Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Replay Special Rules Committee 71816 20160719

All right. Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the to the special rules committee of monday, july 18, 2016, im kairng the chair our vice chair it scombhaifr and to my left is supervisor cowen and clerk eric and sfgovtv thank you jim smith and jesse larson proceedings. And when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. Unless board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Call item one one pursuant to the file passes by the board of supervisors this item has been called from committee. We dont need Public Comment next item 2. Item 2 the chird Charter Amendment to require the office of Economic Workforce Development and the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to propose 5 year strategic plans for approval by the board of supervisors an election to be held on november 8, 2016. Supervisor cowen is not able to make it here today and so we have intended to have this duplicated version travel to the full board of supervisors along with the original versions that was called from committee so at this time im not going to be making an amendment to item 2 so unless supervisor cowen has convicting open up for Public Comment so anyone wants to come forward seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And now if we can get a motion as a Committee Report for the july 19th Board Meeting supervisor well take that without objection. Item 3. A motion ord submitted to voter for the conditional use authorization for conversion of division and repair Institutional Community use and use of respective of space under the California Environmental quality act and an election on november 8, 2016. Thank you. I think i see april from supervisor kims offi office. Good afternoon supervisor tang and supervisor cowen april from supervisor kims office this measure is the conditional use and replacement requirement for pdr, arts institutional Institutional Community use thank you to be here at the rules committee we were asked to consider two items ill present and it was in response to request from many projects in the current planning pipeline and also to that think Small Projects and exempting Small Projects so we have some amendments to that effect as well as some clean up amendments or not clean up amendments but 09 amendments i think were important to some of the stakeholders in reviewing the legislation again and i wanted to just go through those line by line last year lets see here the first one being that on im sorry one of the amendments that we have proposed to have interchallenge ability of the respective continue pdr and Institutional Community and art use but after speaking with stakeholders i think there was a desire to insure the replacement space would be replacement for the loss of the prior use that was pdr for pdr Institutional Community use for Institutional Community use activities. The other amendment actually on page 5 he let me start from the top im sorry starting from page 5 the following controls shall apply in the eastern neighborhoods plan michigan, eastern soma and western selma and as suggested by the City Attorney if adopted accident central soma that was the intent i think that is important to say if adopted central soma as well as there was a clarification or provision to insure that the most prior nontemporary use in the space would be required to replace pdr and Institutional Community use there was a concern that there was temporary uses in a space that was would be considered a new use after speaking with the City Attorneys office it is okay to clarify that the prior use was if a prior use of pdr Institutional Community or arts activity use that was a nontemporary use the concern of temporary activists for a pop up bagel store or Something Like that that was of concern to the community members. United states pop ups would not be required to be respected. Exactly. Lets see so the issue that i was bringing up is listed on my page 7 line one replacement space maybe space for pdr and Institutional Community or arts activity use that would be redacted the replacement would be one for one the loss of prior use the ass as far as the grairlth what we came up with with the grandfathering well move to grandfather projects of the environmental application of june 14th but there is about 10 to 20 list in the pipeline theyre contemplating a pdr replacement in theyre concentrated site but it was important to capture some pdr replacement even in the pipeline replacement the replacement is 40 percent for projects in the pipeline but had not received theyre planning approval by june 14, 2016, so youll be capturing some replacement and lets see here there was a specific case that was raised about a project that had received Affordable Housing credits with the affordable units on south bay marina and want to exempt that particular project. So i think. Im sorry explain why we want to exempt that project. There was a case of investor that provided a commitment to insure there was the 200 i believe thirty unit anothers south bay marina an expiring new Development Use they came before the board and they basically provided that benefit to these south bay marina apartments with the expectation that thatll theyre concentrated future Affordable Housing credit for a future site would be credited towards saving those two hundred. I remember this now sorry. And i believe those captured the majority of the amendments oh, we did consider an amend to the smaller site but after speaking with the stakeholders they were more concerned about not necessarily the future small sites more about a particular project that was and the impact the grandfathering date so while we considered an exemption for smaller promotions i think that moving forward as long as the roles are clear moving forward the smaller project exemption was not as much as a concern. Okay. Any other amendments or are these the only ones. Ill wait to speak until youre done with the amendments. I think those are most of amendments. So what i have here is interchange ability it will was for the replacements of that use or the same use a clarification that the prior eye if it was temporary for example, that it wouldnt need to be subject to the new requirement grandfathering there is a clause about environmental applications being accepted prior to june 14, 2016, but there will be a 40 percent requirement for pdr space for those projects in the pipeline if they didnt get the approval by june 14th and specifically the south bay project and a small beach exemption not at all; is that correct. And looking at the legislation i think for what we start to go into the replacement requirements so call the roll. The legislation in the areas of july 1st, 2015, the replacement space shall include one square feet of institutional use activities well delete m because of showcase square and castro street and that was the request also from supervisor cohens office. In the areas of july 1st, 2016, are devoted umu and u m u 0 the respect shall be 7. 5 pdrs were till redacting m u g and r for the. 7 requirement that is office and retail and dropping down and adding a section to have the replacement at the want 5 Research Want 75. Okay. Can you repeat one more time the areas youve removed from the requirement. In areas that are removed are m u g and m u r. Okay. If deputy City Attorney mirena burns. If i can clarify one of the amendments that was discussed regarding the temporary uses i believe the intent not if there is a temporary use not to replace that but rather than lets say a site with pdr use it is vacate for a year and a temporary imply pop up the idea then the next permit uses proposed will still have to replace the pdr use if it intends to demolish the building so the temporary use in between wouldnt wipe the slate clean that is the intent as i understand it. Thank you for your clarification. Okay all right. Supervisor cowen thank you very much good afternoon, everyone so last time we heard in committee you heard from me i had several concerns i want to thank the folks for speaking take into consideration i want to talk about the amendments proposed sforp the removal of the m category im in support of as i said, i didnt see a reason m would be included and now weve scaled back the scope of the measure any reference in zoning a requirement so thank you for that and changing dates from july 1st to july 14th im supportive of that as well i think that makes sense to have one be consistent date not that really the changes in this area or properties at that measure impacts so the change is acceptable to me now as a relates to the m u r and others districts a president 5 square feet replacement obligation instead of a one to i support and the change it acceptable we have this lower obligations overall and the removal of the option for the pdrs or constitution of Community Use to insure it didnt compete if pdr have removed you must replace that with pdr and vice versa i support that the change make sense what we have said is that we dont want to fit one of these desiring uses over another and this change will help to make sure that the pdr space is not taken over by Institutional Uses and also vice versa the grandfathering provision i think that is better but i dont think that it goes far enough i think that the grandfathering provision from the final planning approval to the environmental obligation is a step in the right direction and however i do have concerns about the president 4 replacement arrangement weve got projects in the pipeline nearing the Planning Commission approval or weve received theyre concentrated approvals im saucer aware of the feasible this is a question i can pose to you have you guys talked about the obligation with any of the folks. I forwarded to them but none has addressed the feasibility of the. 40 option. How did you arrive. As a policy we are isnt it true those new replacement requirements and trying to insure balance moderating moving forward with the different terse based on the only. 75 and. 5 the idea that while there is currently a pipeline of projects that we didnt want to exempt too far too many of them without requiring a replacement with the discount of. 20 in the project sponsor is committed to pdr thats one of the concerns for the stakeholders and you know the potential replacement requirement would be. 2 so that would be. 4 must. 25. So do you think this makes sense for all of the projects impacted. I know there was projects that have already envisioned a replacement of pdr i think it would take to looking at each project individually to understand you know what potential impact there say, i think because Central Waterfront and potrero are not included there is probably a list i think about 8 there are other projects that are in the central soma plan the conversation with the central soma will be ongoing so i would like to take a closer look at the pipeline to get kind of the finegrain and find all the different projects. Again on appeal you guys think twice about bringing up this to the ballot and really handle this to be able to reach out to all the parties involved particularly those the parties are impacted you know colleagues a week passed between our last hearing and the proposal and i highly doubt that was provided enough time for the Planning Department or the project sponsor to begin to redesign to determine if they meet the requirement and in pcos on this requirement at this point is it so arey im supportive of the change to the provision to apply to the environmental application dates but i dont think weve done our Due Diligence to decide that. 4 is the right requirement thats part of my overall frustration with this measure youve heard me articulate that last week, i feel if so not adequate time for people to review it there is little or no conversation of those that are impacted by it i know this is not the way to make the planning policies inside of San Francisco is feels incredibly undemocratic and unfair and executive im disappointed the small project exemption is that Going Forward i cant tell you introduced that. I dont have any further remarks. Supervisor cowen. Supervisor mar. Thank you to you and move the amendments proposed and say im really pleased youve looked at the concerns raised at the last meeting a couple of days ago any understanding with sfmade communications that addresses the concerns that others have made but for this issue im supportive of the south of market leadership and the Mission District advocates as well as i think this is an important piece of legislation that should move forward so im supportive and appreciative of the efforts to address the concerns that were raised. Thank you supervisor eric mar and thank you for bringing forward this amendment that will make this measure slightly better i concur with commissioner cohen on the grandfather provision so still requiring the 40 percent replacement for those projects in the pipeline i think that again another instance the city changes the rules midway through the permitting or fee process and in terms of the small sites or smaller projects exemption thats something that has i react to that we should have one in there but without the analysis to the new areas that sorry i guess the reduced amount of areas it is covering i dont know what that means i dont know. I, ask the Planning Department staff to come up later wanted clarity around the smaller projects and if it is necessary at this point and thirdly, flipping through this i want to calling your attention the 100 percent Affordable Housing 100 percent may be added as a permitted use if the replacement space includes one square feet of pdrs institutional communities or arts activity for each square feet for conversion so in my mind as im reading not an exemption for 100 percent Affordable Housing it is saying i must provide this space replacement space and i have a problem with that especially given the work at the board trying to promote 100 percent Affordable Housing through the Affordable Housing Bonus Program im really concerned there maybe projects impacted and not move forward given provision i dont know if supervisor kim is open to changing that there is a full exemption for 100 percent Affordable Housing. Im just to address definitely will raise that with her in terms of the 100 percent Affordable Housing requirement exemption i apologize but i totally understand you passed the 100 percent Affordable Housing Bonus Program and it would be this provision would be a requirement only on the specific district of pdr and s e g not a replacement requirement for all 100 percent Affordable Housing projects. Sure i think i want to give the flexibility when issues may arise or projects happen in on the flexibility to figure out what we may want to include in the wvld projects thats my only concern i do so Sophie Hayward i dont know if you want to speak to that. Hello. And deputy City Attorney. The response of that and our supervisor cowens comments regarding pursuing this protectively rather than the ballot you know as we put this forgot one of the things that was important in issuing the finding that relate to both not just the loss of pdr but the nonprofit and art space one of the solutions that has consisting come up in the Northern California grant makers report on the status of nonprofit one of the solutions theyve identified in zoning tool to be able to preserve and retain the existing nonprofit uses in the city and so this is really coming from from best practices and ideas for solutions and so i think that we want to continue to push forward this initiative at the ballot to say either the requirements for those types of use but providing this board and the next board with the flexibility to address issues as they arise on a comprehensive basis so i think that the amendments that you all have put forward that would allow the board to amend this legislation if it adheres with the scope of the this legislation is where i feel we have been able to try to find that flexibility moving forward. I do appreciate that amendment it is critical. Deputy City Attorney. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. For clarity for the committee our office hat has not signed off on the 100 percent proposal that the committee is discussing today were fourthly u figuring out what did board could do to the ordinance that within the scope and factoring the to thirty day rule the proposal your discussing would effectively allow the residential uses in districts not currently allowed that is beyond the scope of concept of the measure introduced we could, of course, worked with the very important or any of the supervisors after this meeting to see what is possible if the committee is interested in discussing further but for today, the committee could not adopt amendments with 100 percent affordable. Can i bring up Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office im curious to whether mohcd will consider those areas for promotions in the future. Sure tuff Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development as i read this i could be wrong the conditional use requirement i think applies to all projects within the mission and eastern neighborhood and western soma on the opening paragraph based on that well ask for exemptions more Affordable Housing projects because of the fact that the density bonus passed were hopeful well not have a automatic fee based on the presence of the pdr use i would say currently the ground zero of wvld affordable buildings include the uses like itself units, Tenant Services manager offices the lobby and, of course, the Community Room that is a requirement for our state financing be included so we if we have to move those to europe floors that is the at cost to the units we want to see the exemption for the projects if this measure would apply to all of those areas within the central soma yes projects we are compensating in those areas. Any in the pipeline right now. Well sure the shot well site within the mission area for example, and sites on fulsome street and other examples. But i maybe misunderstanding the application. Can we get clarity from the City Attorneys office on this. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns. Youd like clarity about the application with the promotion amendment. Around the existing provision regarding 100 percent Affordable Housing so the john gibner, deputy City Attorney. Made a comment about where the 100 percent informational will not be allowed in certain types of zoning but if we are reading this correctly i read it the someway as ms. Hayward this applies to the western soma and the central soma it will impact 100 percent project that are in the pipeline. My understanding and this is based on conversations with april ill defer to clarify if im misunderstanding what shes proposing the draft in front of didnt capture the continued as i audiotape it i think that we might need to take a step back the intent i understood and april clarify this is that the proposal would be to allow Affordable Housing projects 100 percent Affordable Housing within the s a i l sally at the deduct theyre not allowed in the district whether or not theyre concentrated affordable or not zoned residential so for the provision that allows Affordable Housing projects in the zones if theyre concentrated projects were doing a pdr Institutional Community and artists replacement if it is a project that because of the conversion theyre doing has to replace the use as an allowed use for the project theyll be allowed to put in one hundred Affordable Housing development as part of that project to replace the pdr uses. I understand that is not acquit the language in front of i understand the amendment that is the intent of the language as mr. Gibner said earlier were working on whether there is something the board can do within the scope of the ordinance as introduced because of a ballot measure we have restrictions on the noticing and requirements allowing housing in a Zoning District where this is currently not allowed maybe beyond the scope of this committee. So that helper. Only the sally 3 g. Were trying to sort this out the cu will be applicable to the eastern soma and western soma and thats what were seeking clarification that will impact the proposal well move another a minimum 4 units at the ground floor if we were to move all the communities spaces and Tenant Services to the second story up to 12 unions in additionubject to a conditional use were not subject now. Can i ask you work with the City Attorney thank you. So again, i do more comments i want to recognize some of the speakers so for Public Comment first and then continue our discussion i have mohammed calling names and anyone else that is here for item 3 please come on up. Good afternoon mohammed for the partner supervisor tang and Councilmember Cole and supervisor mar thank you for having me. I was here last time a remembered 1 plus units open fulsome the corner of 23rd and fulsome one thousand square feet of art gallery and another 3 thousand square feet of art so for a total of 4 thousand art space were thankful and appreciative of the conversations over the loose few bases days but need to be clear with the grandfathering progressions youve project will not be able to go forward we ask that we have the grandfather provisions limited to projects with the environmental application submitted by june 14th we submitted our application october 2014 and so thats almost two years ago our Planning Commission hearing is on the 4 ugly four we have come applied completely with the eastern neighborhoods not asking for anything from the zoning change stand point so everything is as much as it can be imply the book to say a unexpected hit city last minute we want to push if the legislation is going to go forward we focus on the grandfathering before june 14, 2016, for the environmental evaluation thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon madam chair and supervisors im adrian field represent with the carpenters local 22 and i think that supervisor cowen said it best this really is not fair weve spent a lot of time and effort getting candidates from developers with the Carpenters Union local 22 and have a lot of work we have committed to do future work this is going to put people to work and apprentices and apprenticeships and help carpenters stay living in San Francisco and have to redo the rules in the middle of the road is just not acceptable so, please if you can wed ask you exempt the projects grandfather the projects and dont change the rules thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors from reuben, junius rose first thank supervisor cowen for her comments were in agreement primarily to ask you to add a provision to the matter for the replacement projects project a conditional use pursuant to the planning code as part of eastern neighborhoods a number of historic surveys were to identify the Historic Buildings presently Historic Buildings in certain district maybe converted not for the recreation this b and c in support of viability of preserving the buildings that are in Historic District excuse me preserving the buildings of historic pornls with the umu district and this recognizes the cost of rejection of the Historic Building is a higher cost and the ballot measure will contradict the section 803 point do 9 therefore well urge the committee to consider the exemption and i drafted potential language. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And if any other members are here to speak a card for ace on the case. Good afternoon supervisors im throwing with Access Development group and want to echo a couple of things and make a comment we started on the project nearly 2 years ago and purposed the property last argue it was a considerable sum and really impactful and devastating is a strong word but has a strongly impact and potentially compromises the feasibility of our project if those proposed new protections coming up two years a after weve started our project it is unfair and very detrimental to the project and secondarily one of the things we want to point out is that the challenge or problem with an ordinance like this it really is a onesizefitsall approach that didnt fit youll dynamics our project is next to a childrens park an historical pdr slash industrial use on the property but really not appropriate for the current uses around it is the entire block is residential and there than a childrens park on the corner in addition a elementary across the street so it is really not suitable for industrial use this ordinance will require bringing back sort of an industrial pdr type of use for a site not appropriate thank you. Next speaker, please. Ace washington everything says who they are their the czar of out emission and the corridor ambassador and social media the king in the media here at city hall i but im here to say ive been here over 25 years thats along the supervisors combined and the clerk thats a good idea that eye is not jaw by and large not talking about grandfather issues we have a lot of grandfathering in the western soma we put that there no accountability im here trying to find out now the special hearings that supervisor cohens who are the supervisors we have servicing are you progressives or moderates or you guys who are i want to know when i found out the interviews a lot of supervisors were elected and Say Something else im a prime example im an africanamerican black ill not name names two supervisors in office right now and i none are accountable to our community about any issues youre talking about youre talking about listen i have a solution to the pollution this called community remorseful and start introducing everyday everywhere i go and by way of i helped to create this ass ask ace washington to go to the board of supervisors and give to michael free man and put the paperwork and thats why you have the w channel i know how to work this system you going to see me on youll selfcommunity talking about my community remorseful we need that my name is ace and im on the case but ill be inspector duffy Fourth Street who are you all. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Kate director of sfmade thank you for the last comments at the last meeting theyre concentrated essential i take the point i think this is far better as a protective process ann and an initiative the case in the back and forth on this for riders and. 3 or whatever Affordable Housing in the pdr zone i think this goes to show not enough computed from folks that have actual real data is taking a look at as we craft this policy with that said to comment on ways have i want to thank supervisor kims office that reached out to me at the last Committee Meeting unfortunately, one meeting is not enough and this is not in our opinion deliver the results we hope for a couple of specific comments 3 is problematic to introduce Affordable Housing through the pdr zones and not in support that have were in support actually supervisor tang in allowed housing for considering the allowance for pdr replacement more Affordable Housing the second is i want to ask that we look twice at the how were wording the like use replaces like use pdr is not a like use arts for example, is a allowed use within pdr i think you want to look at nonprofit office use that is a building term and scoping term and pdr use which includes arts we dont have a problem with arts and other pdrs replying one another we want to make sure that nonprofit and pdr uses including those dont compete with each other and last but not least nothing in our service for that shows that. 4 for grandfathering mapsz were in support of keeping it clean grandfather with you have and move forward with the new policy thank you. Thank you, thank you very much. Anyone wish to comment on item number 3 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. If we can go back to the question regarding the fee requirements regarding when we had first Affordable Housing whoever has the answer. Theyre concentrated encouraging not an exemption for 100 percent Affordable Housing there was a we originally are the Affordable Housing in the pdr and c3 g and so in speaking with Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing i think we wanted to talk about more about an exemption more Affordable Housing i heard as an exemption not just only in the exemption to the replacement requirements but to the conditional use requirements this legislation currently contemplates that that projects that would have a pdr loss will have to go before the commission to get approvals so i need to get back to the supervisors for consideration. Im glad well continue to discussing that that is credibly important to me did the planning needed to weigh in on the fee requirement i guess josh from planning. Good afternoon, supervisors that was more a clarification of the intent of the ordinance which we remember discussing a couple minutes ago the measure was written the conditional use will be triggered by displacement are conversion regards what the plan area will include the residential dissected but the respective requirement will be on additional layer in the district so a clarification where the continued to capture all the districts with the conditional use. For example, if lets say josh sorry stay up here for example, were we in district 4 and have mcd thats not being covered. Were talking about the area plan in the mission or in the neighborhood commercial on valencia street or Mission Street the fee will urban design triggered but the clarification is thats the intent for the measure. And so mr. Among will you bring that back to supervisor kim. Okay supervisor mar. Yeah. I had a quick question i had to say im in favor of the exempting the fee requirement and ask josh and others i think in the legislation is cites 2005 a 10yearold study on the impacts of pdr on our eastern neighborhoods and i know that mr. Al berry link and any more improvements on the areas on housing and the impacts of pdr as well. Josh with Planning Department staff the most Current Study conducted has been the eastern neighborhoods monitoring report which a draft that was published last week and the most up to date matter not covering the entire city but the eastern neighborhoods but provides the most up to date information so not in the southeast. I know when you met with nick from my office has that report been shared with all the offices. I can make sure it is. Thank you. Thank you. So i will say im okay. Where accept some of the amendments and i think there definitely needs to be more discussion to be followed up on even some of the meantime amendments im of the mindset i expressed that i feel this is really not the way to be addressing this and in fact, could do something quicker if we introduced an ordinance at the board of supervisors very soon so and to address particular neighborhoods in the mission there are impacts i know that supervisor mar youre interested about so all of that said to if this makes to the ballot there are certain things we need to change from day for example, ill prepared to accept the amendment to make the clarification that if there was pdr use but vacate and taken offer by another temporary use that didnt wipe the following developer or project sponsor from the replacement requirement on that the grandfathering im okay with hud well accept the environmental application prior to june 14th will be exempted and not see the 40 percent requirement im okay with the 80 south beach requirement they understand that issue before the board and the issue the various areas the leading the m u use because of the nonneed because of shaurdz and potrero hill were removed the change for the. 75 to the 5 and removing the m u g and martin luthern king jr. s u u those are the ones im comfortable with the change ability with the art pdrs use i think id like to see some fine tuning in Public Comment to make sure that again, were not putting the various groups wire trying to help against each other with different uses i want to see more work on that. Supervisor cowen. Thank you foreclosing remarks i want to acknowledge supervisor kims for thats a good question my concerns take into consideration of the legislation i had most severely strongest problems with i that that based on the discussion today that all of those issues are something we can solve legislatively through the intrrmdz or ordinance i will hope youll seriously consider this i think that speaks to wisdom and leadership when to take something in the ballot and not a decade to establish the eastern neighborhood plan and a inspirey committee that has been curriculum vented really im calling foul and highlighting that the focus is not working and circumvented for whatever reason the connotation and public i find that note acceptable particularly representing parts of community that have been historically locked out of the process and feel that the processed that the legislation is brought has that same theme of people outside of community making the decision for you will have an impact but not including with the conversation i think that is mean spirited and hurtful the pdr and land use regulations in the eastern neighborhoods are incredibly implicated and not changed this quickly without a robust analysis and very Strong Community process i think that this is the wrong way to be making change we dont make others planning changes that way and didnt pass the density bonus and condominium conversion we didnt pass shortterm rental legislation this way this is really not ready and the sponsorship please i beg try the legislative route before the ballot i just will finalize my comments on just the acknowledgement none tried the legislative process that was jumping the gun bringing it to the voters thank you. Thank you supervisor cowen i forgot to mention a couple of things maybe before the next rules committee i want to see more analysis on the small sites for projects whether on exemption for the proposed unit size or Square Footage and dont know what that means and impacted but something that i would like to address if necessary if not great well not need it here, and, secondly, there was the issue that was raised during Public Comment about certain areas recognizing the Historic Buildings im wrornd in supervisor kims office could look at that and honor in terms of the 803 section 9 that was raised earlier those are the two things i want to add to my comments earlier so at this time then i dont know how my colleagues feel about the various amendments i know supervisor mar youre ready to take all of them im okay with a few but supervisor cowen im not sure you, you feel. Im prepared to take some of them. Well start with the ones in agreement. In terms of the why not start with the clarification that the prior use with pdr but maybe a temporary space came in and it was a different use not within the scope the slate clean the next project sponsor will be held to the replacement okay shall we motion for that to accept that. Without objection and the other one regarding the south bay marina do we have a motion well take that without objection. The removal of the m use from what was originally the requirements under the sally pg r and loechl the m well take a motion well take that without objection. And the requirement going from. 75 removing the m u r a motion to people that. Well take that without objection. Now going into the interchange ability for the Institutional Community recuse for a like for like replacement do is where he have a motion again, ive asked supervisor kims to work with me on the lunge. Ill second that. As i stated the motion. So it wouldnt be a motion to accept it i dont know supervisor mar you want to accept it or encourage the future evaluation great well not take that amendment grandfathering provision so again as i satdz im okay for this prior to june 2016 without the 40 percent requirement replacement requirement. So moved. Are you okay with that supervisor mar or a roll call. inaudible as a proposed ill allow inaudible . Okay. Great if we can have a motion to that effect well take that without objection. Thank you supervisor mar thats adapted and again further look at small sites and Small Projects and further look at small buildings and the entering change ability of the uses and again, just want to encourage supervisor kim to try to address that through the legislative process deputy City Attorney. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns. I wanted to clarify there was two other additional amendment one was several amendments for the findings to add findings regarding the Community Uses and the arts activity use that was one safety net amendments dont believe weve discussed and et seq. Can you please read the changes. Certainly so the draft version i have of them added 9 additional amendments if you like ill read into the record and okay that would be great. The first one a new findings a San Francisco is a unique city and made up of diversity and businesses b as outlined in the general plan it density creates a experience and encounters on every street and you can reach places by foot an urban protection San Francisco is the center and crotch efforts for the quality of life has been done and retailing the tourism and education its rich one and 50 year history gives the diversities to the neighborhoods the residents strive to maintain the welcoming of the people around the world to have a promise of a healthy be city c in the recent years it is threatened by the way, of the high cost of real estate and d the real estate remedy be rates have pushed do office rates one owe 22 percent where they were 10 years and the Real Estate Market is the toughest in the nation and f the businesses important to the city and finds themselves unable to compete in the market nonprofits and spaces for people to work in jobs that didnt require Higher Education find themselves out of the market and g by the say entitled status of nonprofit and space in march of 2016 two out of every nonprofits have to make a decision to move within the next 5 years and h many nonprofit will have to as part of theyre concentrated mission created by the high real estate relocating and i did report identifies the pressure can be addressed at the local government level by using the zoning suitable to turn to public space and Affordable Housing developments and then what of the prior understanding a was amended and proposed for amendment to a new findings j overseeing pressures although stuart have felt in the south of market because of this the eastern neighborhoods planning process began in 20051 and the finding are as overflow room property explicit for the 3 lettering. I dont think we saw that versions that was helpful anything else we missed. Yes. The inclusion of the south of market proposed plan area that is an amendment to the very first sentence to 2 point a the following controls shall apply not eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted Central Eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted centra eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted Central Eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central i eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central n eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central soma. Supervisor mar. Id like to move we accept that evaluation of the central soma language and accept those finding as amended. All right. Im okay. Are accepting those Additional Findings at this time you dont why not do that first a motion without objection and the central soma language i mean obviously i dont want this ballot measure but at this time ill do what the sponsor wishes and do that without objection . laughter . No. Okay. Lets do roll call. On the last motion supervisor mar supervisor cowen no supervisor tang we have 2 is with supervisor cowen in december sent. This amendment is adopted anything else thats it okay. So again, i just want to reiterate how much i think that is important to involve all sets of pdr community not just a couple of people from there this is really important we do all support the chair goal it is brought forth by supervisor kim but clearly a lot of folks have been left out of the conversation we want to see a more conclusive process with that, is there any other comments or questions from supervisor kims office we will then make a motion to continue this item to the special rules committee this upcoming thursday a motion. So moved. All right. As amended without objection and mr. Clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body . No more items good afterno to the San Francisco boardf supervisors land use and transportation committee. Im scott wiener the vice chair of the committee joined by supervisor aaron peskin, chair, malia cohen is in the rules committee for a different item and will lee here shortly and well take the chair when she gets here but well start the meeting now. Mr. Clerk, any announcements . Silence cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards and copies of document to be included should be submit today the clerk. Items will appear on july 26, 2016 agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you and i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting todays here. Item 1, ordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in San Francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating city Affordable Housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planing code, item 1, ordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in San Francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating city Affordable Housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planing code, section 101. 1. Thank you. This item that i introduced had a long and winding path. The original legislation was to codify a practice that had frequently but not always applied around Affordable Housing and that is provide a preference for Affordable Housing lottery for people who live our work in San Francisco. We work very hard and invest scarce resources to create Affordable Housing in San Francisco and we want to make sure our own people, our own residents who live and work here have the First Priority in accessing that Affordable Housing. The Mayors Office of howing had usually but not always applied the preference it was long pastitude dew to codify this preference and make sure own people had the priority accessing Affordable Housing. In the middle of the legislative process we decide to add an aadditional preference for people who have burned out of their units in terms of accessing Affordable Housing. We had a epidemic of fires in our apartment buildings. Most significantly in the Mission District, but elsewhere and i have seen as a member of board of supervisors back in 2011 when we had a serial arsnist burning apartment buildings in castro to today when we see the unacceptbly high number of fires in apartment buildings in and around the mission. When the fires happen it is dejasterous for the tenant burned out of their units. It is very traumatic no matter who you are without any warning you just lose your apartment and lose your belongings and you have to find alternative housing while your unit is being fixed. For someone who is lower income it can have a absolutely devastating impact on your ability to stay housed, to remain in the city and we need to make sure that we are helping particularly our lower income tenant who are burned out of their units. The legislation in addition to providing a preference for people who live our work in San Francisco provides a preference as well for tenants who are displaced due to a fire. They will receive the same preference as people evicted under ellis act or pursuant to owner move in evictions. I thank you the board as we crafted the legislation to broader and really go as far as we need to go to protect our fire victims as well as making sure our own residents have a fair shot at accessing Affordable Housing. So, after Public Comment i will ask the committee to forward this item to full board with positive recommendation and well open item 1 for Public Comment. Any Public Comment on item 1 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor i will make a motion to forward item 1 to the full board with positive recommendation. Without objection without objection that will be the order. Item number 2. Just to restate item 1 was recommended to board of supervisors with recommendation. That is correct. With chair cohen absent. Item 2, resolution granting revocable permission to the Municipal Transportation Agency to occupy portions of the public rightofway to install and maintain three new operator convenience facilities at the terminus of various muni bus routes; affirming the planing departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; and making a finding of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planing code, section 101. 1. So, this sitem is presented by new misple Transportation Agency which is part of a continuing program to make sure Bus Operators have facilities they can use during their runs which is a huge challenge over the years for many of the bus drivers. The mta is here with a presentation. I ask you make it abbreviated. We have dealt with this issue a number of times so dont need a full presentation but if you want to give a brief capsulation that is great. I was also going to present from public works. Did you want me to give a brief overview of my review or go to the presentation from however you like to do it. Just a overview. Mine would have have been a list of approvals. You can state that. This is for sfmta major encroachment for the Convenience Centers for twethth avenue and buckingham way, [inaudible] park ridge drive and [inaudible] on october 19, 2012 the Planning Department determined it was in comfort ty with the general plan. October 17, 2012 certificate determination from Environmental Review determined it was exempt from Environmental Review. Each item was brought through at the Transportation Advisory Staff Committee on december 20, 2012 and recommendation of approval for each of the locations. The San Francisco Arts Commission approved design of the prefabicated restrooms for the restroom roloications july 16, 2012 by resolution number, 091012227 and public hearing held february 24, 2016 for this item and was recommended to be approved. Was there opposition at the public hearing . Yes, there were two opposition types. One would be more for 20 16 for this item and was recommended to be approved. Was there opposition at the public hearing . Yes, there were two opposition types. One would be more for suggesting different locations for the sake of a new location and the second is related to safety, visibility and esthetics. Which location . I believe it was the park ridge location. Two people . Yes, two people. I see there was full canvasing and mail notice to 300 foot radius . Correct. Thrfs a Community Meeting at the noa Valley Public Library . That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Can you talk about how the canvasing works . The mail notice. [inaudible] project manager for the project with sfmta. The 3 locations were chosen based on the proximity to the terminal and concerning available resources we have or the [inaudible] each of the terminals dont have existing facilities h. Can you talk into had microphone . The operators do not have access to restrooms within these locations, so the result mta taskforce for operator restrooms identified these locations and decided to build the restrooms based on the recommendations of the taskforce and operator restroom facility representatives. Each of the units are going to be within 100 feet of the terminal and we first go through a process of reviewing the restroom based on the taskforce then go through the design and present to the community. We do Public Outreach and go throughee email mailers and also Community Meetings. Different sites require different types of outreach but always have Community Meetings at convenient locations. The mailers include multiple languages describing the needs and project sites. The first project site in sunnydale they propose to put in a [inaudible] across from john mclaren middle school. This is ajais tonight the park and rec facility and reached out to rec and park and determined there were no impacts to the park. We will build two new curb ramps as part of the [inaudible] allow Pedestrian Crossing across sunnydale. The next site, [inaudible] we also providing a bulb out. The unit will be just south of the existing bus terminal. It will not impact for path of travel and dont require curb ramps. Lastly, the site at twent and buckingham for [inaudible] currently the restroom around there we use mac donald and trader joes. Those two facilities will be closed around midnight on the [inaudible] hour Service Starts from 1 a. M. To 5 a. M. As a result the taskforce presented proposed location of buckingham but after the Parks Commission considered the site, we were recommended to move the location to 20th and buckingham. The design was revised and we present at the corner of 20th and buckingham on the northwest corner. We propose to update the curb ramps so pedestrians can cross the entrance of the parking lot. Any questions . In terms of the canvasing, done at park ridge in addition to the mailers was that door to door or . Correct knocking on peoples doors . Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay, appreciate the presentation. On item 2 is there Public Comment . Seeing none, well close Public Comment and supervisor peskin can i have a motion to forward item 2 to the board with positive recommendation. So moved without objection that will be the order. Item number 3. Item 2 is recommended to board of supervisors with chair cohen absent. Item 3, ordinance amending the planning code to 11 define Wireless Telecommunications services facilities; 22 create distinct wts facility land use controls and , among other things, require conditional use authorization for macro wts facilities in most article 2, 7 and 8 districts; 33 regulate micro wts facilities in all districts; 44 require that a wts facilitys vu shall expire after ten years; 55 regulate wts facilities in Certain Mission bay districts and p districts; 66 exempt Certain Telecommunications equipment accessory uses from height limitations; 77 allow screening elements for wts facilities to exceed height limits, consistent with existing height limit exemptions for antennas; 88 define and regulate temporary wts facilities; 99 allow the Historic Preservation commission to delegate determinations on applications for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter to Planning Department staff; and affirming the planing departments determination under the California Environmental cohen absent. Item 3, ordinance amending the planning code to 11 define Wireless Telecommunications services facilities; 22 create distinct wts facility land use controls and , among other things, require conditional use authorization for macro wts facilities in most article 2, 7 and 8 districts; 33 regulate micro wts facilities in all districts; 44 require that a wts facilitys vu shall expire after ten years; 55 regulate wts facilities in Certain Mission bay districts and p districts; 66 exempt Certain Telecommunications equipment accessory uses from height limitations; 77 allow screening elements for wts facilities to exceed height limits, consistent with existing height limit exemptions for antennas; 88 define and regulate temporary wts facilities; 99 allow the Historic Preservation commission to delegate determinations on applications for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter to Planning Department staff; and affirming the planing departments determination under the California Environmental quality act, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1. And supervisor avalos is the author of item 3 and he has joined us. Thank you very much. Supervisor wiener. This is a ordinance that is one of the series of other ordinances we had before the board of pr visors back in december of 2010 originally passed a ordinance looking at esthetics for Wireless Telecommunication Services facilities. In my district we have across the city and in my district we have a number of telephone polls and wireless facilities and intrusive facilities where you can see huge apparatus descending down from polls or sticking into sidewalks and poles so have done work to put conditions in place that require providers to create a sense of community and neighborhood by having smaller facilities in place. That is now updating the work done over the years and omar masry from the Planning Department has been a big part of this. This will update the city rule frz cell phone towers and an thena as and allow planning to work with neighborhoods and wireless carriers to insure the least ubstrus chb means providing robust and competitive requireless servicess. This ordinance will insure the wireless facilities are appropriately designed for distink and historic neighborhood. Drafted by Planning Department staff by lessons concerned by 1500 wireless facilities in San Francisco and a eye towards the future. In addition, the changes would strengthen the goaloffs the wireless guidelines by re [inaudible] unintention lael resulted in [inaudible] intrusive or obtrusive location or design. The changes provided by Planning Department staff to nearly every Neighbor Group in San Francisco register would the planning detarmt and representatives for wireless care urs. The changes proposed include creating a 10 year time limit for larger wireless facilities if they require conditional use. Exempting screen elements which is consistent with the current exemptions for unscreened antennues and towers. Still subject to design, Historic Preservation and shadow review as well as limitations imposed by the Planning Commission. The ordinance sets definitions for micro and macro Wireless Telecommunication Servicess facilities. Aaron star who is up at the podium before from the Planning Department is here 250 provide a brief report and answer any questions. Thank you supervisor avalos. Given your extensive explanation of the ordinance i think i will say june 16 of this year the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval for clean up fuels. Omar masry is here to answer questions. He is no longer with the Planning Department and joined the Mayors Office of Short Term Rentals but agreed to attend the hearing to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. [inaudible] i guess it falls under the city administrator but it is short term rental also. Okay. So we will go to Public Comment. Any Public Comment on item 3 . Please come forward. Dan codey. [inaudible] roof top wireless such as [inaudible] or just prior to wifi. I actually use monkey brains technology and dont think this would effect it at all. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. If there are no concluding comment ill entertain a motioni think supervisor farrellokay. Ill entertain a motion to forward item 3 to full board with positive recommendation. Supervisor peskin . So moved. Okay, without objection that will be the order. Item number 4. Item number 3 is recommended to the board of have supervisors with chair cohen being absent. Item number 4, ordinance amending the planning code to allow the construction of accessory dwelling units gadus, also know as secondary or inlaw unitss on all lots in the city in areas that allow residential use; amending the administrative code to revise the definition of rental unit as it applies to adus; affirming the Planning Department;s determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planing code, section 101. 1; adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planing code, section 302; and directing the clerk to send a copy of this ordinance to the California Department of housing and Community Development after adoption. Supervisor farrell is the lead author of the item which im cosponsoring and supervisor farrell is joining us. Thank you chair wiener and thank you for your support on this item. Colleagues, in order to address the housing shortage and crisis i believe we need to add all types of units of housing in the city and that adus are a tool to address the housing shortage in the near term crisis because they also tend to be more affordable by design. The creation of adu seems less contenses to residents than new housing. Also because a number of these or all can we permanently rent controlled units. The proposal in front of us today has the potential to realize 10s of thousands of new units over time and do believe represents a meanicful housing policy that we should all be proud of at the board. I want to say from the outset that before we describe the component of the ordinance acknowledge supervisor peskin and his leadership on the isue. For a while we had separate measures on this item, but we have been in direct communication and contact and reach adcompromise moving this policy forward. As a result after the board voted on this item i will be withdrawing the adu ordinance from the ballot for this november in a teerft widdle that down. Our goal and inteengz get this done through the legislative process and these amendment weez introduce today represent the compromise. In term thofez proposal itself, first and formost our proposal will allow the creation of unlimited adu in build wg 5 or more units and cap at no more than one unit in buildings 4 units or less. This retains the existing Seismic Program in the current form. The size mm program is one the most successful producing adu and low cost way for a city to add needed housing. This doesnt permit construction of adu that have evictions in the ast 10 years and doesnt permit a adu to be used as short termerantals. As part the discussion and compromise part the amendments we will be introducing will also be part of what we will vote on the board in the tomorrow. We will move the component that allows no more than 25 percent commercial store front. Add in a portion supervisor peskins proposal that creates a minimum square foot unit size but understand planning may have comments that disallows [inaudible] and insures proper neighborhood notice and new construction. We are also amending the language that states it isnt our intention to include vacancy chromes. The subdivision and sale of adu can happen in buildings that are complete ownership [inaudible] the maementz represent a deal and compromise moving forward with one adu policy and going to the ballot with this measure. I do think great things can happen at the board when we come together. I do want to thank supervisor wiener for cosponsorship and strong leadership on the issue and was the first person to introduce a adu policy with his district last year and passed with full board so thank you for his continued leadership and supervisor peskin for time hammer out the details. I believe this will have a impact on the housing policy city wide. Realizing many many new units in the 10s of thousands and ask for your support. After Public Comment i can read into the record. Thank you supervisor farrell and i just want to note that i think we are moving in a positive direction in terms of acknowledging that some of the most easy to create and least impactful and most affordable new Housing Units that we can produce are these accessory dwelling yupt within existing structures interspursed in neighborhoods without concentration. It is a powerful way to produce good housing in our neighborhoods and so as supervisor farrell mentioned, i have authored 3 pieces of legislation to allow for adu, the first was in the castro which we then extend today all of district 8. I then separate author legislation to allow people to add inlaw units in buildings that are undergoing mandstory or voluntary seismic ret row fit mptd the seismic inlaw unit legislation is very successful with i think approximately 100 permits so far. I understand it is a wind up for the perms and have to decide whether to do it and hire a architect. Please would the program. I mentioned in the last hearing on this in supervisor peskins legislation it was important to me the Seismic Program not in any way be undermined so understand there will be amendments today to insure that is not the case. I also just want to note there has been a series of emails that i and others received from people in the noe valley neighborhoods which contain statements i believe are not accurate. From the beginning the idea between adu legislation is focus on the existing envelope of the building. The legislation allows if you already have a structure that impijs in the rear yard, most commonly a deck and there is space underneath that structure, you can use that space for a adu. It does not allow impijment to the year yard beyaunds a deck or whatever the structure is. It is important to make that clear and can discuss that issue for sure, but the emails i have been getting unfortunately dramatically over simplify the issue and make it seem like this legislation somehow willynilly allows impingement under the year yard and not accurate and important to correct the record. So, with that, supervisor farrell, i dontsupervisor peskin. First of all, let me thank supervisor farrell work wg me and my office in good faith and delighted we have come or very close to coming to a consensus piece of legislation. Let me put it in a larger Historical Context that proceeds any our tenures including mine on the board of supervisors. The inlaw unit issue or secondary unit issue as it was called today commonly referred to accessory dwelling units is a third rail of housing in San Francisco for decades. This is a piece ofthis is a area of policy that supervisor Terence Hal Nan took a look at, supervisor [inaudible] 14 years ago i introduced legislation to incent vise the creation of accessory dwelling units within 1250 feet of major transit corridors which was the subject of great controversy and not passed by the board. I was delighted when david chew introduced legislation similar to mine and as supervisor wiener stated, he introduced legislation a Pilot Program for district 8 made permanent and my predecessor introduced legislation for district 3 so this is a long evolution and delighted this is interest from all segments of theboard. Interestingly enough when my legislation in 2002 failed, it did not fall along the common ideological lines of the day. As i recall, supervisor jake mu goldrick sided with supervisor tony hall to defeat the legislation and today im dlideed the solution we move forward transcends the political lines that often divide us. With that as a little background, i think there were fundamental differences between the two pieces of legislation that are now becoming the subject of one piece of consensus legislation arounds a number of technical areas i think are best solved here with the public and experts and Department Staff with us doing our job as legislators in the legislative chambers of the board oppose today the ballot. Having said that, one of those areas where there was i think significant difference between the legislation i proposed and the legislation that superv farrell and wiener proposed and maybe this is a technical misunderstanding but i think the emails we have been getting over the weekend and today actually have to do with a provision in supervisor farrell that says, at the grounds floor one could build a adu in the buildable envelope opposed to within the existing building. Now, there is a Zoning Administrator bulletin, bulletin number 4 which is discussed as to what is enclosed and what is not enclosed and tried to refine that in the Committee Last week under decks attached, stairwells, lightwells where there is a blank wall. But i think actually this may not be what was inteneded. The language in farrell says the buildable it doesnt say in conjujz with zoning number 4. I think those that emailed us about that issue, that is i think profoundly important issue i dont think should be in the legislation and as a result of mine and have visor farrells conversation came out of the legislation. I worry as we proceed given the decades of controversy we do it in a way that is not controversial and will be embraced. It is not enough for the board to merely pass this legislation. I thij it is incumbent on the sit squae want to thank junan new gnu and San Francisco Department Association and planning and building departments interested in launching a Program Consistent with seismic reto effort where the city ifirmatively reaches out to the thousands and thousands of Properties Owners who can avail of this tool and give Technical Assistance and show them whether or not it is a economically viable alternative for them and help them go through the system and get the contractors, make process improvements particularly on the planning side. We have now talked to a number of applicants who are going through the process and there are definitely process improvements and streamlining that can happen both in dbi and planning but particularly in planning i think there may be some amendments we need to make in the future to allow the Zoning Administrator to delegate authority to staff so it doesnt take months and months for regulatory agreement to be reviewed and siphoned around impacts fees. Fundamentally we also need to work with the lendsing community to make sure that there is a loan product out there that small Property Owners can avail themselves of to invest the hundred or 2 hundred thousand dollars it will cost to build the units. Gichben what rents are today even with the cost of hawkens provisions that allow regulatetory agreements many Property Owners will find this is a good investment that not only raises the value of the praurnt but will allow them to recoup the investment principle and interest in a reasonable amount of time and cash flow to the benefit of small Property Owner tooz make ends meet. Large Property Owners i think with the changes i made consistentinterestly enough, i used the caps that came out of supervisor wieners legislation for district 8 and want to say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I understand supervisor farrells desire to raise those caps, so i am fine with the amendments. Made them last week in committee so that provision is the same in both of our pieces of legislation. I think there are still a few very small outstanding issues. One with regard to subdivision and i want to thank supervisor wieners staff for proposing i think a great compromise that supervisor farrell is going to introduce. We also have a request for further clarification to what i think both pieces of legislation intended relative to language that makes it abundantly clear these units were never intended to be subject to vacancy control and so i want to thank mrs. Nj transit bus operations, inc. , nj transit rail operations, inc. , nj transit mercer, inc. , nj gnu for language i assume supervisor farrell has and will introduce and then finally there is language in section 307 on pagestarts on page 18 and finish on 19, it is a technical sentence i believe needs to be added to either or both pieces of legislation that says nuthic in the section interpret allowing for existing non conforming use to be deemed conforming. Finally, i have two other amendments which i think i can aurf offer tomorrow, one is clarify in the negotiations and discussions that supervisor farrell and i had, that i will removethis goes to the issue of subdivision. We agreed in existing apartment buildings, any new ad units would not subdivideable, but in existing condo units they will be subdivide. Any such units are brm of [inaudible] i agreed as matter of incentive to remove the bmr 120 percent of ami provision. Relative to the existing supervisor wieners existing mandstory seismic reto fit program that you could subdivide if in the future you won the condo lottery which will be many years from now. Finally, i have futher clarifications with regard to the definition of the built envelope to further clarify the sections of Zoning Administrator bulletin number 4, which i can make at the full board tomorrow, but for those that are adu i will say that it reads as follows the built invelepe includes the open area under a cantilever room or room on columns, decks, accept for decks that inroach into had required year yard or decks supported by columns or walls other than the building it is attached and multilevel or more than 10 feet above grade and infill given it is at a blank wall and not off site location as these spaces exist as of july 11, 2016 and accept for spaces inroach on the required rear yard. A ddu is built in any of these spaces required for planning code sections 311 or 312. That concludes my comments. Thank you supervisor peskin and think this is a good and collaborative process, so i think we are on a good path. In terms of the deck issue, that is always the intent so dont think there is a difference what was intend. There can be different interpretations so that for the legislative process is for to make sure the language is as clear as possible and sounds like we are heading in that direction and that will be a good thing. So, at this point, we have a number of amendments that have been articulated and there will be more discussion about that after Public Comment. I do want toone other issue i want to raise has to do with potential minimums Square Footage and talked about in the last hearing and i exspessed concern that i believe supervisor peskin propose there is a minimum of 350 square feet for adu that is a studio and i believe 550 square feet for adu that is one bedroom. I expressed a concern that we had a minimum Square Footage in effect in San Francisco and dont see a point deviated from that but it can also cause problems. I do understand in the Planning Department there are a number of unit currently in the pipeline that would be disallowed under this legislation so curiousi think the Planning Department could talk to us about that. Good afternoon. [inaudible] Planning Department staff. So, your question was about unit size limitations. Yes so, last week i think when the unit size limitations were brought up, converted to average unit sizes we have been seeing in the adu pipeline the averages were higher than the minimum size requirement. However, when i looked at the list of all permits, i found that 35 of those adu in the pipeline will fall below those minimum units size requirements. We dont have size information for all of our adu in the pipeline so i would say at least 35 of those adu would not be possible because of these size limitations. Is that about a 3rd of the units fall under the size limitation we have 130 units in the pipeline. So about 30 percent then. So, that is ait could be higher because you dont have Square Footage on ever unit . Correct. Approximately 30 percent of the unit currently in the pipeline fall under the threshold supervisor peskin proposal. It raising two concern, one for the unit if it whipes them away but if they are grandsfathered in a portion of the unit proposed are below the minimum Square Footage. I think we share the same goal trying to produce the largest number and understand the motivation for setting a floor, but i think that floor is too high. That is my view. So, if i may through the chair, can you let me is you this which is, last week you made a representation that the average size for studios was 375 square feet and for one bedroom 600 square feet, both a factor of what was proposed as a minimum and now you have new information that contra dicts information from last week but also have something that is rather curious if not a little troubling and that is that you represent to us now that in many instances you dont know the actual Square Footage of the proposed accessory dwelling unit. Out of your approximate 130 units how money many do you have unit sizes for . Let me look. So, [inaudible] what the size is when we review it but we are not collecting the information. I had my intern look at all the permits to get the yoont size information, but the permits that left the Planning Department and at dbi it was harder to access and couldnt get that information. We have information for 130103 of the unit out of the 135 units, so that information on the unit size i provided on average was the average of those 103 unit that we have the information for. The reason that the Additional Information provided today is the breakdown of that average. While the average is higher than the minimum size, when you look at the permits one by one, there are 35 of them that fall under that average or minimum size. What you are saying is, out of the total universe of 135, which is a small sample size in the grand scheme of things, you have information for 103 and of that information that the representation you made last week, which is that the average one bedroom is 600 square feet and average studio is 375 square feet, so can you break down for us as to the 103 for which you have information presumably we have to have a number of them that are significantly larger than 600 square feet to comp sate for 35 units. Out of your 103, how many are one bedrooms . 59. And how many of those 59 are under 550 square feet . I dont have that breakdown right now with me but i can give provide you with that. And so the balance presumably are studios . We have 23 of adu studios. 23 studios . Uhhuh 23 and 59 dont make 103 so the others are big adu with two bedrooms or more . 12 two bedrooms, 83 bedrooms and one 4 bedroom. Does that add up ladies and gentlemen . 60, 83, 85, 95. 103. That adds up. Of the 23, how many are below 300 . I dont have that information right now. I think colleagueswell hear from the public on this, which is if wei am taken aback a week later you have done more research and figured out thati dont want to call it 30 percent because the reality is you dont know about all most 25 percent because you got 135 and 130. Separate and apart from that knowledge gap, i would like to do this based on real information from the citys experience in so far as planings representative does not have the information on the breakdown of the 59 and 23, let me ask you this counselor gibbener, if tomorrow at the full board of supervisors we make amendments to reduce the minimum unit size threshold, would that be deemed to be a substantive amendment that would have to go back to committee . John gibbener, you can do that at full board tomorrow provided we are able to prepare it tomorrow. There are a lot of amendments and floating around today we have not prepared for today or for tomorrow. This would be easythis is striking out a number and putting in a number. I understand there are a bunch of easy things that have to fit together for the board to vote tomorrow. In response to whether it requires referl back to committee, it would not. Why dont we endeavor to get that information and then see whether or not there should be tweaking to the 350 and 550 minimums . I agree once we have the data we can make more informed decision, but to reiterate of the 103 which we have Square Footage, slightly more than 1 3 is under the current threshold in the legislation. I think the own it also says to me is by in large these are one bedroom on average. Above the threshold. They are a good size. There is a smaller number of studios on average buv the threshold but a bunch are not. There are a smaller number of 2 and 3 bedroom and up and so this sampling of 103 came about without the board putting any restrictions in place other than the city wide minimum Square Footage which is 220 . No, it is 220 under the Pilot Program. 275 so, with that, people just making choices about what makes sense for their home or their apartment building, it seems like we have seen a pretty good spread of smaller, some larger but not a trend toward everyone trying to pack in as many tiny unit as possible. That is why from my perspective if people can make these choices for their homes and buildings and theirthey will make a wide variety of choices. It is like as i mentioned last time when the board put a 350 unit cap on micro units in San Francisco outside of Affordable Housing and Student Housing because there were predictions the entire city we overrun with micro unit, we havent sit that cap. I understand the concern, but think it has a way of working itself out. Just to add a little context by way of background. This was part in parcel of a negotiation which to expose how sausage is made went like this which was in exchange for liberalizing the caps that supervisor wiener had in the district 8 legislation, that brought about the minimum unit sizes in the amendments that i made last monday. Okay. So, well get data. You will have that end of day or in the morning . I can have that once i get back to the office if you can increase the sample size by chasing down the remaining 32 at dbi. Supervisor farrell and i had a discussion before the meeting [inaudible] separate and apart from that, creth me if im wrong, when somebody applies to craetd a adu they start at dbi with building application. Ones application is not deemed to be complete until you have a plan that allows the department of building inspection and department of city planning to know how large the proposed unit is so you can see if it complies with building law and planning law and so it is odd to me that planning has not managed to capture this information upon referral and 32 of them are missing, but having said that i know you will get that to us timely and we will make policy accordly. Thank you. If there are no additional comments or questions we will open item 4 up for Public Comment and ill read Public Comment cards that we have. Eileen boken. Cathy [inaudible] sherri [inaudible] greg scott. Georgia shootish who spelled her name phonetically and i appreciate that. Rose hisson. [inaudible] i have one question for the amendments that you are making. For the subdivision i know the amendments would not allow in apartment buildings but i wasnt sure how that crael would be for Single Family homes currently owned . Depends on whether they are rh 1 or rh 1 d. And the answer is as proposed in the negotiations between myself and supervisor farrell, supervisor farrell suggested that we not have secondary unit in rh 1 d and agreed to compromise, so relative to rh 1, not d, the question was what . Whether or not the adu is allowed to be subdivided and sold separately . No. Thank you. Thank you. I have a few more cards. Sonia [inaudible] edward mason. I note for the record that president breed as appointed supervisor farrell as a member the committee temporaryly until arrival of supervisor cohen. Okay . You may thank you. Cathy [inaudible] and i have a letter im submitting, but i would urge you to limit the adu to built envelope and not refer to the buildable envelope. I respectfully urge clarification of the definition of built to make it clear the built envelope include enclosed portions of building and exclude unenclosed patios or decks. We wouldnt want something to say i built a deck off the first story and that sh the built envelope and they may try to do that. We were shown proposed amendments to supervise r farrell and wieners measure last friday that were to possible include Zoning Administration number 4. We understand you are not going to proceed it sounds like with that amendment so the situation is fluid and so some of the emails did refer to that because we were shown in writing that was a a proposed amendment. You are providing notice not in the bulletin. The major problem is Zoning Administrators discession. It allows a complete or partial waver of rear yard standsards. The proposed legislation provide wavers from certain planning code requirements that were not previously available over the past 10 years. Such expanded authority shouldnt be given to [inaudible] delete the word rear yard if we dont expand out. I urge you to clarify that and i think other than that, the amendment process is proceeding well, but we did the best we co