tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 15, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
1500 units, if you follow redevelopment rules as part of your charter and business at menstruation law, 15% of 1500, 225 people who are economically disadvantaged would have housing opportunity. you failed to include them. you also have a building that is under construction. you make the requirement to be attentive to the building, where have to make at least $39,000 a year. that means that people who are in low income brackets that is not making that $39,000 a year, everybody's income that is below that range is not included in the housing opportunity. you claim to be equal opportunity housing organization. by the same response we have some conflict here with the ami. 2019 it says 39040%. on the other scale is says when you're making 10,000 --
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> that is right, not rice. >> good afternoon, stephen courier. twenty-six resident for amazon a district 11. he sent a little -- letter in support of this and i neglected to send one to you clerk, so if you want for your file. my story is a little different, because it is out of the special use district. i am fully in support of this ordinance. primarily because in our district we do have a lot of people who move in and remodel their houses. for instance next door to me last year, a house sold for $1.4 million and the day after it closed, memorial day, day after memorial day of 2018 the
person who was taking care of my house when i was in paris e-mailed me and told me what was going on. with the bathroom and kitchen permit he gutted the whole house after nine over the counter permits later he was fined $750,000. he reapplied for his building permit and in september of 2018, we sued them, he being represented by an attorney, i represented the neighbor, and we settled out of court. moving nine bedrooms to five bedrooms and six plus bathrooms down to four without paving over the front yard or the backyard, or the side yard and keeping the house in the shape that it is. we cannot have that in our district. it's not feasible, it is not safe. i agree with supervisor safai it doesn't make sense to have 14-16 people live it in the house.
i fully support this. my next goal after this has passed the board of supervisors is to move it districtwide. if this is just a special use, it doesn't value us, but if we can put it through -- >> thank you sir. next speaker, please. >> my name is mark romero, i'm a resident of the 400 block of ralston street. we have a home that the supervisor safai spoke about which was planned to replace bungalow. first it was going to cover the entire plot which planning to, but then it was a. after some negotiation in talking through planning and with the owner, they said they would scale it down and have
included a two car garage, one kitchen. right now they just applied they have for kitchens in that unit. they have three living units and one business unit in there. our block are rowhouses. if they have four bedrooms, that is a big house. most of them are two bedroom, one bath. a lot of them have apartments that nobody is complaining about that, as far as student and affordable housing. we have no enforcement. i am very confused at how planning could approve this and this was in 2015-2016 when they were asking residents to cut back on their water use and to okay on 11 bath home parking that wasn't an issue. now it is an issue. >> this is my opportunity to support this change in the
ordinance. it is not going to help us with those kinds of problems but it is going to help our neighborhood, and the quality of our life and also our property values and also still dealing with affordable housing for students. this is not about in law apartment set all. >> and the other members of the cup -- public for this comment? seeing him. we will close these comments. >> we just had a typo. i forgot where my notes were. it was part of the fa are ratios highlighted actually, hold on one second. if you could let me see your copy for a second. >> i have no highlight. tran28 is right here on page three, on line 18 it should say 1.5-1. that was it.
wasn't highlighted in yellow but it was incorrectly listed. >> 1.15? >> yes. >> we will take that -- >> that is the adu. >> understood. we will take that amendment without objection and we will send the item as amended to the full board with recommendation and we will see how the experiment of bringing ratios to residential development in san francisco works. this is a first. >> that is right. >> madame clerk and you read the next item. >> item number 4, 190689 resolution imposing an interim zoning control for an 18-month period requiring conditional use authorization for a change in use from nighttime entertainment to any other use allowed in the area south of market street bounded by the southwest side of 12th street to the southwest side of 5th street and the south
side of market street to the south side of harrison street; affirming the planning >> supervisor haney. >> this resolution is about protecting and supporting an industry that makes san francisco what it is. an industry that has such a special and essential place in our city's culture. it is what makes our city vibrant. it is known across the world for its art and culture. that is our nightlife industry. san francisco must be a place where we not only can live and work we can also play. we can also be ourselves and we can find others who want to build community with us. 80% of san francisco's nightlife economy is concentrated in the northeastern corner of the city and the south of market the area that will be impacted by this resolution is especially
important. some of our city's most unique, popular, innovative and historic nightlife venues are in south market. venues ranging from a dna lounge, the eagle to the stud. mezzanine and monarch have shaped san francisco's culture for decades. in many ways, it seems to have been made for nightlife. easy access to public transportation, freeway, as an industrial area with larger parcels and business making it -- western selma and particular. have also played an incredible important role for the lgbt community. unfortunately, soma is now grounded zero two losing important community spaces to development. commercial rents keep going up and buildings are sold, and
converted from bars and clubs, cultural centers, mom-and-pop shops, community spaces often and office space. one of the most recent examples of a venue that is in danger of being displaced is mezzanine, place that has had an incredibly important role as medium-sized independent locally owned music venue in the heart of soma. it is vital we protect these nightlife venues and corridors. they also play a significant role in our local economy. entertainment venues provide an important job opportunities for a diverse array of workers. not only do bars and clubs impact the people who own them, they also employee bartenders, promoters, entertainers, and many others. according to a report done by the city controller there were approximately 3500 nightlife
establishments providing 60,000 jobs in bringing in @ over $6 billion in revenue to our city. it hasn't become obvious yet. we need our nightlife venues. our cultural identity and a significant portion of our city's economy depends on it. this resolution provides for a simple but important protection for nightlife venues in soma. these controls will require anyone who wants to change a nightclub or bar, into other uses, to apply for a conditional use authorization. it will require us to look at each situation falls on a case by case basis. he will be able to weigh the impact on the public interest in safety and examine the effects of employment on the area especially the job impact. these interim zoning controls will last for up to 18 months and will allow us the time to look at any proposed displacement of the nightlife establishment. on a case-by-case basis with the
attention and consideration it deserves. it will also give us time to come up with a plan for more targeted and effective policies to protect nightlife more permanently in soma and beyond. i urge my colleagues on this committee to consider this interim control and move it forward to the board with a positive recommendation. >> thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment. if you would like to come forward and testify on this issue. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon honorable supervisors. i have a handout to share with the supervisors if i could. >> my name is todd, i'm actually one of the owners of a security company. i'm also one of the brothers that owns a building at 444 jesse street. i want to tell you about our company. we started it in 1965. we were at 590 howards rate.
in 1978 my parents purchased the building at 444 jesse street. we have been there ever since. we ran our business on the first floor for 20 years, with rubber stamp die company and graphics in the basement of the building. in 1990, our security business went away, and the technology replaced it. we almost wound up bankrupt. 1990-1995, our father worked for free in hopes that his sons and our employees could have enough money to provide for their families. my father in 1995 had double pneumonia and had to retire. dave and i took over the business. he was the cfo and i was ceo. we have been in the basement for many years. in 1999 our father signed a five-year lease to a person who
also who is a tenant who has a subtenant was a.com company called the -- gratitudes.com. for-5 years later became the mezzanine. they honored a 20 year lease, and it expires in october. our hopes in october is to expand our business up to the first floor. right now we have 25 employees, we have some employees that commute four hours a day from oakley, to livermore -- to san jose. >> thank you, sir. we have your written testimony. unfortunately i have to give all of the speakers the same amount of time. that is the law. i apologize. i will finish reading your statement. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is clarity. i own two pieces of commercial
property in new york city, i own residential property in miami, and i am close to the mezzanine family. i am frankly and i'm sympathetic person and a @ in commercial real estate you follow one rule. you want to keep a tenant in your building. the way to do that is to make sure that your giving the city and which are building resides at what it needs now and what it needs in five years. if your current tenant meets the description you let them come to the negotiating table to negotiate an expansion. whoever is advising the current landlords of mezzanine that's reconstructing a building and turning it into office spaces is going to give you maximum rent into infinity either doesn't care if your building is empty in five years or has no idea what they're doing. the last thing so many san francisco needs, ending urban
place needs his office spaces. if you can rent to an office space for five years good luck, in five years you have an empty building and it will be the death of your investment and the death of the city. i would encourage landlords in soma and the landlords of mezzanine to think about your investment long-term. you want to keep mezzanine there , should they pay my rent? of course. should they be allowed to negotiate? absolutely. and what you want to do is to capitalize your building and have an empty big space sitting there five years. be smart, do the right thing, think about your money. >> next speaker, please. >> have been trying to tell you that all along. >> i am a housing case manager.
[inaudible] our roots are in the soma. i started my work with bishop, i'm also a bartender and have been employed at several venues throughout the city during my ten years. one of the places i worked at was empire room which is located at golden gate avenue. the reason empire closed is because the building owners decided that they would have a nightclub there, or that they would rather have condom -- condominiums there instead of nightclubs. i know it is in the giant like twitter who swallowed mezzanine hall. has a place of employment for its staff. it is experiencing, it is not happening. mezzanine's impending closure is happening amidst wealth and prosperity for the few at the expense of an enjoyable quality
of life for the rest of us. san francisco nightlife is dying due to the same forces jacking up rent prices on our neighbors, nonprofits and ourselves. the perceived demand spurred by the influx of tech wealth and the interest to come along with it. [inaudible] i can't count how many bars and nightclubs i frequented throughout my adulthood that have shut due to circumstances similar to empires. with a disposable income that it can't afford $20 put -- plus to -- tip for craft cocktails. [inaudible] it is increasingly difficult to survive -- >> thank you.
i have to give everybody the same amount of time. >> hello. i am the president of the san francisco education commission. i stand before you as a civilian a bar owner, an organizer around nightlife. our most cherished nightlife institutions in our cultural institutions are facing credible pressures right now. challenges they've never faced before. displacement specifically where spaces are sold off to the highest bidder, spoiler alert it is often tech office space. it's rampant and a serious problem for us. focus on in soma is debatably the most important area in san francisco for some of our most cherished nightlife and institutions. one thing if businesses can up and move like mezzanine.
due to some pretty strict zoning laws around entertainment and also the unattainable costs related to moving the space, simply cannot in most cases. nightlife is too important in an economic cultural driver for us to sit back and watch as our institutions are sold off to the highest bidder. i implore you to support today so we can do a better job of researching what can be done. i would just ask the landlord again to negotiate in good faith, and take advice from the people who are encouraging compromise. thank you very much. >> i'm chris sanders, i am the marketing director for mezzanine of today. i want to talk about my other role which is running a record label out of san francisco. many of our artists and event organizers that we work with work in the smaller venues in
this proposed zoning area. many of them are from marginalized communities. they build communities of fans and patrons and friends and eventually those communities turn into big events that do end up happening at mezzanine. these are really important spaces where people explore their creativity and calm rotary it without spaces like this, the city loses its character. many people are going to come up here and talk about what it would mean to lose mezzanine. it's not just about our venue. it's about all of these spaces and all of the issues that they are facing. in is city where our city hall shares civic center with bill graham civic auditorium that is named after a pioneer of music event culture, in a lot of ways. i feel like we need protections
for spaces that support and foster this kind of creativity, and community. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> i have been working for 13 years, i just want to echo the sentiments of support for supervisor haney's legislation to protect a vital resource that makes san francisco so great, as chris was saying as well, these spaces are so much more then just bars or places to party. it is places people come together from all different backgrounds and different walks of life to find people to feel safe to express their art and build their careers. we have seen so much of our creative move away from the
city, it is because they are being priced out it's because of losing these spaces to perform their art. i think it is so important to preserve these spaces that's it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rob casanova, i am the manager of mezzanine but i also run an art collective in the tenderloin it's about a year old. i stand before you as a citizen that moved to san francisco about 11 years ago. i was born in the bay area. i would always escape to san francisco because through and through i am an artist and san francisco always have that. i remember walking through the streets and seeing how beautiful it is. you could feel it. you could feel the energy. right now, it is no secret what is happening.
i could echo it again. mezzanine, and dna lounge, all of these venues help out artists specifically. not only just use it come on talking about, artists, painters i am pretty stubborn and i plan on staying and being a san francisco artist. these small independent venues host art shows that let people know that the art and san francisco is actually still alive. @ artists are getting pushed out to san francisco. they're going to oakland, getting pushed out of oakland. pardon my french but i call bull ship. we are still here, we just need to make sure that there are places like mezzanine, all of these places that help us out, they are there so we can grow and thrive. that's it. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> hello. my name is aaron met her, i am the tell a buyer for mezzanine come as so basically i negotiate and fine artist to come into the venue and perform where it's music, art, or any of the types of events that mezzanine host. i want to put a personal spin. i think everyone here has covered how we all feel about the city and spaces being lost to corporate entities. i moved here from southern california eight years ago to find my voice, because i've always known that san francisco is beautiful and vibrant city, deeply involved in the arts. i knew it would probably be a place where i would fit in and find myself. i definitely did.
not only did that happen, but i found a family. this is is emotional for me because i don't want to lose this family that i have. i have an amazing young assistant who is vibrant, lovely , and she reminds me of me in my early 20s had i have an amazing boss who challenges me, inspires me, and honestly sometimes scares the shit mac out of me, but i love her. the fact that i get to work with such amazing women in foztwo two industry that is dominated by men is also such a pleasure. i'm just hoping that, you know, we can all come to some sort of agreement to keep mezzanine, keep those families alive. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> mr. chair, supervisors. i would like to discuss for a moment, if i could, urban ecology. when i was much younger in 1960s and 1970s, i was quite amazed when local real estate developers decided it would be a good idea to fill in the lagoon and develop seaside houses. fortunately, a number of enlightened minds fought this another disastrous proposals and it was saved. we recognize today, of course, that folly would produce on the consequential destruction of wetlands and house life. let's flash forward 50 years, we face similar issues, but this time it is with the urban ecology. historically, san francisco has been the nesting ground for music and poetry, artists and writers. artistic art lands are now in
danger. a tsunami wave of cash has swept over this town, mostly tech cash. we face major urban ethological changes now. a vibrant movie scene requires infrastructure, music education, music rehearsal space, small and medium-sized music spaces such as mezzanine. just as egress and could not compete with real estate development half-century go. smaller music venues and the rehearsal cannot compete in this tech office space environment. it cannot survive without your legislation, legislative intervention. inc. you for your support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you chair, supervisor haney for proposing this
legislation. my name is deborah jackson and i'm the owner of mezzanine. i'm emotional right now hearing from aaron and his staff. mezzanine is my baby. it has been a staple, in san francisco, music, culture and nightlife industry for 16 years. i came on board a little bit later. i have been there for about 12 years. i started as a general manager and four years ago the owner transferred ownership to me to make me the first female, independently owned, music venue of 1,000 capacity size. i am extremely proud of that. as aaron mentioned, we are a family. i have about 40 members of my staff, that does not include security, the artists that play there, the promoters that do
their events there. there are many people being affected by losing, not just mezzanine but three of of the venues we have already lost and could potentially continue to lose. mezzanine has already supported local artist. when we have lady gaga, or floor to the machine come by, and play our clubs, we always make sure that local djs and bands have the opportunity to open for those artists and have the ability to play somewhere and get the recognition, and get the word out. this is bigger than mezzanine. as i said it hurts the musicians, the promoters, it hurts san francisco's rich history of providing spaces for people to come together and find new experiences. if we do not want the city --
>> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak i'm a private citizen. one of the reasons i moved to the city seven years ago, one of the reasons my wife and i thought it was a good idea to come here was to come up with diversity entertainment, nightlife, and san francisco. it has remained a draw but it seems to be on the decline. the draw to not only staying at work here disappears, but the draw for people to visit the city disappears. more and more people are working from telecommuting, changing these venues i would encourage the legislators to pass this legislation. thank you.
>> i want to add a bit of an outlier perspective to this as an artist on a technologist. i came here to make an impact in the tech industry. i find myself sped up by this kind of machine. i find myself adrift in our city and the thing that was my salvation was the arts and entertainment here. it was venues like the mezzanine, the wonderful staff that allowed and gave me opportunities in the city again. i can guarantee you speaking from both sides of the perspective, of both art and tech that all of us will leave if venues like mezzanine are not allowed to provide entertainment and to our city. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i am michael lee. i moved here about 15 years ago because of the nightlife industry. i walk around downtown on saturday sometimes and it's
pretty much dead. i would like to keep this legislation in place to keep people in downtown throughout the night time. think you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much supervisor haney for this legislation. i moved here 13 years ago not necessarily chasing a career, just chasing the idea that was san francisco, excuse me, very emotional right now. six months after that i got a job at mezzanine. i was able to support myself proudly and to have a lot of fun. most importantly i was exposed to that idea that i have fallen in love with in san francisco. the people, the music, the arts, the community.
the trend that is going now, the spirit of the city is truly passing. if mezzanine closes, most likely i will move which is just something that is personal, because i feel that san francisco is going the route of any city usa. it's not special anymore. it doesn't have heart anymore. i feel with legislation, you're actually saving the spirit of the city. i support it with the bottom of my heart. i support all of the venues, the artist, the promoters who have found their path and are doing amazing things for this community i continue to do so. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there. i am sarah west i'm a talent buyer at mezzanine. nightlife is a valuable part of the nightlife in san francisco. it is the main thing that keeps 20 and 30 somethings here in the city. if we push out this age group
and take away establishments they are forced to go elsewhere for entertainment and we lose to those surrounding cities. we should all be working to keep these establishments of culture open in san francisco. it boosts our economy and the overall livelihood of the city. mezzanine has single-handedly built my career from the ground up. to see a place like that that has helped so many people over the years close, just because of an ending lease agreement and refusal to negotiate another one it is a heartbreaking reality. let's save mezzanine. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> josh armstrong, fifth generation san franciscan. i've been here for many years, my dad telling me about the family dog, and other institutions from the past that have come and gone. more and more corporate promoters are coming into the area and pretty much taking over
a lot of the rights for the independent venues that are no longer becoming independent. all of the names on this list are part of the independent venues. they employ independent artists and employers are also locals. i just want you to support those venues and uphold this legislation. thank you. >> my name is jenna prensky, san francisco resident. i have recently become close with a mezzanine family, and have spent a lot of time there over the past couple of years. i just want to speak for the exemplary nature as mezzanine as a venue. there is a lot of music venues out there that are not necessarily the safest places where people. mezzanine continues to be a safe and secure place for women to take part in local music and things like that.
it is ran by an incredible team of women. i want to make sure that is given it's a voice here. i support this legislation, as well. >> next speaker, please. if there any more speakers, if you would line up behind this gentleman. >> this is a good proposal, and i agree with it. i wish you would've had it during the younger years when i was in fillmore. each and every one of these people that came up here and explained why they want this, to have this type of protection, they are also crying out because it is their source of income in order to support themselves. this proposal, to displace them, is an example of gentrification. gentrification is a word that is used to discriminate against people based on geographical locations. you are doing it to them, and even though their skin color is not black, it is the same type
of treatment that black people had to suffer in the western addition of fillmore. for example, gentrification in washington is taking place, there is an attorney that has the same type of philosophy as me and suing washington, d.c. for the gentrification and displacement of tenants for high-tech people that is displacing lower income bracket people. this is a derivative of this kind of demonstration that i'm putting before you. can't get you on discrimination based on race, but you are violation their due process and equal protection under the law. it is not equal protection under a law by allowing a high-tech company to come in come and stop negotiating the contract on continuing them to survive and support themselves by letting a high-tech company like twitter come in and displace them. you've got numerous small businesses that went out of
business and have been displaced and boarded up. then you turn around i want to find the owner of the apartment building complex because the tenant cannot afford to pay rent there. you're doing the same thing all over again. so, this measure, that man is proposing needs to be in effect and should have been in effect when jennifer took place in the fillmore. >> next speaker, please. any other speakers after this speaker please line up. >> good afternoon, thank you very much. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i'm speaking on behalf, i am nina miller on foztwo two attorney and i represent todd crittenden from whom you've heard earlier and his brother dave, i been a long longtime attorney. i'm representing them and their brother scott who owns a building. we have heard a lot here today about the hardships of a small business. there are two people here who
know that very well. dave and todd have worked very, very hard since the 1960s to keep their small business alive in san francisco. they are really looking to move that to the upper floor, that they lost during the downturn in the 1990s. their hearts, i know, go out to everyone who is working to support a small business. i have submitted a letter on friday, i have never done this before. i want to make sure i get it correctly, i will submit another copy today outlining our concern and i will submit this to the clerk of the board when it's available. the zoning control, one of our concerns is that the zoning control before you today we don't believe that this is properly drafted interim zoning control resolution or that the subject matter of this qualifies
for the interim base. the impact on public health, safety, general welfare, i think it's important to look at those in terms of the business that is trying to move in there is also the issue of the fact that they do have the recorded lease with micro biz to move into the upper floor, and this would presumably prevent that from happening. >> thank you, counselor. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jim vargas. i was born and raised in san francisco. i think we definitely need to find a way to save mezzanine. it's been an incredible place for artists musicians, to continue to do their work.
losing mezzanine is going to mean a lot to the city. it is one of the only major independent venues of that size capacity. it also gives us an opportunity for a lot of the younger acts coming up to the city to perform there. to play with her their idols and get them on bigger bills. we need to save mezzanine for many different reasons, but to keep the spirit of san francisco ally. thank you very much. >> no other members of the public for this item. let me close public comment to make a few comments before handing it over to supervisor 15 has sponsored this measure. i want to start with the fact that i introduced a similar piece of legislation, actually much more narrowly tailored as it related to the punchline which i believe is going to result in the outcome that it was intended to result in. this is a much broader
geographic scope piece of legislation. while much of the testimony has been about one particular venue, this actually covers a wide swath of territory in district six, primarily district six, that is full of available, late-night institutions that are part of the fabric of the city, as many people have testified to. as to the contentions by the property owner, i am advised that this is entirely within the powers of the board of supervisors, somebody who authored a very similar piece of legislation to protect another entertainment venue. i intend to vote for it i want to thank supervisor haney for bringing it forward. . >> supervisor haney: thank you terry peskin. i want to thank every who came out today, and spoke.
i want to think, i should've said this earlier, folks from the entertainment commission, president of the entertainment commission, is here who has been, and has been working with all of us to try to make sure that the support and protect nightlife citywide. i want to thank everybody from mezzanine who came out today. i think what you spoke to demonstrated why it is so important that we do this. why it is so important that we not only protect mezzanine itself, but venues like mezzanine. who have been impacted by this legislation and have reached out and said how excited they are about this. we know that, if we do not do this, the forces that you spoke of will continue to displace venues and change san francisco in ways that will be very hard
to come back from. a venue like mezzanine is not easily replaced. i think we have seen a number of venues over the last few years that we have been unable to replace, they never can find a home in san francisco. this is something that we take our responsibility to do, very seriously. this is within our powers to say it is because when the interest to have certain types of zoning uses, to have a higher level of specificity or discretion when certain types of things are happening. particularly when we have seen an area in like soma where nightlife has been critical and essential and we see those venues disappearing. that is where we have to interview -- intervene for public interest. that is what we're doing doing here. you have my commitment to do whatever i can to support and protect these venues, and also
that we look for longer-term, more public solutions. it will be a temporary solution and we also need long-term solutions. i want to thank everyone that came out. i also want to recognize and think the cretin brothers and the representatives that are here, as well. i hope the conversations will continue. i hope you heard today why we are doing this, and why it is so critical that we protect these venues. with that, i hope we can put this forward, chair, with a positive recommendation to the board. . >> chair peskin: i will take that as a motion area supervisor safai will not object. so we will send this to the board. he wanted to second but we do not second things on three committees, hence my words we
will send this to the full board with recommendations. without objection. next item, please. >> item number 5, 190458 ordinance amending the planning code and the administrative code to abolish the north of market affordable housing fund and have certain fees collected in conjunction with north of market affordable housing deposited in the citywide affordable housing fund; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> good afternoon. amy tam. item number five is an ordinance to amend the planning at administrative codes to allow north of market affordable housing fee is to be deposited in the citywide affordable housing fund instead of the north market housing fund. we are requesting this change because we are currently depositing all impact fees into this fund, including other geographically restricted fees. >> you account for them
separately? >> we will account for them separately. this is an accounting change that the comptroller recommended we change. we are expecting the fees to come. we would not be changing the use of the fees which would be for stabilizing and preserving affordable housing @ in the specialties district. >> you said everything this supervisor would like to hear. anything you would like to add? >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i just also want to share that the planning commission heard this item on june 13, during the hearing the commission did recommend approval of the ordinance with a modification to index the fee to reflect today's economy. the proposed fee increase is to change the fee from $5 per square foot up to $25.41 per
square foot. i wanted to reiterate that this cleanup is to make the collection of the north market fees consistent with the collection of other affordable housing fees. amy and i are available to answer any further questions. this concludes our presentation. >> any public comment on this item? >> s. >> okay. >> first of all, any transfer of any fees to the mayor's office on housing, i object to. her testimony verifies how she is only in support of high income bracket housing, okay. she refuses to include low income and very low income bracket people. the majority of the people.
you have 8,011 homeless people out in the street. each and every time that you come up here, before the mic on the board coming you claim that it is 100% affordable housing. each and every time, it's time to put in an application, the lowest income requirement is higher than the income bracket hey you campaign and claim that you want to help. for example, this demonstration that i put before you and it's right across the street from saint anthony's church. it says affordable housing, making it affordable for at least $39,000 per year. the ami scale here shows anybody that is making $39,000 a year, is 35% of the medium. that means everybody's income that is below that bracket, which is a group that is not only homeless, has disabilities in san francisco, is 28,200
people that is in this income bracket that is not included in the so-called affordable housing opportunity. it is disgusting. hundred% nonprofit developer who is putting together 87 unit apartment building complex for a mere $64,000 -- $54 million. 144 unit apartment building, look at me, please is 144 unit $456 million. here's another three-story building -- that is cheaper than what newsom. >> thank you, mr. wright. your time is up. you have made your point. thank you, sir. seeing no other members of the public on this item. if there is no objection we will
send it to the full board with positive recommendation. next item please. >> item number 6, 190459 ordinance amending the planning code to allow operation of a farmers market on the department of motor vehicles field office parking lot at 1377 fell street by allowing an intermittent activity to be located on a lot with a public facility in specified residential zoning districts; affirming the appropriate findings. >> mr. *-asterisk are you here for this item? the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, thank you chair travertine. the item before he was heard in front of the planning commission on june 20. during the hearing, they unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance exciting opportunity to enlarge the farmers market. there is also discussion acknowledging that there would be opportunity to allow the farmers market at the public facilities throughout the entire city. this concludes staff presentation on i'm available to answer questions.
>> it is a simple and straightforward change. any questions from committee members are public comment on this item? @ public comment is closed. we will send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. next item, please. >> item number 7, 190598 ordinance amending the public works code to modify the requirements for obtaining personal wireless service facility site permits; and affirming the appropriate findings. >> good afternoon. my name is deborah i'm here on behalf of public works to give you a presentation related to personal wireless facilities. to expedite -- [inaudible] the purpose of the code amendments relates to current, state and federal laws to give them the rights to -- [inaudible] read foz -- permits much be
issued and allow the city to establish objective design standards. the permitting process takes 90-180 days and does not include objective design criteria. more specificity on the ruling is shown in this light, as you can see the order establishes a 60 day shot clock for existing facilities and a 60 day shot clock for facilities. the purpose of the amendment first and foremost are to comply with the fcc order. over the last number of months the city departments including the department of technology, planning, public works have been meeting to develop effective and compliant approach to incorporate the fcc order into current processes. the proposed article 25 amendments includes amplification. maintain master license
agreements for carriers and communicate the process alike. this slide shows a side-by-side comparison of timeline. the current process takes 90-180 days. the revised process will take 45-60 days and reduces the process of referrals to other agencies. i will walk through in detail the current and proposed captured in our 25 amendments. this is the current wireless process.
as i mentioned this process does take 90-180 days. this slide is the proposed changes that will impact the process. article 25 amendments to modify the existing permitting process only to include permit. they would similarly review authorizations for wireless abilities on the individual city poles. the permitting process would remain public works to ensure objective design standards and how standards are met.
the amended process, the carriers would require clearance prior to their application before working with public works. still refer the application for review. the amended process approved during the protest period. the appeal process would remain unchanged. it would ensure compliance with fcc order. this slide you can see the proposed process for puc. this process which was developed in coordination would comply with the new fcc order as well. [inaudible] a little bit of the objective design criteria.
as i mentioned the proposed ordinance amendments are supported and are available for question. >> thank you. let me just say, for the record, that the industry owns the united states congress. now that i have gotten that off of my chest. are there any questions from committee members? i think you have done the best with what you have got.
thank you for your work, and thank you deputy city attorney sanders for this and thank you for the briefing you gave me in my office area. >> i believe sanders had given you some proposed -- >> i was just going to speak to those right here. clerical amendments on the following pages. deputy city attorney gartner they are on -- non- substantial clerical amendments. he is nodding his head in the affirmative. we do not need to discuss section numbers 15, 22. i just did it. with that, are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 7? >> that is mr. wright. unlike you, i'm not scared of going up against a multibillion-dollar establishment.
it was just a radioactive material that is being discharged by these towers that is built by schools. as a result, families, instructors, contract with the preschoolers located right by the tower, because of the radioactive generation that affects the kids, and no scientific studies being done. it is causing the schools to shut down. and thinking about shutting down. you have no test results to measure the amount of radioactive material that is coming from these towers. about you being affiliated with pg&e, that is the worst he could do is be affiliated with them. the fires that they cause with several counties, caught on fire, about 1 million properties have been lost, and lives lost with defective equipment and it has just been determined that their equipment was notified, several years ago, that it was defective and it was just a matter of time before a fire would take place at a catastrophe level.
they still didn't do anything about it. i further object to the governor providing $21 billion to pg&e to help them how their lawsuit area that is a conflict of interest. you're not supposed to be paying off pg&e's lawsuit. just like me, pg&e has several different types of insurance, they should not be paid off with taxpayers money from their friends and paid off by gavin newsom because he is friends with pg&e. until there is a scientific study done on the amount of radioactive waste that is coming from them towers, and correlating with the health of human beings, particularly kids. i do not want this to move until that is complete. is that clear? >> thank you, mr. wright. i apologize for mispronouncing your name. you are hurting my feelings, because