like how so? you know, people from the parks and rec department, when you get a permit will come out and meet you and provide you with a coil to connect to the water. pick it up when you're done without an extra charge. it gets rolled into the cost of renting -- >> the park seem like it's easier. in terms of the streets, have you thought about how we can resolve that so you wouldn't have to find a good hearted restaurant that will let you use their water source? you know, it can be done. i think puc method of getting the hydrant access is great, but it could be cheaper and streamlined. there's a large deposit and fee associated with that. >> okay. how much is that deposit and fee? i think the deposit was over $500 and the fee was a couple hundred dollar. plus the metered use. >> from the fire hydrants. okay, thank you. i actually want to hear from

the puc after public comment on that particular issue around street fairs because it seems -- on the public streets because that is a more challenging place to access water. yeah, i am michael davis. i'm the owner and founder of u.s. pure water which is a company that is a mission driven company to help people get off of bottled water. so, this is an issue that we deal with all the time. we have a contract with the city and county of san francisco and have helped replace bottled water in their offices and they've been responsible for making sure that that's a successful situation. and it saved a city over a million dollars by doing that. that actually, when that happened, it's kind of key to the importance of doing something like what you're proposing to do. i'm very supportive of what you're talking about here. we originally had the contract with the city ask county, but nobody was proactively changing

from bottled water to bottleless water systems until gavin newsom issued that executive order to restrict city ask county funds for being used for bottled water. habits die difficultly some time. when you put in legislation that doesn't put difficulty on somebody but makes it easier for people to get water such as what you're lookinging at doing here, you actually help to educate the population ~ to alternative that they have. it's a good way to help behavior change in a more positive direction. we have done a lot of events for the city and county including the america's cup and the oyster festival. a lot of festivals that you mention, we've provided the water bottles for those events and michael actually has run a water bar. we provide water bars for other

event producer. if you have any questions in regards to the implementation of this, i'm happy to answer any questions and have been in touch with david chiu's office some in terms of helping this. so, if you have any question, i'm happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is taylor stafford. i'm the president and ceo of pier 39. the san francisco bottled water ordinance unfairly impacts an entire industry that provides important services to visitors to san francisco, and in particular a proud partner of pier 39 whose innovation this in environmental achievements should be celebrated and promoted rather than restricted. each year millions of visitors come to san francisco and visit pier 39 with back packses and children in tow, people walk our cities to experience landmarks and attractions. these families want and prefer their convenience and healthfulness of boltled water in small, ease toy carry

packaging such as 12 to 14 ounce bottles. eliminating the availability of this packaging creates an unnecessary convenience for millions of people. the alternative is to require them to carry 21 ounce heavier bottles [speaker not understood]. as importantly, crystal guyser, a bottler of natural spring water ~ has been a proud and responsible corporate partner of pier 39 for 19 years. producing the cleanest and healthiest bottled beverage to our visitors, crystal guyser has been a leading innovator and excellent partner who shares social justice and environmental goals of our city. crystal guyser in particular and the bottle water beverage industry in general has reduced the plastic packaging by 25% over the last two decades. crystal guyser's packaging contains no [speaker not understood], convenient and desirable product for our visitors and is easily recycled

which helps achieve 70% waste diversion rate annually. i ask that you reconsider the ordinance. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on item 1? hi. hi. my name is mary his chester and i am an organizer with [speaker not understood]. we have many members right here in san francisco ~. over 35 years we waged the successful campaign to protect human rights and the environment. through our eight year old think outside the bottle campaign we've collaborated with over 140 cities, universities and many national parks to promote tap over bottled water. and san francisco will continue to play a lead role in this movement bypassing president chiu's ordinance. 2007, as supervisor mentioned, san francisco set a precedent for citieses across the u.s. by cutting spending on bottled water. we saved tax payers nearly

$500,000 a year and underscored the importance of our public water system. supervisor chiu's ordinance build on that legacy by codifying this commitment into law and increasing access to public water on city property. it is an important step toward ensuring our community has access to choose clean and safe public water. and by reinvesting in and promoting public water over bottled water, san francisco will set an important example for other cities and people across the country. the bottled water industry has had misleading marketing [speaker not understood]. public water is much more regulated than bottled water and is the best way to ensure access for water to everyone. not just those who can pay a market price. water is a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold. and as of 2007 executive order, the ripple of this leadership will be felt in cities and towns across the u.s. a strong stand in this ordinance for public water and

making a powerful statement about the urgent need to invest our [speaker not understood] public service. so, thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. bobbitt. hi, supervisors. nice to see all of you, and thank you for hearing this item today. i'm karen bobbitt representing the sierra club, currently the chair of the san francisco group which mean i spend mostly my time telling people to wrap it up, your time is up. unfortunate experience in a meeting. to keep things fair i'll keep it short and sweet today. the sierra club supports the san francisco water bottled ordinance. we like the goal because it fits with our support of zero waste principles. it fits with the idea of reducing waste in the first place should be a top priority [speaker not understood] rotting in the case of food somebody pointed out to me today. as was pointed out in the finding section of the legislation, it takes a lot

more resources, energy, and water, for example, to produce and transport bottled water than it does to produce tap water and there is the waste, of course. plastics end up in our oceanses much more than they should and harm animals [speaker not understood]. another issue i think by a few speakers that came up at our meeting, increasing the availability of drinking water in public areas is important because drinking water shouldn't be available only to those who can afford to pay a premium for it. and the last thing to add and president chiu brought this up earlier, is that we would also support [speaker not understood] to strengthen legislation by reducing ability to grant waivers and completely understand that there are quarterly reporting requirements and why they were granted, but we would like something even stronger. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. commissioner rabanas. i apologize, i didn't realize you were here. i would have called you up earlier. no need, i have to be a

private citizen. my name is ruth [speaker not understood] and i do remember the boda bag. [speaker not understood]. the the attrition on the environment we've been talking about is an ordinance [speaker not understood] it's a great day to see it's come this far and very grateful to supervisor chiu for taking the lead on this. we heard a lot of talk about the many environmental impacts very, very negative. one is the amount of waste that ends up in our oceans and in the bay, but i want to make sure people understand that even if we have an enormous public educational campaign, everyone to put those bottles in the recycling bins, we still would have a terrible problem because there's really no such thing as recycling our plastic bottle. they end up getting [speaker not understood]. but each time they are

supposedly recycled, reconstituted, reprocessed, they come out as a less valuable item until they do end up in the landfill eventually anyway. so, one of the thing we need to address is kind of the myth of recycling these bottles. but with all of these egregious impacts on the environment, some of us are a little frustrated that the ordinance isn't a bit stronger, but it's a fabulous step in the right direction. we think that the time frame for implementation is generous and reasonable and we absolutely support everything that is in the ordinance that does effectively ensure public health and adequate hydration. so, we're very, very pleased to support the ordinance. >> thank you, commissioner. is there any additional public comment on item 1? seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> supervisor chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. i first want to take a moment to thank all the members of the public that came to speak on this item and i wanted to just make a couple of observations. first of all, to thank all of

the environmental activists both here in san francisco and around the country that have been really furthering this issue starting with think outside the bottle campaign run by the corporate accountability international organization. want to take a moment and really thank our students here locally particularly at the san francisco at sf san francisco state for leading the way. students have really championed this around north america and really need to be commended for your activities in this area. want to also thank racology because right now they need to collect 10 to 15 million single usev plastic water bottles every single year. if we are successful with this ordinance hopefully we can reduce the cost to our rate payer and what racology needs to do every single year. also want to appreciate their representatives of new industries, really new green businesses that are thinking about how we can both do better

by the environment as well as create new jobs here in san francisco and throughout california. and then i did want to address a couple of the issues that were raised by the $0 billion industry and their testimony. first of all, the suggestion that somehow this ordinance might deprive san franciscans after an earthquake of plastic water bottles or somehow deprive those individuals with compromised immune systems of their plastic water bottles. ~ $60 as i said before, this ordinance does nothing vis-a-vis the private sector. you can go to walgreens, you can to your corner store, safeway and get as many plastic water bottles as you can carry home. so, i want to just emphasize that. and secondly, there is a bit of a green washing suggestion that somehow bottled water has a lower environmental footprint. and i want to just mention a couple of things. while it is, according to the industry, these bottles are recycled at higher rates than others. i think it is important to

note, if i can just pull up the statistic here, that studies show that over half of plastic water bottles don't end up being recycled. so, that's part of the picture. but a more important part of the picture is even if these bottles are recycled, it still takes an enormous amount of energy to actually recycle the plastic water bottles. in fact, if you think about it, to create a bottle let's say in fiji, manufacture that bottle, to ship it thousands of miles here to distribute it and transport it to where it needs to go, to the energy it takes to discard that bottle and then to recycle that bottle, it takes 2000 times as much energy to engage in that activity as it does to fill up your tap out of hetch hetchy. so, the suggestion that somehow this has the lowest carbon footprint, it is the lowest carbon footprint of the various polluting entities that we're talking about. i think a more visual way to understand this is if you have a 12 ounce bottle, imagine oil filling up 3 ounces of your 12

ounces. that's as much oil as you need to actually manufacture, distribute, transport, discard, and recycle that plastic water bottle. so, with that, colleagues, i very much appreciate your consideration of this matter. i do have, as i said, one technical amendment that we need to make. the intent of the -- if i can just pull it up. we had made an amendment in our substitute legislation to allow for large nonprofit events a little bit more street time to comply. we had a draft in there. i just want to state in section 24 03 e it should read ~ this section 24 03 shall not apply to an event held prior to january 1st, 2018 that is sponsored by a nonprofit entity and that has over 250,000 attendees or participants. again, this is really to address the folsom street fairs and the pride parade. so, with that, colleagues, i'd like to ask if you could first make that technical amendment. and then because of that

amendment, this item needs to sit over for one more week, ask that this come back to this committee one week from now and be reported out hopefully as a committee report for final consideration by the board -- first consideration by the board a week from this coming tuesday. >> okay, thank you. supervisor kim. >> i'll make that motion. >> okay. so, supervisor kim has moved to accept the amendments as proposed by supervisor chiu. can we take that -- those amendments without objection? the amendments are adopted. [gavel] >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. and i just wanted to thank president chiu's office for this legislation. i certainly knew quite a bit, i thought about the environmental impact water bottles had and learned a lot when mayor gavin newsom prohibited water bottles here at city hall and the board of education soon quickly followed as well when we learned about the environmental impact. something that you view that is just good for you to be drinking water all the time,

but learn even more through this process. and wanted to also note that a lot of the impact is also just from [speaker not understood] really heavy loads of water throughout the country when you can get it from their fawcett or many other places that are much, much closer to you. so, i certainly become one of those that believe in not using water bottles when i can and really glad to see this move forward. i hope we can really move toward the city where the behavior that reduces this type of usage. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. i have a question, president chiu. in terms of i know we have a letter from the business commission and i don't think that commission was here today. >> i believe all of the various city departments were invited to this. i can ask my aid if that was the case. we certainly spent a lot of time with event advocates as well as producers to put out the lackvctiontionv wa we had here. ~ language >> in terms of the letter there

were some concerns, did your office meet with them to discuss -- >> yes, that is my understanding, we actually had about 10 months of meeting with all the various city agencies. and i will say initially this legislation was crafted as a much quicker phase out on city properties, but we very carefully crafted it to address all the concerns that you heard raised today. >> okay, thank you. great. so, with that, is there a motion on this item? >> to move forward with positive recommendation. >> i think we need to continue, unfortunately because of the amendment we have to continue it one week. >> thought we were -- we're not able to move forward? >> right. you should continue for one week and i understand president chiu has requested that the committee next week send it out to the full board as a committee report and it will be heard on the fourth. >> thank you very much. >> make a motion to continue for one week. >> so, the amendments have been accepted. the amendments do require this to sit in committee for another week.

so, the motion is to continue item number 1 by one week. can we take that without objection? >> yes. >> okay. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? he >> >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code, zoning use district map zn01, to provide for eligibility to sell transferrable development rights for property at 133-135 golden gate avenue (st. bonife church and rectory); and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ golden gate avenue. >> and supervisor kim is the author of item number 2. supervisor? >> oh, thank you. i thought we were doing item number 3. [speaker not understood]. >> my apologies. i think we did agree to call item number 3 before item number 2. so, could we -- could you call item number 3 instead of item number 2? >> yes. item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow non-conforming secondary structures in a c-3-r (downtown retail) zoning district to be demolished and rebuilt to the prior non-conforming size under certain conditions; making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ certain conditions. >> okay. sponsors of this item are mayor lee as well as supervisors chiu and cohen. president chiu?

>> thank you, colleagues. a some of you may know, this is a planning code ordinance that would allow for the development of a new apple store in the northeast corner of union square. i'd like to invite our planning department to make a presentation on this, but i just want to first of all thank the mayor and supervisor cohen for their co-sponsorship. i know that this is a project that has had a lot of community dialogue and initially around the [speaker not understood], sculpture and then more recently with community label coalition. i do want to take a moment and thank apple for engaging in the conversation that i helped to mediate with a community label coalition and these conversations were productive and appreciate that on issues not having to do with ceqa or planning code issues that there has been a pathway to move forward. but that being said i'd like to ask planning staff if you could describe the amendment and hopefully we can go from there.

>> sure, thank you, good afternoon, supervisors. it was [speaker not understood] with the planning department. on february 6 the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance. the proposed ordinance would amend planning code section 18 8 to allow secondary structure that is noncomplying with respect to its four area ratio limit to be removed in whole or in part and reconstructed if it is located in the downtown retail district and the planning commission can make certain findings through the downtown project authorization process. currently planning code section 188 prohibits a partial demolition and reconstruction of a noncomplying structure even if the proposed reconstruction would result in a net decrease in the property's quark footage. after the department conducted some analysis ~ the department concluded it applied to one property. 300 [speaker not understood] street the site of the proposed apple retail store at union square. this since this legislation is a limited scope and only

applies to one parcel, we think it is prudent to make it clear in the legislation itself which is why we recommended the block and lot in the affected property be referenced in the ordinance itself. this amendment will help planners or members of the public review this ordinance in the future understand its applicability without expanding amount of time system through the data. at the february 6 planning commission hearing, a motion was made to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. the commission voted 3 to 3 on that motion which constitutes a failed motion. since the motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance failed, it constitutes a recommendation of disapproval. however, it's worth noting that after the failed motion, the planning commission approved the apple retail store project itself throughout downtown project authorization and approval that is contingent on the approval the proposed legislation. and that includes the necessary findings which are outlined in this legislation. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any additional questions. thanks. >> thank you very much.

and i understand -- well, ken rich from oewd was going to be here, but maybe not. is there any other city presentation, president chiu? okay. with that, colleagues, if there are no questions or comments, we will open item number 3 up for public comment. i have just a few cards. timothy rafe. rick multelo and adrian semi. so, you can come on up and public comment will be two minutes. good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. my name is timothy rafe. i'm a resident, lifelong resident of san francisco and also a union carpenter. so, i live in san francisco and i try to work in san francisco. this project represents a large number of construction jobs, i

believe 300. it also represents about 100 permanent jobs. that's a lot -- that's a lot of work and i'm urging you today to vote in favor of this project for the simple reason that i could be affected by this. this can put me to work. i like to work where i live and there are a hundred permanent jobs that produces revenue for the city and, you know, we all need revenue. and i think the project is pretty sound. i believe apple computers is a good viable partner. i believe they do good work and i think it's a good deal for the city. so, i'm urging you this afternoon to vote yes on this. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm rick [speaker not understood], development

director with apple. we are pleased that you're hearing the rezoning legislation today. it is a great store that we are embarking on within union square at the current site i believe [speaker not understood] post and stockton street. we believe the innovative design by our architects foster and partners will be a wonderful addition to san francisco and union square in particular. we have worked with planning for almost a year refining our design to comply and collaborate with city planning to come up with a better design, made better by the process. some of the highlights that i'd like to point out first is the [speaker not understood] fountain that is pronounced and enhanced in the redesign of the plaza where it is the focal point of the entry of the plaza. and we've had great comment from the city and a lot of

great feedback from the family regarding the fountain. the public plaza itself is reconstructed. it will have tables and chairs to allow seating for the public to come in and use the plaza which right now we believe is very under utilized. so, it will make that space usable and enjoyable for the entire public to use. lastly, it's a retail destination that will draw through union square to our store and enliven and enhance all of union square by doing this. thank you and i hope you vote for the support of the project. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. adrian semi, local carpenters 22. i'd like to present this letter to you. this is a letter of support from the local. each one of you will have one in your office because i brought them to your office actually before the meeting so

you'll have -- all have copies. and want to let you know that local 22 does fully support this project. we have a commitment by apple with the help of rick, the speaker before me that this will be an all-union job supporting carpenters with benefits, apprenticeship, and it really doesn't get any better than that. if you want to create jobs in san francisco, you partner with developers. that is exactly what apple is doing with local 22. i want to say thank you for listening and please vote for this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. thank you, supervisors. my name is adrian cohort with the bay area council. as a regional business association representing the largest employers in the region, it is very unusual for the bay area council to weigh

in for or against a particular project in a specific city. but in apple flagship store in union square won't be any -- just any project as union square isn't any other location. the flagship store will become a new landmark for our region and will create hundreds of construction jobs we just heard about and also several hundred permanent jobs in one of the busiest retail districts in the nation. and apple is one much our region's most icon i can companies representative of the innovation that drives a major part of the region's culture and economy. as such an apple store in union square is a perfect fit. the proposed store is an architectural impressive [speaker not understood] that will seamlessly blend the indoors and outdoors with open air design, stain glass walls and window and will be a destination for visitors and residents alike. the project will also create a

unique public space preserving one of the city's most beloved fountains and revitalizing an under used public plaza at stockton and post streets. exciting new projects including the central subway and transbay transit center project will continue to transform san francisco's downtown core for years to come and alioto-pier l's union square retail store is an important piece of this changing landscape and we urge your support. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor chiu, i know you distributed some amendments. >> yes. first of all i want to again thank all the stakeholders that have worked together and also thank apple for their discussions with the community to move this forward and very much hope that, colleagues, we can move this forward with full recommendation today. i do have a couple of technical amendments that we were asked by the planning department to

include. first to reference ceqa findings from the planning staff report and then to add a reference to the requisite block and lot number. i understand that these are nonsubstantive amendments so that we could amend them today and move this out of committee today to the full board. >> okay. so, supervisor kim, should we take the amendments first? >> yes. i'll make a motion for those amendments. >> okay. so, supervisor kim has moved to adopt the amendments as proposed by supervisor chiu and we'll take that without objection. [gavel] >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. actually my question was on the amendment. i just wanted to clarify, i think in reading the planning report last night, i believe that you stated that this was the only parcel that had a secondary structure in the c-3rr? ~ >> it's the only property that is both noncomplying, has a noncomplying [speaker not understood] and has a secondary structure. >> and, so, the reason for

indicating the parcel is what? >> it took us a really long time to get to that conclusion. and since we resulted in only one parcel, we figured we might as well cut to the chase so that i'm not around in 10 years and someone is reading this legislation, everyone knows what it's referring to. >> okay. [speaker not understood]? but i also understand the concern. if we don't clarify, if there are no -- if there are other secondary structures in the c-3-r. >> [speaker not understood] they did have concerns when applied to a larger grouping of properties. so, that was also another reason we added to give them the assurance this would in perpetuity apply to only this one parcel. >> and just to clarify again, the secondary unit, there is a hotel and then the current [speaker not understood]? >> correct. [multiple voices]