commercial development, you create new jobs in the city, and people earning a certain income level that create new demand for affordable housing in the city. these are a way to fulfill that demand. they go into the city-wide affordable housing fund. the fees range for research and development of $15 per square foot on up to $21 per square foot for office space. port projects are subject to these fees. on the residential side, the city has an inclusion very affordable housing program. it requires developers of residential housing to contribute to the affordable housing stock of the city in one of three major ways -- you can pay a fee, like is assessed on the commercial side, to contribute to the construction of affordable housing units equal to 20% of the total market the units in a project.

you can build on site affordable units at your residential projects equal to 15% of the total market the units, or, you can develop offsite affordable units within a mile radius of the project equivalent to 20% of the total market rate units in your project. the codes established are usually relative to some percentage of area median income. the court has i think fairly well understood development challenges associated with most of port property. most is still tidelands. we have numerous structures, whether it appears listed on the national register or appear 70, a new national registered

district consisting of some 40 or so industrial buildings. often, they require some level of environmental cleanup. then, we have bcdc and public trust as administered by state lands. both of those processes are looking at very substantial new public access to the bay. all of these factors make developing on the port very expensive. we have in the past pursued a number of flexible financing solutions, particularly at pier 70. that project has received support from the voters in the form of proposition d, a charter amendment passed some years back that allows the capture of payroll tax and any hotel tax to help fund public improvements at the site. proposition a was a parks fund

adopted by voters in 2008 helping to fund parks at pier 70 and other parks along the port. with all of these tools still, the financial plan looks like it is not financially in balance. we hope that changes with the addition of our new private development partner for city development, but we are still looking for additional tools to make it happen. there are plans in the master plan, up to 3 million square feet of commercial space that may include research and development or office space. that would be subject to the jobs housing linkage fees we talked about earlier, and we

expect millions of dollars to be generated from that project to the city's affordable housing fund. next, i want to segue from that discussion. staff had been thinking about different areas of property that might be appropriate for affordable housing, and one of the areas we thought of is the broadway parcells. these are mainly parking lots in the northern waterfront. they have been the subject of prior proposals. as we were looking for a potential area shall propose, affordable housing seemed like the area here, the heights here were appropriate for this investigation. current zoning for these parcels is c2. seawall lot 21 has a 60-foot height limit, so remaining

parcels have a 40-foot limit, those along the embarcadero. what 322-1 is set back several blocks closer to the residential neighborhood. it has the greatest density potential for affordable housing. it is about a little less than an acre. it is in the ne waterfront historic district. the waterfront land use plan contemplates a residential use as one of its potential for array of uses at the site. it was previously contemplated as a hotel development site, and that project did not go forward. we currently earn about $50,000 a month from the site. almost $600,000 a year. so we wanted to present to you the following policy options for your consideration.

and seek your permission to go and have this policy conversation with our advisory groups so we can talk to our neighbors about this and also the mayor's office of housing. one idea is to amend the city's jobs-housing linkage ordinance to allow the port to not just pay a fee but to provide land for affordable housing. that would be a different option and would potentially make available land for affordable housing that the mayor's office of housing could not otherwise afford. talk about these ideas at ne waterfront advisory group and other port advisory groups, and particularly talk about the idea of whether or not see what 322-1 would be an appropriate

site given the historic district and other factors. reach out to the mayor's office of housing and examine the site, do a feasibility analysis of whether or not the site can house the appropriate number of units. the mayor's office of housing like to build a certain type of project and we will need to see whether or not this site is workable. for that purpose. if an ordinance amendment is possible, and there seems to be community support for an affordable housing project, look at whether or not the site could be used to offset some of the fees that will be allowed to help the project become more financially feasible. the site is currently subject to the public trust, so in order for any sort of non-trust use like this for residential

development to go forward, we would have to talk about potential legislation, lifting the trusties restrictions at the site. after all those consultations, we would want to come back to the port commission and talk further about what we have learned from the advisory groups, from the mayor's office of housing and from the state lands commission. that is a quick version of the presentation. i am availe them. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening. i am from the mayor's office and housing. our office is very excited about the opportunity to talk with staff, primarily because it would advance our office's priorities and goals. the sea wall what is actually across the street from an affordable housing project would have already financed and is

down the block from another development that is proposed to start construction next year, those book be an affordable family developments, so developing on 322i would be another opportunity that we would more than welcome. >> thank you. commissioners. >> quickly, any idea of roughly of how many with the 65 -- how many units we are talking? >> it thought it was about 100 or 125 units. and on how you would approach the site. there is a question about what would happen at the ground floor and whether you would want some retail use fronting broadway and what you would do with parking on the side, whether or not you would try to replace some of the parking that is currently there. but that is sort of very early thinking about it, but we would want to go through sort of a design process to truly answer that question. >> that will be also in

partnership with a non-profit or something to develop this? >> it is actually 90 to 100 units, the estimate. tracey could answer the question better about the mayor's office of housing approach to development of these sites. i think that we've you affordable housing as not deport -- i think that we view of affordable housing is not the port's core area of expertise. i believe they work with a broad range of community-based non- profit housing developers. >> other questions or comments? >> would it be restricted to the sites under discussion? it would not mean -- not to open a can of worms, but it would not be a swap for any other side? >> i think this is the only

site that we're thinking of right now. >> what i am getting at is we would not turn it over and then it would go to a developer and an affordable housing be built somewhere else. it would be limited to affordable housing being built on these sites? >> the proposal here is for affordable housing developments, yes. >> just did not want to have a repeat of earlier. >> ok. >> unless i am missing something, i think you can go ahead because there does not seem to be any reason not to. >> ok. thank you very much. >> item 11 -- i mean, item 10, new business. >> is there any new business? we have had a lot of business today. [laughter] which is now all open. ok. and item 11, public comment. >> ernestine weiss. >> i would just like to bring to

your attention -- excuse me -- the fact that cars are the problem in this city. there is an article that was written in the "new york times" on december 15 that you can the google and see how europe and portland oregon discourages cars in all major cities. that is what is missing here. if we did that, we would not need a central subway for billions of dollars going no where. we would get muni on board to have their vehicles on time. i told that to the head of the muni, and he said he read that article. i said, "well, just do it." we are behind the times with all our managing here. i would ask you to engage in action to promote it because we cannot have any more congested -- congest gen. there are thousands of condos in

the immediate area. and it is getting worse. where are we going to put all those cars? on mars? please engage yourself in that along with the other parts of the city government so we can get it going. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> before i did that, i want to thank the staff and say i know these presentations took a lot of work. sometimes there's a lack of questions on some of them appear but i think it is because of the incredible detail that was provided. i want to thank all of you because today was a really terrific group of presentations and very thorough. >> with that, madam chair, going back to the executive director's report, i would like to adjourn in a moment of silence for captain richard jack frost.

and that is there a second to adjourn. >> second. >> meeting is adjourned. >> thank you all. president o'brien: good

evening. public comment will be taken on each item. speaker cards are available at the front table. as always, we would like to thank sfgov tv for their constant support of our meetings. roll call. [roll call taken.] president o'brien: all members are present. item two, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 11104, administrative code, health code, regulating commercial dog walkers on park property. this is an ordinance, by adding article 39 through 39-13 to license and regulate commercial dog walkers operating on park property. today we have a presentation by supervisor scott wiener. in your packet we have behind

the ordinance, we have correspondence that you've received from the pb that has previously been mailed to you. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your work on behalf of the city. i know commission work is sometimes the most tough work there is, an i think i speak for all of my colleagues in thanking you for doing that work and helping small business in san francisco. thank you as well for taking the time to consider dog walker legislation. this is important legislation that's taken a lot of time to put together, and i know we're going to have a continuing dialogue about it. so i just want to go over a few points with you. i think there's a pretty broad desire both within the dog walker community and outside of

the dog walker community to have some basic standards in place. dog walkers provide an absolutely critical commercial service for the approximately -- for many of the approximately 1/3 of households in san francisco who have dogs. this is a service without which an awful lot of people could not have dogs. and so it's important that we foster this industry and that we also recognize that the vast majority of dog walkers do a really good job and are trained professionals. unfortunately, there are some dog walkers, a minority, who maybe don't always do the best job and maybe could use a little bit additional training. for quite sometime, for years, well before i was on the board of supervisors, there's been a discussion about putting in place a permitting system to have some basic standards around commercial dog walkers who use city property,

specifically park property, and in this legislation, also poor mpuc property. in addition to protecting consumers to make sure that they can know that the dog walkers they're hiring have met these basic standards, this will also help protect our parks, which are important assets that we all need to use an that we want dog walkers to use. but we want to make sure we're all able to use it responsibly and together. so approximately six months ago i began a series of conversations with a number of stakeholders, including animal care and control, rec and park, neighborhood parks council, the spca, several professional dog walker associations as well as s.f. dog and crissy field dog. i've also had innumerable

individual conversations with dog walkers, with others, who have expressed their feedback on the subject. there's been extensive outreach and work done on this legislation. now, with that said, we're continuing to do outreach. and not a day goes by when i don't get some sort of feedback from a dog walker or from someone he will about the legislation. and i want to assure everyone who contacts me or my office that your feedback is taken into account. and i received some excellent ideas from members of the public about this legislation, and i know it will be a process and we're going to come up with the best work product possible. the goals of the legislation, of course, is limited to people who are walking for pay four or more dogs in a park p.u.c. property or port property. we want to have basic qualifications, which means that going through some sort of training program or

alternatively an apprentice schip program with an experienced dog walker. anyone who has been a dog walker with a license for three or more years will be grandfathered in. they don't have to go through the process because they're already experienced. basic safety standards in terms of transporting dogs, in terms of caring for the dogs while you're walking them in a park or other city property, an insurance program, which many dogs already have, which protect the dog walker as well as dog owners and members of the public. a permitting system to make clear who the dog walkers are who have met these qualifications. enlisting dog walkers to help us get dogs licensed, but not holding them accountable by punishing them for failing to do so. in other words, urging them to help us to license dogs, but not in any way punishing them

if they walk dogs that aren't licensed, because that would be unfair to put that burden on dog walkers. and then what might be the most controversial part of the legislation, to limit the number of dogs a commercial dog walker can walk at one time to seven dogs. now, as i mentioned, we've had a lot of dialogue about this and we'll continue to do so. i want to make very, very clear to the commission as well as to those interested in legislation and particularly to the dog walker community that this legislation is a work in progress. and i am very, very interested in getting feedback from people to make this as strong and as tight and as effective as possible. for example, the seven-dog limit, there's been a debate over the years between six dogs and eight dogs. it's like this eternal debate that happens. what should be the maximum number.

we went with seven dogs in the introduction version of the legislation. seemed like a good compromise. that is a number that is open to discussion. and i've heard some very good interesting arguments on the subject. we need to make sure that animal care and control has the resources that it needs to administer this program. right now animal care and control is a woefully underfunded agency, particularly given what animals mean to this city. it doesn't have enough enforcement staff and i've committed to working with the agency, with the mayor's budget office. already been in touch with the city administrator and the budget office about next weir's budget and the need to help animal care and control to be able to administer this program but also its other responsibilities. one of the reasons we put "the

apprentice"ship alternative in is so people have maximum experience that they need. the effective date is currently april 1, 2012. i am inclined to extend that date because i want to make sure that animal care an control has all the time it needs to set the program up. that we have all the time we need in this legislative process to make sure we get it right and to make sure the dog walkers are able to adjust to a new ordinance. in terms of vehicle safety, there's a provision for safe transport of animals. some have concluded that that means that we're going to require all dog walkers to have big advance, so that each dog can be individually crated. that is not true. there will not be that requirement. and we're going to have continuing discussions to see how we can clarify that language in the ordinance so we can make clear what it does do and what it doesn't do, the goal being, of course, the dogs

are not injured while they're being transported. and then in addition, the current version requires that dog walker wear the permit on a lanyard when they're in the park. some dog walkers have embraced that and view it as legitimizing them. some don't like that. and i prefer that we simply require that they carry the permit on them, but not display it at all times. that's a conversation we'll continue to have and we'll either keep it the way it is or make a change to it. finally, i do want to note, the city is in a little bit of a tug-of-war for about a year now with the golden gate national recreation area, which is proposing to dramatically reduce off-leash dog access. i've taken a lead in pushing back, because if they dramatically reduce off-leash access in these federal

properties, we're going to see a major influx of dogs and dog walkers into our city parks, which will have more wear and tear on the parks. i have reached out to ggnra and asked them to consider honoring our permits so the dog walkers don't have to go through two separate systems. they've responded to me that until they finish their environmental review process, they're not able to agree to anything. in the future they are pro tensionly agreeable to honoring our permits. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. president o'brien: go ahead, commissioner. >> i have just a few things. we've been receiving a lot of input from the dog-walking community. seems as though the number seven seems to be a significant problem, versus number eight.

so, you know, we've just heard so much from people about that, that i think we should consider eight. seems to be one where peep feel they can at least city keep -- have a decent income and move forward with that. that is one thing. and i think the lanyard idea is a great idea or some kind of i.d., only because i am a dog owner and i'm out a lot. i just think it will protect those who are involved with the program in a really -- doing all of this from having the rogue dog walkers out there, which, you know, i don't know which ones are which, but i can kind of guess. i just think some kind of i.d., button, anything, just so that you don't have to ask. it would make it easier for enforcement and also for those of us who are out and about

with our own dogs. i think identifying is a great idea. the last thing is i'd really like to encourage "the apprentice" schip program. i've been reading that there's only at this point one dog-walking training program, which seems like we're kind of handing them a little bit of a monopoly at that point. so, you know, i would really urge you to get in touch with the professional dog walkers associations and try to get a program up and running that would really dot a-- do theapen trystship. that's where people really understand what's going on with their dogs. >> i appreciate that. in terms of the eight dogs, i do think that i am open to that number. and as i mentioned, the six vs.

eight discussion, that's been happening for a long time. but it's definitely within that range of reason in terms of what the debate has been. so i'm not ruling that out at all. and i meant to mention before the issue of dog tech, which is the training program i think you were referring to. there is -- there was a rumor out there that dog tech had participated in drafting the legislation, which, you know, could be viewed as furthering or creating some sort of monopoly. dog tech did not participate in drafting this legislation. they were not part of any of the meetings. they did not draft it. the dog walkers involved were the dog walker associations who i met with repeatedly. and i agree with you, that there need to be alternatives, which is why we -- i believe and the group believes that having this apprenticeship alternative would be a great way to accomplish that. an hopefully there will be a greater diversity of programs offered by professionals in the

future. >> i also think that it would help out in terms of if they are limiting how many, that if there were some way that "the apprentice" program could be a fairly modest fee that would add to the income of the very experienced walkers, who would be involved with the apprentice. i think that would be a really positive thing for the walkers. >> so you're suggesting that we -- because the way i had been envisioning it was that if someone was equaled to do an apprentice schip program, it means they have to have a certain number of years of experience. the new dog walker, i'd say, would you apprentice me, an maybe you'd be nice and do it free. maybe you would say if you pay me some money. but i have been tending to just leave it to people to negotiate their own