were
incorporated into the initial planning approvals. and supervisor ronen said and everyone here firmly believes that every last unit of affordable housing is more critical than to move the low income families across the city and into the units as quickly as possible. thank you very much to everyone and i hope we all move this forward today together. thank you. >> thank you for your communities. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition and to
express our appreciation for supervisor ronen and her team on engaging in this issue. and three high level comments and first of all, the idea that we need to be bringing the affordable homes on the market at the exact the market rate units are brought on is a critical point. and it is not something that we should be comprising at all. to while the affordable units are vacant. and that piece is really critical. that the agnostic to which option is preferable. and the on site comes online
faster. so those are always positive in the short-term and the fee is how we pay for 100% affordable housing. and while it does take longer to have those homes be realized, when the money is leveraged, we often get more homes at the end of the day. so it is a little bit of affordable housing today, better than more affordable housing later? and considering the fantastic developers that utilize that fee, we want to see both of those options realized along with the kind of the last point and number of different ways or resources that exist for affordable housing. the city has some levers and the state and the federal government -- >> thank you so much. >> thank you very much.
>> thank you. >> linda chapman. i'm sorry. i was mistaken about the agenda order. so i missed the presentation today, but i was present for the planning commission's hearing. you have to terminate the practice of allowing the units to be provided on site in a mixed income development. in the and a woman wanted to confirm what i was saying. absolutely you must not do this. it is a disaster in waiting for the people who will buy the units and lose their homes. i have the experience of watching my other fellow homeowners lose their homes one
after another and those are not in mixed and seven other buildings were undergoing the same situation and then after the bmr people lose their units, there's no way for the other owners to recover the money that they were supposed to pay for their special assessments. my dearest friends from my co-op, one game a renter in reno when she was forced from her home because she couldn't pay the special assessment. the other last her home and hat to live with the dearest friend living in palm springs where condos are cheaper. that is the special assessments and the regular assessments. and my go-to person is calvin welsh and people who live in 1170 don't have bmr units and
can have round the clock attendance in the lobby. a building i know with the units and five full-time equivalents that the bmr payments are for. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chairman melgar and fellow supervisors. the pedestrian land use coalition. i am calling to thank supervisors ronen for bringing this ordinance or amendment. and also the fellow supervisors who are supporting this. this is a much needed change. i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing up the issue
of feeing out for developers. i was going to bring this up as part of the testimony before supervisor peskin brought it up. my problem is the fact that developers fee out and that money goes to a pod and if you look at the affluent districts like district eight where we just had a report about the housing inventory and our housing status, and we see that the majority of affordable housing, on site affordable housings are pushing and twin peak. shamefully nohe valley in my neighborhood has affordable housing. eureka valley, zero. mission delores, zero. and the reason is simple because developers have the option of feeing out.
case in point is the latest development in the district at 1900 diamond street where the developer is proposing 24 units with seer roy affordable units on site. this is supposed to be the biggest development in the district in the neighborhood in the past 50 years and desperately need this law to be changed and to be eliminated and to hold the developers accountable and not going to see any affordable images in the city. >> thank you for your comments. we have one caller left in the queue. and want to remind and minimize if you would like to make public comment, press star 3. otherwise we will take the last caller. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
i would like to thank supervisor ronen for bringing forward this with the district 8 and the developers should not be allowed to go back to planning or not even tell people when they want to change something and the plan is in improved and stick with the plan. don't be out. you can't do that. that is unfair to us. and i would like to align myself with the comments of peter who spoke earlier. >> public comment on this item is closed. may i have a motion to send this the board with a positive
recommendation? >> so moved. >> madam clerk, call roll on this item please. >> on motion to recommend item one. supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> a supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three aye's. >> thank you so much, supervisor ronen. that motion passes. madam clerk, please call item 2. >> ordinance amending the planning code to repeal article 12 which contains regulations, governing land use activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and processing. affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa and making appropriate findings. members of the pub lib who wish to provide public comment should call the ie number on the
screen, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press pound twice. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand to speak. >> thank you very much. this item was put on the agenda as a committee report, but the sponsor supervisor chan have amendments which are substantive, so here to speak about the amendments is kelly gross from supervisor chan's office. welcome. >> thank you, chair melgar. and hello, supervisors. thank you for having me today. a little bit of background on the ordinance and context for the amendments as well. and supervisor chan with the
intent to prohibit any gas development and extraction and processing on land owned by the city and processing and created in 1990 to respond to federal pressure by making it nearly impossible. the ordinance seeks to remove the article to affirmatively prohibit any assignment of fossil fuels in the city and coincides with current state actions this past april. governor gavin new some announced he would stop issuing permits by january 2024 and the california air resources board with the oil extraction by no later than 2045. last week the administration propose they ban oil and gays drilling within 3200 feet of schools, homes and if this is the largest and voted unanimously in support.
i want to thank planning staff for the work on this ordinance. and with the minor amendments and which has drofted and in legislative review and i wanted to ask city attorney kristin jensen if she knows if they are ready yet or substantive? >> my understanding is they have not been finalized and we can't make that determination until we have seen them finalized. i was just checking the email again and hoping they might have come in. we could either wait until the end of the hearing if you like or you can go ahead and continue the item. >> chair melgar, i defer to you if you would like to bring the item back after item 3 in case the amendments are ready by then. >> supervisor: why don't we take that at the end of the meeting. we can just go on to item 3.
that way we can hear public comment on both the item and the amendments. so if they are not ready, we can hear them next week. is that okay? >> that work. thank you so much. >> great. we will put a pause on this item. and hang around. and we will go on to item number 3. ms. major? >> clerk: item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to add land ro landromat as a defined term to require conditional use authorization for uses replacing landromats and to pribt accessory dwelling units that reduce on-site laundry services unless replaced. and call the number on the screen 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2498 050 3583 and press
star 3 to line up to speak. and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair? >> thank you, madam clerk. thank you supervisor, peskin, for your work on this item. and i will turn the floor to you. >> supervisor: thank you, madam chair and supervisor preston. the legislation before us which should have been obvious to me and many others a while ago, so maybe it's a little late in coming will start to address a problem that has existed iffer years and largely flown under the radar. i wanted to start by thanking my colleagues including supervisor preston, chan, ronen, mandelman, haney, walton, and mar for the co-sponsorship as well as the planning commission for their recommendation of the legislation with the small
business commission because landromats are small businesses. and what this addresss is the precipitous decline in the number of landromats here in the city and county of san francisco. and i will delve into some of the numbers, but indeed over less than a decade, 1/3 of them have atrophied and with the interns that looked into this before the pandemic and like everything else, it got put on the shelf and is a matter of survival. this came as a landromat in a topographically challenged
portion of the hill and tons of bubbles and face closure as the building's owner and the building owner and sought to convert the ground floor of the commercial space into another laudable use and accessory dwelling unit. the office received tons of emails from patrons of the landromat, testimony from seniors and long-term renters and people with disability who is can't go far distances about the importance of this particular landromat. and the lack of nearby alternatives if it were to close down. ultimately that fight was won on a 4-3 split decision at the planning commission that took discretionary review. and it's actually a story that ends well. the owner of the landromat tons of bubbles has re-invested in the facility and got a long-term lease, so that ended well, but
during that time my staff and the interns i mentioned started researching landromats city wide, and i have included some of that research in the file for this item. it shows what one might expect landromats are disproportionately concentrated in the densest areas of the city where people tend to live in smaller homes without in-unit laundry services. they tend to concentrate in parts of the city and that is where land row mats exist and diverse communities and long-term renters that close down and that leaves huge gaps in social fabric of our communities. the planning commissioner put it dwight adeptly by calling
landromats part of the social infrastructure and are functional to the communities. and i want to thank my staff here who did copious amounts of research which took to the public utilities fission and to learn the startling statistic that has decreased and 1-3 laundromats closed down, you would call that a crisis that is with the legislation by requiring planning commission and conditional use approval and any future change from the landromat. and the planning commission needs to make findings with
other accessible landromats in the immediate vicinity and advisory the planning department to monitor the rate of closures in san francisco. with the data that is available to have the the inside and to have the permanent conversation and in my conversations with the case that i sited earlier, i can tell you they're not closing down for lack of need or business. and in fact, as a city gets denser, the need has never been greater. but i can speculate that if that it really has something to do with the ability to have laundromats to compete for rents
with higher revenue businesses and tourist or office and in the case of 998 fulton and an adu. and ultimately this might be the with the higher and higher uses over critical community service uses and is worth noting that this body and the board of supervisors recently approved legislation that will provide this exact same protection tonighttime entertainment uses in the city. and while that speaks to the important part of community life in san francisco, as it relates to that is much different than those by land landromats with that overlap there.
and thank you for saying they don't need to be re-referred and i want to go through them quickly to discuss them with the to discuss and on the colleagues and change shall to may to the conditions of the planning commission and to consider the conditional use authorization and with the equally or more accessible standard and replace it with an committee vicinity standard and equally or more accessible may be more difficult to interpret and with
conditional uses are appealable to the board of supervisors. and so those are the amendments that are before you. and i do want to in addition to a party thank you to my staff and thank flores and from tons of bubbles and my great team of for their work in helping with the research and thank the deputy city attorney for her council and drafting and for their help in providing the data that led to this legislation. i am happy to answer any questions and look forward to hopefully to your support. >> thank you much from the
planning department. are you going to provide a with either. >> i wanted to come on briefly to provide the commissioner report. so this and the two recommend modification were as follows. the first is the landromat definition to require washing and drying as part of the services and the second was to amend the ordinance to include more quantifiable findings. and as supervisor peskin mentioned, the ordinance
incorporates a portion around i am available for any questions after. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. flores. are there any questions from my colleagues? okay. supervisor peskin, i would appreciate being added a z a cosponsor please. >> thank you. >> thank you for all this hard work. madam clerk, let's go to public comment on this item please. >> thank you, madam chair. i have added you as a co-sponsor. carina is supporting us today is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not done so already, press star three to be added to the cue. for those on old, continue to wait and you will be unmuted and may begin your comments.
you can unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is george willing and i am in favor of supervisor peskin's landromat ordinance amending the planning code to add landromat as it is a fine term to require conditional use to prohibit accessory dwelling units that reduce on site laundry services unless replaced. while in unit or on site are a highly desired amenity among san francisco planning code pr the
essential communities and from the landlord speculation and the threats. >> thank you so much. and good afternoon, chair melgar, supervisor peskin and preston. and with san francisco land use coalition and i would like to thank supervisor peskin for introducing the ordinance that addresses the inequity in converting city services that are mostly used by low income and middle class residents for the benefit of the after influence of san franciscans. the landromats are used by tenants but it is not limited to affecting tenants. owners with in-use unit facilities also have to use the landromats for large size items
from time to time. in my own neighborhood of nohe valley, i know of a couple, one within my own block that was closed and converted to god knows what because the windows were just covered with blinds and there is no signage. we all have a suspicion that the place has been converted to some sort of a start-up office space. from what i hear from fellow colleagues at san francisco land use coalition this, has also happened in other neighborhoods and this is a problem that affects most people of low mechanic and middle class who are tenants where 64% of reresidents are tenant, we have to be mind nfl what we are providing and what services we are cutting off. and will also add that we need
to have a conditional use authorization form that when the projects come before the planning commission, they don't get overlooked. at this point we do have issues with projects that show up, projects that are contentious. projects that have issue, but still get approved. so i really urge the supervisors, particularly the land use committee to think about this. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. a low income district 8 resident. [please stand by]
space in the densest parts of san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker. we have two in the queue. >> good afternoon. i'm a senior from district five. i'm here today very much in support of this ordinance. there's a good possibility in laundry services and rental housing. [indiscernible]. 25 percent pf sanfrancisco. it's a large neighborhood businesses and keeping the services in the neighborhood. the ability to wash our clothes
may not seem an earth shaking issue. it's especially panter to seen toseniors with disabilities. lifting heavy loading againing loads trying toget on and off t. you wouldn't think it's necessary to write legislation about walking or clothes, but it is. laundry facilities in rental housing is scarce in a city of majority renters. even that is being threatened by new construction. i urge you to please pass this
legislation it's crucial to maintain independence and quality of life for all residents of small businesses and our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. this is our last caller in the queue. >> linda chap man. i want to really express thanks for taking initiative on this. i was really surprised to see that laundry mats were expeer disappearing from san francisco. i'm glad to see that the ones i use are still there. they take over everything in our
neighborhood and especially on polling street. i have a few other things that i want to suggest. one, is remember those districts there's only the neighborhood commercial districts. you have to have in those residential districts like the sun set where i grew up. that's what makes it possible for two thirds of the people to have no cars. it was mentioned also about people homeowners even needing a laundry mat. this is absolutely true. i take my big things over to the laundry mat on the corner. my aunt who owns three flats,
that's how she did her laundry. i really want to suggest for condos and co-ops should have a laundry room. we had a laundry room with a number of machines. i would accumulate all the laundry for weeks. >> we have one more caller that popped up in the queue. let's take that caller. welcome. caller. >> hi. my name is jim rees. i would like to thank you for taking the time to talk about our laundry mat closures. i don't have a lawnd rip laundr.
as a senior citizen on a fixed income, i cannot afford to have any laundry sent out. i'm lucky to have a local laundry mat close by. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you so much. that complete the queue, madam chair. >> thank you. this item is now closed. may i have a motion to move this item out to the full board with
a positive recommendation. >> so moved. >> there's a motion on the floor for the amendments. >> yes i read those amendments in the record. all two of you are in receipt of those amendments that were e-mailed earlier this american. they are non substantive and do not require referral. >> can you include the amendments first. >> on the motion to move the amendments. (roll call). >> thank you.
you also moved the legislation as amended. >> the motion as stated. (roll call). you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. that motion passes. let's go back madam clerk to item number two. planning code amendment repealing article 12. >> i'm still here. >> do we have amendments. >> i don't believe so. i haven't seen any come in my in box. before i ask for a continuance. i didn't mention the amendments first. i would like to ask staff to do a review of the planning amendments if available.
>> let's do that. let's hear from him what the amendments are and let's take public comments since been agendized. our agenda for next monday is petty full. this will save us some time next week, if that's okay. >> manager of legislative affairs. planning commission heard this on august 13th. (reading amendments). once article 12 is removed, the controls go back to just the
planning controls. those need to be amended before those uses can start. >> any comments or questions on this item. let's go to public comment then. >> it looks like we have two listeners but zero in the queue. let's see if anyone moves over? we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much, public comment is closed. colleagues may i have a motion
to continue this item to next week, please. >> so moved. >> madam clerk, can we take roll on that. >> motion to continue item number two to the november first meeting date. (roll call). you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. see you next week mrs. grove. madam clerk do we have anymore item our agenda. >> that completes the business for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much. see you guys later. >> bye.
>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction
permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian
community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them.
>> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize
good morning, everyone. welcome to the transportation authority board. i'm the chair of the board. our vice chair is aaron peskin. madame clerk, will you please call the roll? >> clerk: yes. commission chan? absent. >> supervisor haney: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present. melgar absent. >> supervisor peskin: present. >> supervisor preston: present. ronen absent.
>> supervisor safai: present. stefani absent. >> supervisor walton: present. >> quorum. >> chair mandelman: great. madame clerk, you think you have announcements. >> public comment will be available for each item on the agenda by calling 1-415-655-0001, and then prompted entering access code 2480 558 1030 ##. once you join, you will be able to participate in the meeting as a participant. to make a comment, dial star 3 to be added to queue to speak. when your two minutes are up, we'll go on to the next caller. best practices are to speak slowly, clearly and turn down radios and televisions around it. it is best to listen on the public comment line.
that concludes my announcement. >> chair mandelman: that was fast. thank you, madame clerk. could you call item 2? >> i want to note it looks like commission melgar noted that she is present in the chat. item 2, final approval on first appearance. approve resolution making findings to allow teleconference meetings under california government code section 54953e. this is an action item. >> i believe we have amber here to explain the item to us. >> thank you, can you hear me? >> yes, this item is because of legislation passed signed by the governor and it allows public agencies to continue to meet via teleconference during a proclaimed state of emergency.
in order to do so the agency must make certain findings, including that it has considered the state of emergency and that conducting meetings in person would present imminent risk to attendees and public health and safety. so this resolution applies to sfmta, the community advisorsy committee and the committee for the next 30 days. >> thank you. i would note that commissioners chan and ronen are present. and i don't see any comments or questions on this item, so we should open it to public comment. >> clerk: there is no public comment at this time. >> chair mandelman: all right. public comment on item 2 is closed. is there motion to approve item 2? >> so moved.
>> moved by peskin, seconded by walton. please call the roll. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. there are 10 ayes. the resolution has approval on its final approval on its first reading sorry. >> great.
welcome commissioner stefani. >> item 3 is the community advisory committee report, this is an information item. >> chair larsen, welcome? >> good morning, chair mandelman. i'm chair of the community advisory committee and i'm here today to report on the c.a.c. meeting held virtually september 22nd. the only item on your discussion agenda today that has substantial c.a.c. input is item 9, a motion of support to approve the 2022 prop aa vehicle registration fee strategic plan policies and other related project matters. in response to a c.a.c. question about this seeming cost escalation of the paving project for which unused fillmore project funds are reprogrammed, program staff explained that the mission project costs had increased because public works added block to the project on
the avenue to better coordinate with the safety project. so, it wasn't entirely owing to just cost increases over the last five years. during public comment, a question was posed about what was meant by more legible signage, quote, unquote, in the transit stop. sfmta staff explained that every stop would have at least a color-coded flag sign and small solar light to help reading. these will replace the yellow stripes that often wear away and are hard to read. the item and all its contents were approved unanimously. the sfmta also presented the san francisco municipal agency recovery -- transportation recovery plan for 2022 muni service. that the board had previously
heard. the c.a.c. members inquired about a variety of issues, the impacts on revenue and opportunities for making change in this new environment post pandemic. of particular concern was survey response rates in communities of concern. sean kennedy presenting from sfmta said staff was analyzing the responses, to see where they had received insufficient responses and then focus their efforts there. he said they're working with the community organizations -- community-based organizations to push out paper surveys at various events and locales and committed to sharing the survey when ready. the other issue of concern that came out from c.a.c. and public comment was the continued force transfer of the j. church line prior to entering the tunnel and
not going all the way to the embarcadero station. all of the commenters wanted to see restoration of the line into the subway. one commenter even said that the single j line ride from home to work and school downtown had influenced them to purchase their home in proximity to the j church. during the c.a.c. discussion, mr. kennedy replied that the j is definitely on the table as something that may go back in the subway depending on community feedback. they've seen good results on the technical side in terms of performance, but that the nontechnical aspects were also important. c.a.c. members did face mr. kennedy for the -- thank mr. kennedy for filling in for director tumlin in the last minute. but the c.a.c. had an in-person van ness update on the agenda. c.a.c. members commented that specific information about business impacts and litigation efforts was missing again from
the presentation even though this has been a continuing priority issue to the c.a.c. one member noted that there is a glossier looking presentation this past month does not give a sense of breadth or depth of the work involved nor how it impacts the constituents. another c.a.c. member agreed and commented it was inexcusable that pot-holing work hadn't been done early on in project development. this was concerning given the commencement of the geary and better market street project, the underground utilities that have accumulated in these places over the decades. potholing, they have already applied to ensuing large projects. in addition, they -- coordinating with the workforce development to incorporate more detailed business impact and mitigation information in future presentations. and that concludes my report.
thank you. >> chair mandelman: thank you, chair larsen. and thanks to the committee members for all of their work. i do not see any comments or questions from colleagues. so let's open this up to public comment. >> good morning. this is anastasia, transit rider of j church. and i'd like to say that even though mr. sean kennedy has said that restoring the j church to full service is on the table, what sfmta has done is they're even sending out mailers saying they want to make the accessibility improvements permanent and this is going to be a huge expenditure, a second
elevator, pavement, platforms, just to accommodate the transfer. people are saying and they're getting the message loud and clear as you all are, put the j church, restore it to the full service underground. thank you. >> thank you, caller. there are no more callers. >> chair mandelman: public comment is closed. thank you, again, chair larsen. item 4. item 4 is abroofl of the minutes of the september 28, 2021 meeting. this is action item. >> chair mandelman: colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open item 4 to public comment. >> there is no public comment. >> chair mandelman: okay, public comment on item 4 is closed.
is there a motion to approve the minutes. moved by peskin, seconded by ronen. please call the role. >> on item 4, approval of the minutes, commissioner chan? >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. the minutes are approved. >> chair mandelman: great. thank you. call item 5. >> state and federal legislation update. this is an information item.
>> chair mandelman: i believe we have mark and then jamie parks and then amber craft. >> thank you. commissioners, i'm pleased to be here today to report on activities in the capital. the two main topics i want to address is to update you on the action on legislation on the governor's desk and acted upon since the last time we met. i wanted to update you on discussions and the status of high speed rail and the budget which was an issue and continues to be at this point in time. with respect to legislation, there were five measures that had not been acted upon that you had taken positions on the last time we spoke. and they've all been dispensed with by the governor. these were all bills supported, four of which were approved by the governor, one that had been vetoed. the bill that was approved since the september meeting, include
ab43. this will be the topic that your representative from sfmta and amber will be addressing after my presentation. in addition, aba917 provides all transit systems would have the ability to continue using forward-facing devices for automated enforcement, parking violations and transit only lanes and transit stops, that bill is approved by the governor. it's carried by assembly member bloom. ab1499 by daley which would extend the build authority was approved as well. and finally, senator wiener was the author of sb339 which continues a road user charge technical advisory committee and requires the secretary of transportation's office to put
together and conduct a pilot program to examine revenue collection opportunities and means and devices. the one measure that was vetoed that had been supported is a b-1238 by chang. this specifies that pedestrians cannot be subject to fines or criminal penalty for crossing a roadway when no cars are present. the governor expressed sympathy for the disproportionate impact of j jay walking tickets, but did express concern about the impact on pedestrian safety and indicated in the veto he's committed to working in the coming session and year. even though that was vetoed, it looks like the government is going to be actively engaged in
trying to address that issue. turning to the high speed rail discussions. if you remember, in the last week, the legislature met. there was an announcement by the legislature that they had seized discussions with the governor, on his request. particularly transit in l.a. and throughout the state. this last week we received -- i received and shared with staff a copy of a letter by the assembly transportation chair and vice speaker that outlined their latest offer that they had been discussing with the administration folks. in essence, they were supporting now an appropriation of about a billion dollars to continue the merced to bakerfield stretch and with the additional out of the
4.2 that is available, to be available for change orders upon future approval. in addition, they were seeking an additional $3 billion on top of the $2-3 billion that the governor had put in the budget. may have been taken back from the general fund for transit projects largely to benefit the southern california region. so, this is an interesting twist and we'll be monitoring the discussions closely. i have a meeting with the speaker staff next week to get more details about where they stand and where they stand about funding for the rest of the state if they're going to be asking for additional resources. so with that, that brings my presentation to a close. i know amber craft would like to introduce and address the commission as well. thank you.
>> thank you. just wanted to introduce parks. ad43 has been of great interest to you commissioners, so we've invited him to talk about the bill and sfmta's next steps in implementing that bill. so thank you for being here. >> thank you, amber. good morning, chair and commissioners. jamie parks with sfmta. i'm excited to be here this morning to share the good news that bill 43 changing state law was signed into law by the governor about a week and a half ago. and from our san francisco state delegation to this commission to the mayor's office to all of the san francisco advocates and the city staff who went through dozens of iterations on this bill, i think san francisco sent a clear and unified message to
sacramento that changing the law is critical in achieving safe streets. i want to start by thanking everyone for their support and getting this bill passed. and sfmta, we're ready to start implementing, but it's also important to know what this bill does and doesn't do, because it's not free rein. so 8043 changes existing law in three ways. first, is it eliminates what is known as speed, so if you measure how fast vehicles are going on a road and they're going faster than the speed limit, state law says you have to raise the speed limit. so the next time you measure it, you have to raise the speed limit again. fortunately, that's not been a major problem in san francisco, but it's been a huge issue in southern california and other parts of the state. so great to have that piece of speed limit setting no longer part of the state law. second and much more impactful
specifically to san francisco is the bill allows cities to lower speed limits by 5 mile-per-hour on corridorsed on concentrations with -- this is a really impactful part of the bill, but the terms that i just mentioned, safety corridor and high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists were not defined by the bill. instead the bill required cal tran to go through a rule-making process and establish definitions for those terms. because of that, this provision is not likely to go into effect until 2024. so we will be involved in the cal tran rule-making process and there will be a lot of work behind the scenes, but no changes on the ground visible in san francisco. so probably early 2024. third, and this is where we'll
see immediate changes is the city is to lower speed limits from either 30 to 25 or 25 to 20 in business district. and business districts are defined as places -- corridors where at least 50% of the properties are commercial activities. this provision goes into effect in january of 2022, which makes it sfmta's immediate focus. and so we are doing a lot of analysis right now to figure out which corridors qualify under this provision. some are obvious. streets like haight, or polk. but others require analysis, like soma and the downtown core and northeast where commercial corridors are less clearly defined because of the mixed use in downtown. so we're doing that analysis. and the changes under the bill require sfmta board approval
through ordinance, so we'll be bringing as a proposed set of three to the sfmta board as soon as possible so we can get started on implementation on january 4. finally, i would add that we do intend pending the availability of funding to pair the changes with education campaigns. because we feel that is going to be more effective than just putting up signs. if they're coordinated with education, like what we did in the tenderloin this year with the banners on the sign poles. and i wanted to mention that assembly bill 773 passed as well which amendments the california vehicle code to add slow streets. and it provides criteria and other requirements for designating slow streets. and while slow streets are not prohibited before this bill, this does provide a lot more
legal clarity on how a slow street program in san francisco could look post covid. so i'll stop there. and turn it back to amber. >> i believe commissioner haney has a comment. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair. i was also very excited to see the bill and that we are already taking steps to move forward to implement it as it relates to the speed reductions. what is the -- what does it look like studying the changes we've made in the tenderloin and whether there have been, you know, clear impacts on speed on collisions, and the impact of education? it does seem like we're going into this several months -- [indiscernible] -- lot of information than we had before because we just did this at least 25 to 20 reduction in a neighborhood.
how are we assessing that and using those learning to help support what we're going to do next year? we are pairing tenderloin changes with the data. we're in the process of collecting post implementation speed data. we expect to get the data in the next few weeks. if we analyze that, it will allow us to have better insight into how this program could be effectively extended around the city. later this fall or early 2022, we should have findings from the evaluation. >> supervisor haney: and as a part of that, i know it doesn't relate to this bill, but we made changes in the tenderloin, particularly around -- there are neighborhoods in parts of the city that interested to see the
outcome of that as we think about broader expansions that relate to vision zero. i hope that will be part of the analysis. i know this neighborhood is very interested to see what the impact has been more broadly, but there are implications beyond this neighborhood as well. thank you. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair mandelman. i just wanted to follow up trying to get a clarity or if you could, mr. parks, how the state law for slow streets requirement, you said give us clarity about the implementation of slow streets post covid. could you just walk us through really quick or give us a highlight of what the law -- or how it will be different? >> yes. so it amends the california vehicle code to establish a definition of slow streets. and i believe that definition is along the lines of -- it's
closures to vehicle traffic or through vehicle traffic on neighborhood streets. and then it sets up criteria and requirements around how slow streets need to be adopted and noticed. so we would need to go to the sfmta board to adopt the slow streets program. we would need to update the website with information. we would need to provide 30-45 days notice to the public before we made changes. so there are a set of requirements in the california vehicle code as well that dictate how we can implement slow streets. >> supervisor chan: so, i guess then my follow-up question will be, for those that already exist, slow streets that we already have at this moment, how do we reconcile between the existing slow streets program in san francisco versus the one
that -- versus the state law program? >> so, that's a great question. so the current slow streets program is authorized under the emergency declaration for covid and so all of the existing closed streets would expire at the end of that emergency declaration unless other action is taken. so we would plan to take a post covid slow streets program to the sfmta board for adoption in early 2022. and i think that process would establish which slow streets should remain indefinitely and which streets would sunset. >> supervisor chan: thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair. and thank you, mr. parks, for bringing us all the good news.
these are two bills i think are really important. i did have a question on the -- on the speed limit one implementation of ab43. and i was definitely very excited for that bill and very disappointed to get the interpretation that the category of the -- of the streets -- the safety corridors and the high concentration of bikes or pedestrian streets that determination will be made or we won't see the changes in the street until 2024. and i was just wondering if that was not clear to me from the bill if that's required or if we're just being sort of cautious in our approach. like the way i read the bill, it empowers cities to make these speed reductions. and another provision also sets up basically directs the department of transportation to
come up with these regulations. but i don't know that we would -- i guess that's my question. would we be prohibited from taking a street in one of our districts that is quite clearly a safety issue, or quite clearly has a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists and just doing it. and then i guess, under the theory that maybe a year or two later when the standards come out, we guessed wrong. or are we prohibited from moving forward until the state -- those definitions exist? >> we would want to get more clarification from our city attorney to get a final answer on that. but we would be prohibited from enforcing the changes. so the cal tran rule-making process, there was a requirement that the judicial council implements that online school
for adjudicating and that's something that i'm not very in the -- on, but there were concerns about how the infractions would be adjudicated and the judicial council already had a mandate to create an online tool. there is a deadline for the council to do that. i believe that would be the latest possible date. but if cal tran finished and the online school was made earlier, we would be happy to get started. >> i think just to follow up. i appreciate the clarity. my question is maybe one we can talk further about online and get advice from city attorney. can we jump the -- can we do this for things that are obviously high safety concerns and high pedestrians and cyclists, can we do that before caltrain passed the definitions?
i understand there is risk, because we could use the wrong definition and lower a speed limit and then the rulings could come out a year later. but are we allowed to as a city to move forward and make those regulations. a lot of people as we all know, a lot of people are going to get seriously injured and god forbid die in the year or two while we wait to implement this. so i'm interested in, can we push that envelope particularly for streets that obviously will qualify, can we just move forward with those? >> so that's something we can work with our city attorneys on and get the information back to the commission. >> thank you. >> chair mandelman: thank you, commissioner preston. ms. crab, did you have more for us? >> i will be really brief on the items since not a lot has changed since last month. basically we saw a continuing
resolution on the transportation bill that will keep funding and the programs going through the end of october, so we'll come back next month if there is an agreement reached on the bill. and the 3.5 package will likely see another continuing resolution. one thing i want to flag that is new, the white house released a climate adaptation and resilience plan that is developed for more than 20 agencies. and the u.s. department of transportation's plan focuses on several priority adaptations, actions. the one that we're most interested in is incorporating used resilience goals into the program. so we'll be working for opportunities there, new grant programs as well as guidelines for existing programs as we learn more. >> chair mandelman: great. thank you.
seeing no more colleagues in the queue, we should open this to public comment. >> clerk: there is no public comment at this time. >> chair mandelman: public comment is closed. thank you, all. please call item 6. >> item 6, allocate $985,700 in prop k funds and $220,000 in prop aa funds with conditions and appropriate $100,000 in prop k funds for four requests. this is an action item. >> chair mandelman: ms. laforte. >> good morning, commissioners, deputy director for policy and programming at the transportation authority. let me share my screen. the first request, this is for a road diet, which is lane
reduction, traffic-calming measure for 14th street between castro and sanchez. and this response to requests from residents and others for pedestrians and traffic safety improvements in the area. so it eliminates an eastbound lane and adds left turn only lane in addition to installing daylighting. the next request is for school engineering. this is for the design -- planning, design and construction of two of the elements of the safe routes to school and engineering side of the house if you will. the program would install new and upgraded signage and paint and pavement markings at up to 35 schools city-wide and traffic-calming measures on residential streets. you can see examples of what those would look like. crosswalks and signage upgrades.
in the materials that are attached to your packet online for those watching at home, you can see where sfmta has already or is planning to implement measures at various schools throughout the city using funds that have been allocated in previous cycles by the department transportation authority board. the next request is for an appropriation from the -- it's a request from the transportation authority for neighborhood program funding for treasure island supplemental transportation study. this would allow for transportation authority staff to work with one treasure island, a not-for-profit agency to study stakeholder and do stakeholder engagement to understand the needs of workers on treasure island and to have conversations to understand the post pandemic realities and how to overcome barriers and
exploring options to short-term transit needs that may include on demand shuttle or ride-share subsidies. as a neighborhood program request, this would have a final report presented to the transportation authority board to be accepted. and we anticipate that would happen next summer. the last request is for prop aa vehicle registration fee funds. this is for the potrero project to connect the neighborhood separated by u.s. 101. this is under the u.s. 101 freeway overpass along 17th street. and along vermont and san bruno. these are streets on the high-injury network. they funded the design phase of the project and the funds for construction will leverage eastern neighborhood developer
impact fees as well as a grant from the state affordable housing and sustainable communities program. and that program, that state program, has a requirement that the construction contract must be advertised prior to december 31, 2021. and funds must be spent by december 31, 2023. so, implementation is right around the corner. and with that, i can answer any questions and the project manager is here as well. >> thank you. i'm excited to see the 14th street road diet. that has been a priority for mckinley school, and neighbors. and i want to thank, brian woo and sue at the sfmta for their work and jacob in my office and, of course, you all. thanks. seeing nothing from my colleagues, let's open this item to public comment. >> clerk: okay.
there is no public comment. >> chair mandelman: fantastic. public comment on item 6 is closed. is there a motion to approve item 6? i'll move it. is there a second? >> second preston. >> chair mandelman: okay. second by preston. please call the role. >> on item 6, commission chan? >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. mar absent. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: -- excuse me i was -- >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye.
commission walton? walton absent. commissioner mar? mar absent. there are nine ayes, the item has approval on its first reading. >> chair mandelman: thank you. please call item 7. >> item 7, approve san francisco's program of projects for the 2022 regional transportation improvement program. that is an action item. >> chair mandelman: and i believe -- is here. >> good morning, commissioners. are you able to see my screen? >> yes. >> wonderful. april smith, transportation planner of the transportation authority. happy to present this item today. five-year investment plan for state transportation funds administered by the california
transportation commission and updated every two years. the transportation authority approves or recommends the san francisco program and project. the board has longstanding priorities and right now -- is the highest priority for the next -- [indiscernible] they have strict requirements and cannot put it on -- to honor the commitment to the -- we're programming it to other eligible projects. there is $11.2 million available for programming with $380,000 for the transportation authority and $180,000 for the metropolitan transportation commission work for planning state programs and performing oversight. and augments our pricing program.
the remaining $10.6 million is available for capital projects. r tip does have strict requirements for eligibility which narrows the list of potential projects that would be good candidates for these funds. sfmta has requested that we program the funds to the construction phase of the communications-based chain control project, the phase 3 portion of the project. -- [indiscernible] construction is fully funded and the project is already has to comply with the guidelines, to the board programmed $13.7 million. with this, we're recommending that $10.6 million in r tip funds be programmed to the based chain control at phase 3 of the project. this will reduce delays, improve travel times and increase -- capacity along the line from the
duboce portal to the ocean beach. the project as part of the -- upgrade program is a 10-year capital program that will replace the aging control system in place. the project will allow trains to travel close together and increase space. and it's expected to be completed in 2027. the board program -- [indiscernible] communications-based train project in november 2019. phase one is expected to be completed in 2026. and phase 2 in 2028. the project will begin in the subway which is the most challenging part of the system. and will then expand to the surface portions at the -- system. each subsequent phase after
phases one and two depend on the course -- [indiscernible] to be installed in the first two phases to operate. sfmta is working to secure full funding for the larger project, including $18.9 million in prop k funds to be considered by the board next month. and as part of the 2021 prop k strategic plan update. here's a map showing all of the project phases. prop k is subject to fund the planning imaging for the overall project which you'll learn more about today. the total project cost is $300 million. the next steps after the board adopts the san francisco 2022r tip program and projects, we'll submit it by the november 1st deadline.
they're expected to approve it in december and they will consider adopting it in march of next year. thank you. we also have sfmta staff here to answer any questions as well. >> chair mandelman: thank you, ms. smith. let's open this item to public comment. >> okay. hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> can you hear me now? great. good morning, david pilpel. so on this item as relates to the communication-based train control on the judah, i'm skeptical of the benefits of the control system on the surface portion of the entire muni metro system. i'm opposed to three-car and judah trains on the surface and
i urge you to prohibit operation of three-car trains on the surface of the n judah as a condition of approval of this item or any subsequent items related to the judah or the communication-based train control system. i question and would urge you to ask what is the likely impact to passengers from construction of this proposed communication-based train control infrastructure. will that require bus substitutions for one or more days, weeks, months, while that infrastructure is built in the street or wherever that is to be built? and finally, i understand that m.t.a. is developing a written rail service plan to discuss the future of muni metro as it relates to level of service, coupling, uncoupling, capacity, fleet, facilities, et cetera.
i urge you to calendar that when it's available for discussion at this board. thanks very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. hello, caller, your two minutes begin now. >> thank you, chair. director, pronouns she and her as i request leave to speak here today. communication-based train control is important and i'm interested to see what it would look like on a surface line, but i believe it is reasonable and possible, because i have experience with abtc where i recently went to new york and road on several new york city subway lines that are equipped with cbcc.
even though the system is called a subway, it has a number of elevated sections as well. and so cbtc is deployed on a number of different sections and the system is growing. but i can say this, in my 51 years of riding the new york city subway, that once you ride a system that has cbtc on it, you don't want to go back to the old way. and it definitely has given me a smooth ride. so, i think these projects are worthy of approval, because we have to move on from the past. our train control system in the subway is hopelessly out of date. and it's just time to move on to bigger and better things so we can have a more efficient and safer light rail system. and i thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. there are no more callers. >> chair mandelman: thank you, public comment on item 7 is
closed. >> supervisor preston: -- >> chair mandelman: nope, we can't hear you. there you are. no comments to make. >> chair mandelman: okay. thank you for that. is there a motion to approve -- i think i closed public comment. is there a motion to approve item 7 is this -- moved by peskin. is there a second? seconded by chan. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> on item 7, commissioner chan? >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. -- mar absent.
>> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> we have 10 ayes. approval on the first reading. >> chair mandelman: thank you. call item 8. >> item 8, execute contract renewals and options for various annual professional services in an amount not to exceed $725,000. this is an action item. >> chair mandelman: thank you. vice chair peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i brought this up with staff yesterday. and this is not a comment on the substance of the matter, but a
comment on the public noticing. unlike the previous two items where there is additional detail about the individual allocations, the way this item is written doesn't tell the public, i think, enough about in this case the three contracts covered under the $725,000. and i think that this should be done in the same notice regiment as the previous two items. it should say it's a proposal to give, you know, $100 thousand to -- [indiscernible] -- and $200,000 to the other. i discussed this with staff. i mean, this may well meet brown act requirements, but i think we have, as both the board of supervisors and the county transportation authority, insisted on more comprehensive
public notice. it wouldn't hurt my feelings if we continued this to our meeting of the 26th for our first reading, but i'm open to what staff and my colleagues have to say. >> supervisor chan: thank you, commissioner preston. we have tried to rectify that. it's at your call, chair. and vice chair, how you'd like to proceed. we'll be making that change permanently going forward. >> chair mandelman: is there any permanent detriment to the authority in putting this off for two weeks? >> no. >> chair mandelman: then let's do that. >> sure. >> chair mandelman: so we'll move this to two weeks from today. thank you, we look forward to hearing from you at that time. madame -- although we probably need to take -- no, we do not
need to take public comment on this item. madame clerk, please call item 9. >> item 9 is approve the 2022 prop aa vehicle registration fee strategic plan policies and screening and prioritization criteria and amend the 2017 prop aa strategic plan. this is an action item. >> chair mandelman: great. we have mr. pickford here. >> hello, transportation authority. i'm just putting up my slides. you should be able to see them now. prop aa funds transportation improvements with revenues from a $10 vehicle registration fee compared to prop k, it's small with revenues of about $5 million annually. must be eligible under one of three prop aa categories with 50% of funds going to street repair, 25% for pedestrians safety and 25% for transit
reliability. to help the program have a bigger impact, prop aa will bring benefits to neighborhoods around the city. it does have a strong emphasis with funds. the prop aa requires the transportation authority to develop a strategic plan including five-year prioritized projects for each of the categories that i mentioned. we're currently in the last fiscal year of the 2017 strategic plan, so that's why we're here today talking about -- or seeking guidance to develop the new 2022 strategic plan. in terms of project delivery, 41 of the programs in prop aa have been allocated -- sorry, 38 of the 41 have been allocated and 22 are open for use. there is more information in
your packet on project delivery. three remain unallocated. i'll get back to those in a minute. to guide the development of the 2022 strategic plan, the main purpose of this item is to recommend minor revisions to two key documents. first is -- the second is screening and prioritization criteria that provides a mechanism to prioritize projects for funding. the revisions are minor. once this is in place, we'll have competitive calls for projects. relevant to the three unallocated projects i mentioned. prop aa policies include timely release of funds requirement. so if a project does not request funds in the year that it's programmed, the board may release those funds to other projects through the competitive
call. so the three projects in question are here. for sfmta transit stop signage enhancement program, which as you heard the c.a.c. chair mention will upgrade signs in muni stops. it's delayed due to staffing and uncertainties related to the pandemic, but we're confident it will move forward and phase one of the program is under way currently. sfmta fillmore street paving project is being coordinated with a future project on -- as well as the mission and geneva project that you see. the fillmore muni project is still being developed and will not begin until 2024, so rather than having funds waiting, we are recommending reprogramming the funds from fillmore to the
mission and geneva pavement project. public works has determined this project will be more expensive than the initial estimate from 2017. as the chair mentioned, public works has added blocks to the project to better coordinate with the transit project. and as they've gotten further along in design they've discovered the need for additional funds. they do still plan to match prop aa funds with additional gas tax funds. and this is ready to advertise this fall for fillmore street on public works says that when the muni forward project is ready to go, they'll have funds available fort paving project. they do plan improvements and want to make the point that the changes made to 16th street already are improving service on the whole 22 fillmore line.
so back to the call for projects, unless the board wishes to deprogram funds from any of those unallocated projects, the amount available in the call will be approximately $23 million with most of that coming from new revenues. the board approved a revenue forecast in 2016 based on actual revenue and this has been a very stable fund source so we're not recommending any changes to that forecast. and on the first slide, funds were divided between prop aa three categories. this is how the projected revenues would be divided between those categories. and then once would approve policies to guide us, we would call for projects by december 5. we've already been discussing this call with project sponsors and we want to give applicants plenty of time to develop projects so we're sending applications -- setting
applications due in january. we'll evaluate and give feedback to the board in march with recommendations. with that, i can take any questions. we do have staff on the line to respond to questions. >> chair mandelman: thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair and thank you, mr. pickford. i did have questions around the line item in the fillmore that was on your slides. and had a chance to talk to the staff about it before this hearing, but i would like to get more clarity on the reasons for the delay in that project and also just how we're going to fund that when it is ready. so i wanted to, through the chair, hear from d.p.w. or m.t.a. on the -- why the fillmore street pavement
renovation and the muni forward on fillmore is delayed. and i should explain this covers not just fillmore in my district, but also touches on chair mandelman's district as well as into district 2. and all the way out from fillmore. >> yes, i think the timing of the project is primarily rerelated to the sfmta project. would you like to start with public works? >> if we could start with m.t.a. just for the reasons that this isn't ready to go. and the projected timeline of when m.t.a. believes the muni forward planning will be -- or design will be ready to then move forward with that construction. -- this was intended to fund.
>> good morning. thank you so much for your steady vigilance over projects like this, commissioner preston. we certainly appreciate it. i was advised that our vision for the 22 fillmore and the muni forward project is still a priority and will continue to be. as you know, the 22 fillmore despite the pandemic continues to be one of our heavier travelled lines. it serves a tremendous amount of communities and connecting them to key destinations even throughout the pandemic. so it is very much in our interest to get this project moving as quickly as possible. what i was told from the project managers who, unfortunately, can't be here this morning, but will be happy to meet with you at your convenience or in the future, but what i was told is that in 2017, the coordination
for this capital improvement program was all still very tentative and it was a little bit concerted in the planning and putting that number out. what happened along the way since between now and then is evident in the current situation that we're in with all of the hang-ups that we experienced even before the pandemic with our capital improvement program and where we plan on going even in these next few years. all of these things compounded has effectively delayed us or inhibited us from being able to give the due diligence that we need to do to be where we had originally projected we would be in 2017. so, we were able to move forward as mr. pickford said with the 16th street project and we're still working on that portion of the route, which as he said,
will continue to improve service on the 22 line, but, unfortunately, we're just in a place where we weren't able to accommodate all of the things that were thrown at us with our state of good repair before the pandemic and now everything that we're dealing with during this pandemic. but like i said earlier, we still value it. it is a priority. the project manager went over the bulbouts and the transit improvement priority -- or transit priority improvements like in signals. we're very much interested in wanting to make it happen. we just couldn't keep up with the time line we had originally estimated we would be at back in 2017 before all this craziness has come before us these last few years. >> thank you. i think i'm trying to get clarity on just timeline forward
on this. it's one thing to come here and i think we all acknowledge it's not ready to be funded right now, but as you said, it's 2017 plan that envisions being ready to move forward i think in 2020. and now we're in 2021 and i'm trying to get clarity on when can we have confidence that at least the m.t.a. portion of finishing the muni forward proposed to the fillmore. which i understand to be really the only thing holding -- forward. when will that be done? >> yeah, and i think -- well, mr. pickford had done his due diligence and asked for a timeline from us, from our staff and, unfortunately, because of the 22 -- 2022 service plan and all of the changes that we've been doing on our feet, i'm looking at correspondence now between the project manager. we don't yet have that kind of fact sheet in writing yet.
but i think this warrants a conversation, a deeper conversation with you and your staff about a specific timeline as good as we can give you. we understand, again, your wanting to champion this item, but unfortunately, we just don't have any dates right now. i haven't been provided with any dates that i can convey to you. we don't yet have a fact sheet. but like i said, the improvements will include all those things i enumerated earlier. and i can continue to push staff on where we go from here. our current plan, what i do know, we plan on starting outreach on these specific improvements in 2024 is what we're currently expecting. so it will be a while i think, unfortunately, before we're at a place where we can do the work that you're moving funding from to be applied towards. so the one date i was provided was outreach to begin in 2024. >> okay. that's even worse than i
thought. i thought we'd be hearing this item to fund it again in 2024. but -- i don't want to belabor the point. obviously, it's not ready to go and be funded now. i don't want to hold up the other items that are to be funded under this item. i would request if you could provide the t.a. and my office with what -- with a projected time line on this and then we can consult about that further, because obviously, eager to get this moving. so, can you get that to our office and to the c.a.? >> happily, commissioner. and again, i want to stress that scoping for the project and all the work that we can do without this portion of the paving being coordinated can go on. we'll continue to do the work. it will keep moving, you know. it's not going to just stop. and i imagine that a lot of that -- a lot of work can be done before 2024, including revisiting this item, but, yeah,
right now, we're just over our heads. so i'm happy to bring something back for you that is a little more concrete. pun intended. and we'll get you that information. >> thank you. and then just one other question and i think maybe for you through the chair to mr. pickford, so, i just wanted to explore for a second what the options are and you touched on this a bit. what the options will be to fund this. so we're moving funds right now away from the fillmore project. at some point it will be ready. let's hope that point is salooner rather than -- sooner rather than later. but when we are there, what are our funding options and specifically can we get insurances from either the t.a. or d.p.w., or which ever agency is appropriate, that when it is
ready to go, when the muni forward issue has been resolved, that the fillmore funding will be getting that back will be prioritized at that time. because i'm sure on multiple projects. this $2.4 million, i believe is all the funds in a given year from prop aa that will be available per your presentation for this kind of construction. so, is this -- yeah, so what are the sources? and can we get some assurance that this project when it's ready, the fillmore project, will be prioritized? >> i can start by saying that among funds that the transportation authority programs, this project would be eligible for the call for projects that we're proposing for the next five years. public works has also mentioned other sources, including the gas tax. and if it's all right, i'd like to ask oscar from public works
to provide that reassurance that you're asking for. >> thank you. >> thank you, mike. good morning, commissioners. i'm acting budget manager for the department of public works. and, yes, we are committed to -- when the project is ready on an annual basis, we have $70 million in our resurfacing budget. bonds, gas tax, prop aa, prop k. so we are committed to back selling the $2.4 million. coordination with other construction projects is one of our prioritization criteria, so that will make sure that when the fillmore and muni project is ready, it will go to the top of our list, similar how we're trying to fund the geneva project since the muni forward -- until the muni forward is
ready. >> okay. sounds like all eyes are on the m.t.a., mr. ramos and m.t.a. is the key to moving this forward. sounds like the funds will be there when we're ready. i look forward to getting more clarity on the timeline. thank you, all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chair mandelman: let's open this item to public comment. >> there is no public comment. >> chair mandelman: all right. public comment on item 9 is closed. is there a motion to approve item 9? moved by peskin. is there a second? >> second ronen. >> chair mandelman: thank you, commissioner ronen. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> on item 9, commissioner chan? >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye.
>> supervisor mar: aye. melgar absence. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. safai absent. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. all right, we have nine ayes. the item has approval on first reading. >> thank you item 10, the 2021 prop k strategic plan update. this is information item. >> mr. eric reid i believe you're the presenter. >> yes, good morning,
commissioners. let me pull up my slides. make sure that can be seen. are you able to see it? >> not yet. there it is. got it. >> okay. great. >> i'm a senior program analyst at the transportation authority. today i'll be presenting on the 2021 prop k strategic plan update. i'll start by moving forward through some of the introduction -- materials. noting that the expenditure plan requires the development of 30-year strategic plan that balances revenue and expenditures. we update the prop k plan every five years and it was most recently updated in 2019. we're in year three of that five-year plan.
and this is a mid cycle update as triggered by the covid-19 pandemic. san francisco has been hit hard specifically with sales tax revenue receipts. through this update, we want to ensure we can pay our existing grant and debt. additionally, we wanted to conduct a pressure updated project information and ensure funds for priority projects were made available. i'm happy to report through this update we've been able to overwhelmingly preserve funding for projects in the near term. as part of the work, we have updated sales tax revenue projections informed by the covid-19 pandemic and conducted a true of actuals from the past three fiscal years. we're not proposing any updates to strategic plan policies and no wholesale call for new projects. we worked with our economic advisor, muni services, to
develop a recommended revenue projection for prop k, tabled to provide comparison to the revenue projections we assumed with the 2019 strategic plan and the updated 2021 strategic plan over the 30-year period. our revenues are 4% less or $129 million less than we previously projected and we anticipate a return to pre-covid revenue levels by fiscal 23-24. here's a visual displaying the performance of the sales tax and comparing the two revenue projections from the last -- the prior strategic plan in the update. and this chart provides an overview of the prop k capital program. i'll note that projects make up over half of the remaining balance for allocated grants. the next graphics show a similar
pattern. this is a graphic showing how sponsors had requested programming and how a programming actually came in. they're typically very optimistic about when they will request funds and then actually occurs. this pattern also occurs with respect to reimbursement requests, where sponsors, you know, have -- are very optimistic when they can deliver projects and seek reimbursement for project costs, then actually takes place. with the 2019 strategic plan, the first cut would have told us to issue debt in 2019, however, we monitor actual project delivery and reimbursements to time issuance for only when they're needed. this results in lower financing costs which you can see on this chart. where we're projecting less bond
principal when compared to the 2019 strategic plan and the financing costs of that debt have also been reduced. i'll draw your attention to the reduction of funds available in the project which is around $20 million. and in contrast to the reduction in sales revenue, $24 million that i said before. this is accomplished through careful cash management to mitigate the impacts of lower sales tax revenues. finally, some programming highlights through this update. we've increased funding for several programs and projects. i'll note paratransit operations were -- funding available to provide certainty for the program funding plan. we also advanced funds for two priority projects. the downtown extension to provide funding for the next tranche of development work and the signals project that is relying on tax revenues which has also been impacted by the
pandemic in order to stay on schedule and fully fund construction work. we have worked with the project sponsors to ensure prop k was made available in this five-year period. with that, i will take any questions. >> thank you, mr. reeves. i don't see questions. let's open this item to public comment. >> clerk: there is no public comment. >> chair mandelman: all right. public comment on item 10 is closed. you have it easy today, mr. reeves. thank you for your work. >> thank you. >> please call item 11. >> item 11 is introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> chair mandelman: colleagues, anyone have any new items? not seeing any. madame clerk, please call 12.
>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the
past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of
china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all i'm derek, i'm hyungry, and ready to eat. these vendors offer a variety
of the streets near you. these mobile restaurants are serving up original, creative and unusual combinations. you can grab something simple like a grilled cheese sandwich or something unique like curry. we are here in the average eight -- upper haight. you will be competing in the quick buy food challenge. an appetizer and if you are the winner you will get the title of the quick bite "chompion." i am here with matt cohen,
from off the grid. >> we assembled trucks and put them into a really unique urban settings. >> what inspired you to start off the grid? >> i was helping people lodge mobile food trucks. the work asking for what can we get -- part together? we started our first location and then from there we expanded locations. >> why do think food trucks have grown? >> i have gotten popular because the high cost of starting a brick and mortar or strong, the rise of social media, trucks can be easily located, and food trucks to offer a unique outdoor experience that is not easily replaced by any of their setting any where else in san francisco. san francisco eaters are
interested in cuisine. there adventuress. the fact they use great ingredients and make gourmet food makes unpopular. >> i have been dying to have these. >> i have had that roach coach experience. it is great they're making food they can trust. >> have you decided? >> we are in the thick of the competition? >> my game was thrown off because they pulled out of my
first appetizer choice. >> how we going to crush clear? >> it will be easy. probably everyone has tried, something bacon tell us delicious. >> -- people tell us is delicious. >> hopefully you think the same thing. >> hopefully i am going to win. we're in the financial district. there is a food truck right there. every day changes. it is easy and fun to go down. these are going to be really good. >> how are you going to dominate? >> i think he does not know what he is doing. >> i was thinking of doing [unintelligible] we are underrepresented. >> i was singing of starting an
irish pub. that was my idea. >> one our biggest is the corned beef and cabbage. we are asking people what they're thinking in getting some feedback. >> for a lot of people i am sure this combination looks very wrong. it might not sound right on paper but when you taste it to or have it in your mouth, it is a variety. this is one of the best ways in creating community. people gather around and talk about it and get to know different cultures. that brings people together and i hope more off the grid style and people can mingle and interact and remove all our differences and work on our similarities. this creates opportunity. >> the time has come and i am very hungry. what have you got? >> i got this from on the go, a
sandwich, and a caramel cupcake. i went with home cooking. what de think? >> i will have another bite. >> sounds good. >> that was fantastic. let's start with you. >> i had the fried mac and cheese, and twinkies. i wanted to get something kind of classic with a twist on it. >> it was crispy. >> i will admit. >> want to try fried mac and
cheese? >> was that the best twinkie? >> would you say you had the winning male? >> definitely. >> no. >> you are the "chompion." clair has won. you are the first "chompion." >> they know it was me because i got a free meal. and check a map on -- check them out on facebook. take a peek at the stuff we have cut. to get our -- check out our
i want to introduce one of the great champions of hope sf. we have benefited san francisco of having one of the great advocate mayors in america and she advocates. so with that, i'd like to introduce mayor london breed. well i advocate for all citizens of san francisco as a person with no option spending 20 years of my life living in public housing, living in what i think were some of the most horrible conditions that too many residents live in today. so i will continue no matter what