this is a discussion and possible action item. we have with us tiffany garcia from the office of economic and workforce development and andrea brus from the office of comen. >> i am the business development manager within the office of economic and workforce development. i have the pleasure of serving businesses that fall into the business sectors of manufacturing and retail. i put together a quick powerpoint presentation, to help you all better understand the planning code legislation that is being proposed in regards to production, distribution and repair to zoning. >> as we can see, the growth of san francisco manufacturing is current data allows us, there is a little over 530 manufacturers in san francisco. this is a 25 percent increase from last year, and a 47 percent increase since the mayor pointed me business director at the office of

economic and workforce development. so this is a 3 year slide. there is over 4,000 blue collar jobs and the pdr space is in high demand and low and which they utilize the pdr zoning and we are running out of affordable space and transit served neighborhoods and growing pdr space users including light industrials and some examples could be companies that handle assembly, and disassembly and finishing. >> the proposed legislation, there are minor changes to the function of the pdr districts which were enacted in 2008, the first one is in regards to storage and this is an amendment of 181 j. and pdr districts new self-storage is not permitted this will allow a rebuild if it provides at least one floor area ratio of new pdr space and

it will also allowed shared accessory use in the building inhabited by the-manufacturers and so that space for retail and office can be used a lot more effectively. currently, this holds for one-third of total space, being dedicated to pdr. i have attached a picture for a better understanding of one-third of space. this is an example of a chocolate manufacturer here in san francisco, dolce, cathy is using the front of the business to actually sell the chocolate items and then manufacturing is taking place in the rest of the building. here we are leveraging demand for both offices and pdr use and we are addressing the vacant parcels to build it both in the same development. and i have attached the map so that you can see the salmon colored parcels that we are referring to, and there are 16 in all. >> so, making the same pdr uses

function better is going to be a revision to 204.3 of the planning code to the shared retail space and we know that we need new pdr construction in san francisco and this will allow us to cross subsidize by the high paying uses such as office to support the new construction and also make the small enterprise workplaces known as sew's more attractive to build. >> current controls on them, don't meet the sweet spot for the manufacturers that we are finding currently and we are finding the small enterprise workforce controls or the 100 percent of the spaces as most commonly referred to would allow the units to be 1500 square feet or less. and again, it will make it easier for new pdr users to get permit and we would revise, 226, changing the status of certain uses from conditional to permitted and generally this

is the most common with the food-related uses the current process requires them to get a cu, or a conditional permit, which causes uncertainty and a lot of cost, we would like to clean up the definition of pdr and we need to remove the life sciences and the chemical labs to the definition. >> reforming the requirements as well and which will include, asking the businesses for a business plan to ensure, and create the space and viable and affordable and with the local serving pdr businesses. so our next steps is to continue to move on with a current legislation, and it is currently with the city attorney and we still need to go before the planning commission, and as many of you may have read in sf weekly there is a rebirth of manufacturing happening in san francisco and we are excited about it and we have the opportunity to marry old world craft with new world technology and form production but we need space for pdr businesses to

call home. and more importantly for san francisco to work at. thank you. >> questions? >> one quick thing, sorry. from supervisor cohen's office and i think that tiffany gave you the bulk of what the legislation does about this is something that we have been working on with the mayor's office and the planning department and a number of supervisors who have pdrs zones in their district or just been interested in the manufacturing industry in san francisco for about a year now. and we finally have data that was showing us consistently the types of pdr spaces we need and what size we need, and what some of the common challenges were and we have also have better data around where the common types of busy,. and we look at pdr, and the industry that we all like to have in san francisco but it is a key component of our

workforce here, and the vast majority of the pdr businesses, and we have living wages and the vast majority of them are at varying scales of educational attainment and we generally are benefit and so it is a real growing industry, and it is vital for supporting the workforce and a diverse workforce in the. what we have the businesses open in the pdr district and not having to go through and you will otherwise have to comply with certain zoning, public health and noise related issues if you are in a pdr district and revising some of the pdr controls to actually require workforce hiring plans that are no longer dependent on

the state enterprise zone program which we know will not be the mechanism to hire here in the city. and actually, creating an incentive program to build new construction, of pdr which is something that i think that five years ago when we adopted the eastern neighborhood's plan people thought that we were crazy to think about. and that would actually take some very unutilized parcels in and around particularly the show place square and the north east mission area and create an opportunity for concern potential developers to build the new pdr space and as well as contribute to the over all pdr, need that we have. and then, increasing the cap on the small enterprise work spaces from 500 square feet which they are now, to 1500 square feet which is the most common, sort of space need that we see among the manufacturers, and 500 square feet, often is not going to make the difference for someone who wants to get out of their home or garage and into a new space, but 1,000 to 1500 square feet

is that sweet spot between someone that needs to that i can that step in a incan incubator space and we are excited to talk about the ways to continue to support the manufacturing in the city, after five years of implementing eastern neighborhoods and seeing are al

districts so zoned for pdr and the construction opportunities and we are specifically talking about pdr 1 d and 1 g areas, and so, it is an interesting idea, and i have never thought of it. but, i don't think that we are talking about existing neighborhoods probably mc, zoned properties going for pdr use and generally we see the pdr needs a very specific type of commercial use and they need the high ceilings and loading and freight elevator and they need a very certain compliment type of use of use and they are not always the most compatible with adjacent users, but all of these changes are particularly focused in the existing zone and districts. >> thank you. >> and that is an overlay designation and so every

building within that, is and has its own zoning, whether it is a residential or a umu and there are some overlays of pdr and it is kind of an overlay on the pdr, but it is, and it is kind of zoning district and there is and there are some umu parcels that are kind of in the pdr neighboreds, and residential and so i would not technically call it an overlay. >> is dog patch a pdr. portions are, and portions are a rh residential product. >> and any other commissioner comments? or requests questions? >> seeing no, we are going to open it up to public comment. >> do you have another question, commissioner dwight? >> there is a particular part

of the legislation that i have an issue with because i have retail space in my building and my factory. and i ink think as it is presently written, drills down to more detail about allocating the retail space to the subtenants in the building and so if there are multiple tenants in a space sharing it and there are someone making furniture and jewelry and then to say that, they can only have their prorata share of the one-third carve out for retail and for me that drills down to the level below where the law should be tinkering. and the laws should, you know, create a framework for the law abiding citizens to make reasonable decisions about how they are going to use the space and for example, furniture requires a lot of space to display. and jewelry, very little. and how do you really allocate

a space where there are shared bathrooms, and shared communal spaces for eating and meeting? and that the work spaces themselves do not in and of themselves represent the prorata share that have building? >> yeah. >> i would like to see that monthed moet identified so that we eliminate that detail and it is not enforcable. >> it was something that we talked about kind of internally among the co-sponsors and i think that what you are referring to is being able to share the space in one building and there is a sentence in it that talks about allocating proportionally the size of each contributing pdr use. and i think that after talking about it, we agree with you, that it is a little bit of level of detail that we are probably not that interested in regulating. i think that what we care about is the over all allowable

retail use in a building, and how, the individual tenants choose to a portion that retail among the different uses if someone wants 50 percent of it and someone wants ten percent even though there are types of uses that are arguably different that is something that we are fine with changing and so if the commission wanted to make a recommendation around removing the requirement for the proportionalty between the pdr users and the level of retail they get that is something that we will be happy to do as long as the over all allowable retail in the footprint is not going to exceed what is allowable in the zoning. >> the other rationale is that it could change the dynamic of cohabitating and someone will say that i need more of the retail space and so i am willing to cover more of the rent and someone who might be on the margin of being able to afford to be there might be allowed to be there because someone is willing to pick up more of the rent. and equally important is that it is not enforcable and no one

is going to go out and check it and why would we enact the laws that we can't enforce and are way below kind of the line of reason where we ought to be even. >> i think that it should be something that is left up to the individual tenants and negotiate among themselves and rather than frankly the planning department being in the business of regulating individual aportionment. and if you wanted to put that in the commission's recommendations, i think that we have already talked about a way to remove that requirement as long as we are keeping the over all zoning. >> we have recommended language, >> great. >> let's open any other commissioner questions? >> do you want to open it up to public comment, do we have any members of the public that would like to make a comment on item number five? >> washington, and i am a long time advocate. and right here, the city hall and i have been over here 25 years and you all are a new agency of the minds, about four

or five years. >> okay, do you have a comment on the item. >> yes, i am trying to make my introduction, and i have three minutes and i was making a parallel and i will speak a little more because i came in late, and so i am not familiar and i just thought that i would come up and you know, speak on it. but, specifically, if you asked me about this item, no i don't have any comment on it and i guess that i might as well sit down to public comment. >> we will have public comment at the end. >> thank you. >> do we have anybody that would like to make public comment on this specific item, item number five? >> seeing none, public comment closed. >> if i could draw your attention, there was written public comment submitted in each of the commissioner's binders for your information

>> do we have a recommendation. >> i would like to move that we support this legislation with the one modification with the space and the prorata allocation as it is described and replace it with a language that we have proposed. >> second. >> and okay, do you want to do a roll call? >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> and commissioner dooley. >> yes. >> dwight. >> yes. ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> riley. >> yes. >> and it passes. >> thank you. >> mr. president, that takes us to item number 6, decision and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisor's file number 1 31207, environment code bottled water this is a discussion and possible action item. and we have with us, cath len

from supervisor chiu's office to make a staff presentation. >> good evening, commissioners, from the office of supervisor's david chiu and thanks for having me tonight. and so the ordinance before you this evening, has been in the development for almost a year now. we have worked with the city departments and events and many other stake holders to create a proposal that is fair and also pushes our city to take the steps to begin to address the enormous problem of our addiction to plastic bottled water. i won't take too much of your time explaining the serious environmental damage done by massive over consumption of bottled water because of the facts on this is indisputable and the legislation is enforced by many environmental organizations including the sierra club and the surf rider foundation and the pacific institute and the san francisco on the environment and the office is heard from many individuals from around the city who support the legislation as well as many events and city permitees who are already selling

alternatives to plastic bottled water and so i will summarize the legislation, it will phase out the sale and distribution of bottled water on city property this will apply to large events which means over 100 people permitted rendors and leases on city property, as well as to the city departments themselves. for events, at first, only those that have access to adequate on site municipal water will be required to comply, and however in 2016, all events would have to comply. foot races and others are excluded for health reasons and given the most sites do not currently have water access. and initially the legislation would impact indoor events almost exclusively and almost, new and renewal permits and leases on the city property will have to include the language prohibiting the sale of bottled water, and so that the legislation is fair and

focused on the future it will not apply for the existing leases and permit holders. the center which is under a management agreement will not have to comply until 2016, departments will be able to grant the waivers under the circumstances, in conjunction of what is being asked of others, they require the city gof government to take action and it says that the drinking fountains and water hook ups should be installed where there is a capitol product in a heavily used public park or plaza. in the absence of projects it would allow the events to hook up to the municipal water infrastructure and finally, the city departments will not be allowed to purchase the plastic water with the city funds and they are not allowed to do it currently.

>> the proposal of the common sense approach to tackle the problem of plastic in the stream and gives the event and vendors on the city property the time to develop the alternative property to selling the plastic water bottles there are a growing number of bottled water that are available to event and permits, and it will only keep growing, and so i am happy to answer the questions that you have and we also have julie briant from the department of environment to say a fuse words if you dies are interested. thanks. >> do we have any commissioner comments? >> commissioner dwight? >> our metal cans and glass bottles permitted? yes. >> just not plastic bottles. >> yes. >> and what do you do in large events like pride? >> so with pride, we have had a number of conversations over the past few weeks with the

pride organizations. and you know, first of all pride would not have to comply until october of 2016, so it is you know over three years. for one. and we have had conversations with potentially getting events of that size more time to comply because it is i think that it is 1.5 million people or something, it is very, very large and i don't think that there are any other events on that scale in this city. so we talked about looking at potentially making a change that there is more time for events of that size. but, also, the legislation does build into it, a way for the departments to grand waivers so if pride were to come to the permitting agency and say we don't see how it is possible to provide enough water in other ways, then there would be a method for a waiver. >> commissioner dooley? >> i was wondering about it seems like this is going to be

really difficult for food trucks and push carts to comply. i can't even imagine how they would be able to do that. >> well, i did meet with organizizer of off of the grid recently, and we sort of started this conversation, you know, mobile food trucks can still sell water, if they just sell cups and have like an igloo cooler and some similar containers and we see that there are other options to selling plastic bottled water. and you know, as you know, the plastic bottled water industry did not really exist before the 1990s, so you know, mobile vendors found other days. so you know, we are in conversations with mobile food truck vendors it is a good question because they have smaller space than other types of facilities. >> commissioner dwight? >> so, i guess that i have two concerns about this. one, i am not totally clear on

the current slots about the energy intensity of glass and metal verses plastic and it is recyclebility and as well as the distribution and energy intensity and because the glass is heavier and metal, especially aluminum is hard to create from new or recycle. and so this seems to me to fly on the face of a different campaign that we have against soda, and it has been proven that diet soda is not health for you and so we are eliminating a alternative to the class of drinks that we are putting in legislation to tax and so this seems to me to be a very peculiar timing for this. i would think that the health effects or the healthiness of availability of convenient bottled water, which people are today choosing not because they

don't trust the local water but because it is a healthy alternative to soda. and in especially at events, where people are getting hot and people need to hydrate. does not seem to be consistent. >> i will start with the second question because it is a common one that we hear. we don't see this legislation as in any way promoting soda over water, we fully expect and anticipate the vendors who sell plastic bottled water to sell water in other formats or have water provided whether it is through selling cups or through water in different types of containers or through the, you know, the legislation also encourages more infrastructure in public places to allow the people to tap into public water. so we see this as you know, kind of more options in a way. but trying to weed out the one that is seriously damaging

which is undisputed. >> i think that you are overlooking an unintended consequence as we like to say, and so i would just put it out there for consideration, >> thank you. and for the energy intensity of plastic verses metal and glass, i don't have the information on that with me, but i might defer to my colleagues from the department of the environment might have more information on that. >> commissioner ortiz? >> what is the waiver process looks like? is it going to be transparent? what is the criteria is it consistent? >> so the waiver process we left it up to where the way that it is, it is left up to the department level, the department granting the permit and so it could be rec and park and the permitting agency and they would make a determination and then they would report to the board of supervisors and i think that it is the semiannually which waivers are granted so there is no second level of oversight because we did not want to make it

bureaucratic but by having to report which waivers are granted there is an intern after check. >> and the second, i heard that you, contacted and reached out to off of the grid but how about just your independent mobile food, has there been any out reach to them, because off the grid is more of a cluster. >> i would be happy to, and i don't know if i have not seen a list or people have not come to me, asking for more out reach and so i am happy if people have suggestions of how i can get to that community and i would happy to and get their feedback. >> commissioner rilely? >> yes, at the committee meeting, i did express my concern about the mobile food truck. and you don't allow them to sell boltsed water, but they are allowed to sell bottled juice and soda and cans, and the customer are forced to buy a drink that is not as healthy

as water so they don't have a choice and if they were to provide water, you know, of course, the space is a concern, and then, i could see that they might provide cups, so we are trading plastic bottles for plastic cups, so how are you going to address that >> in the legislation we didn't want to mix sort of the cup and the bottle issue together. we wanted to keep it focused on plastic water not to mix the message, you know, i guess that our hope would be that if people are selling cups that it will be paper cups or just encouraging people to have reusable stainless steel bottles i know that not everyone can carry them around all of the time but it is more and more common and your answer about the selling you know, the juices and soda would be the same that i gave the commissioner dwight. we don't see it as, they are not allowed to sell plastic

bottled water and therefore people are going to choose soda, and i think that people are not as simple as that question assumes about them. people who want water, will drink water. and not soda. >> but if they can't buy it, at lunch, so that might be a problem. >> commissioner dwight? >> another thing that we would ask you about i would ask the waste haulers and it is illegal to sell water in cans and glass, correct? >> so p perriri and those who bottle the brands are bottled in glass and metal and buying in the metal cans as well, all of a sudden we are going to convert, lightweight plastic waste to heavy wait glass waste. and all of those waste bins are going to be filled with glass. some or many of those bottles

are going to get broken in public venues where we are having event and so we have the safety issue as well as a waste hauling issue that the glass is going to weigh ten times more than the plastic waste and not as compressable as the plastic waste as it is being hauled off. and so i just see a lot of challenges here for a piece of legislation that is, you know, rallied around one point. and environmental point and not a trivial point, but i actually think that the environmental point is specious and i think that the unintended consequences are significant and bear some scrutiny before we sign-off on a piece of legislation. >> commissioner ortiz? >> kind of on the same sentiment, you know our purview is small businesses and do we have any figures to the bottom line is how much does this cost or will this help the small businesses and things of that nature and maybe the small business has a high profit margin and i am asking if there

is anything on that. >> we don't have like the specific data for small business and i don't know if that is the intended legislation, and also, you can sell cups of water, the cost of tap water per gallon is almost nothing. so, if you were to sell a cup of water for a dollar, you are making almost a dollar. you know, so i think we are just, we need to be creative. in solving the environmental problems, and kind of... >> commissioner dooley. >> i still want to go back to the push carts. i just have a real problem with that. i just can't even imagine how any push cart with provide water any other way, because they are so limited in space. and also frankly, if it was me, and someone said, well it is a dollar for a glass