sometimes i'm disrespectful, but this is no nonsense legislation. thank you. >> it's sue hester. i'm in support of this ordinance. this is really a simple ordinance. it says time out for 40 days; no mergers. it doesn't say no rents; no vacant storefronts can be rented. it only says no mergers. mergers are not controlled by the planning code. they are over-the-counter. there are zero standards for conditional uses on 24th street in the planning code. when other conditional uses have been formed it has been after a planning period. there is a 40-day period here to get standards together.

the planning department doesn't do very well by conditional uses without standards. we have had that at the planning commission, and it's on thursday and the last hearing planning commission said explicitly 899 valencia needs to be broke up into three storefronts. it was intentional. and the staff ignored the planning commission, and they came in with a proposal to have one massive storefront. the people from valencia street, that were merchants were freaking out at the planning commission. the planning commission did the thing and said no to cmpmc and they couldn't wipe out the entire storefront of that part of very valencia street.

we need specific standards for 24th street. i don't see where there is any problem at all. thank you. >> thank you. >> members of the board, my name is miguel bustos. i am a member of calle 24. i am a life-long residence for 45 years on 24th and harrison. right in the heart of this location, where this legislation that i support is being called for. you know the conditional use permiting process doesn't address affordability or preservation and small business spaces with important, because small businesses are important. to the fabric of this city. not only to the fabric of the mission, but to the fabric of the city. this was evident not too long ago we had the formula retail

legislation that went through, which thanks for championing that, supervisor wiener. because you understood the importance of having the character of many communities and we didn't want change here. and because of that, we're able to have small businesses. so this is in the same spirit; that we want to preserve small spaces, so that small businesses could thrive. you know, we fought against the archdiocese, many of us latino and many of us catholics and saved businesses. for us, we cannot forget that some of the empty spaces that -- i live there, so i have counted them. it's not 19. you know, i counted three. what i did see is that allen mccarthy's space was once a

small business and he combined them to make a big space because he forced out the old tenant to do this to get higher rent and right now he is asking for $12,500 a month. so this is a latino cultural district. it's important, because people are moving in, and they forget that this is a district, a cultural district with its integrity -- >> if i may, i just wanted to ask a question. i'm happy to see commissioner bustos here. what is your bigest fear as a long time residence? >> thank you for asking. my biggest fear is that you have people invested, who lived there and made the best of the mission. you have us asking and begging for this. and then you have folks that just come in all of a sudden it's not enough. and they act like christopher columbus discovering america as if no one else was there,

and they want clean streets . they say they want safety, so you act like christopher columbus or the second coming of christ. for me, my biggest fear, we lose the essence of what we are as a city, by losing the essence of what we have as calle 24 as the mission. i would hope that we do the same thing for the african-american community. this city is losing its diversity and i hear some opponents saying we want diversity, means "less of us." thank you so much. [ applause ] . >> thank you very much for your comments everyone. thank you for coming. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? no. public comment is closed. supervisor campos, you have some brief remarks? >> just briefly, madame chair, i want to thank all of the members of the public who came out and speak on all sides of this issue. i think those who have concerns about some of the things that

have been proposed, i encourage them to become involved in this process. one of the problems that i have with the way in which this process has been described is the reference to calle 24th as an "exclusive entity." the reality is that the board of supervisors and mayor created this council and the idea is to continue to be to include every member of this community. and the and beauty of 24th street, what makes 24th street so unique, the fact there are so many diverse people with so many diverse views. so i encourage you to be involved. the last thing i would say, is that one of the things that one of the things that the community made very clear, that they wanted a lot more included in the interim controls. one of the things that was

discussed and requested at some point was to actually have a ban on restaurants. and i appreciate that the golden gate restaurant association has come out in favor of the interim controls. because they recognize what was proposed in the end was actually very measured, very balanced. simply a very narrow focus on mergers, as opposed to a ban on restaurants. so it is a very balanced approach and colleagues, i ask for your support. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. i want to thank all of the members of the public who came out on both sides. this is actually -- we have had some rough sledding here in city hall with some of the hearings that we have had recently. and i say this -- what happened is exactly how public comment should be. people were passionate and

vociferous and direct and extremely respectable to the other side and that is how the democratic process should work because that is democracy and we're all entitled to be critical of each other. i do want to say the interesting thing is -- and i think i said this during the debate on the mission moratorium, that i think most people on both sides had the same end goal of having affordable housing, but i think the same is true today. i think everyone wants 24th street to be safe, vibrant, and diverse street. i just think there are different views on how to get there. i do want to say that i think we have heard some comments today about long-term versus newer residents, or

christopher columbus or whatever the comments were. i heard long-term residents on both sides of this debate and a number of opponents indicated that they had lived the mission 20-30 years. so i imagine there are long-term and short-term residents on both sides of this one. again, a good-faith policy disagreement. it's really interesting that i've actually proposed and legislated conditional use requirements in a number of different occasions. i co-sponsored legislation to subject banks to conditional use through formula retail. as i mentioned supervisor campos and i co-authored the valencia street and the residents asked us to ban restaurant and went with

commercial use instead. and every time i have proposed a conditional use, there are people who take shots at me, telling me i'm being anti-business. that i'm being too restrictive, that i'm being too hard on these businesses that are just trying to come in and i'm just going to promote vacancies, and so on and so forth. that is the case, because the conditional use is not weak. the conditional use is actually quite strong. it's a challenging process to go through. too challenging for some small businesses. so it's not a process that you just slide through. and i will say, and again i know most about my district, because i work on a lot of the different projects, or follow a lot of the projects moving forward. many conditional uses have been

defeats at the planning commission when there is opposition. i will spare you, but i could go through a list in my head of conditional uses defeated in my district and i know it has happened with other districts as well. so i don't agree with that conditional use is a "weak tool," but a very strong and flexible tool. as i mentions at the begin, that a ban here is not just a strong response, but a response that will not give enough flexibility, and will have unintended consequences. i mentioned what happened with the restaurant cap, which was effectively a ban. and, in fact, supervisor campos, supervisor kim and i went through, i think, years' of process around the mission

alcohol controls, which were effectively a ban. and ended up having very, very negative unintended consequences about new and creative uses, including for example, the roxy theater could not sell beer or wine. and so we ended up significantly scaling-back that effectively a ban and made it a more flexible thing, so it could be more case-by-case, understanding there were good alcohol uses and problematic uses. i would support this if we amended this to convert the ban into a conditional use. i know what supervisor kim's view is. i don't know what supervisors cohen's view is on it and i will either be in the majority or i will be in the minority and then we can move forward. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair cohen. i just wanted to add a couple of comments to the discussion.

as supervisor wiener said, i have already made clear my support for the ordinance that is moving before us today. i want to say that i do appreciate supervisor wiener's points. our office has introduced, i believe, three to four interim controls in our districts. two were prohibitions and two, i believe were conditional use. and we have always had a lengthy conversation with our community and neighborhood about what is more appropriate, given the circumstances that we are seeing? one example i will give, in the mid market corridor, where we are seeing really fast development, of formerly vacant office buildings. there was a concern there was already too much formula retail and that we wanted a process to at least examine each new formula retail in that corridor as the planning department completed their study of formula retail controls throughout the city. market street is a major

corridor and this is a downtown corridors where we often have large footprints available for those types of businesses. in that case, we want to strike a balance and did a conditional use in that interim control. we also submitted interim controls with unanimous support by this board, where we have actually done a full-out prohibition, where we feel the market is moving too quickly and we need a planning process in place to examine the patterns that we're seeing? the example that i will bring up of a prohibition, we have prohibited any conversion from pdr, which is production distribution and repair, often our manufacturing and art spaces to residential or office during the summit plan. we thought it was happening too quickly, both legally and illegally and rapidly losing spaces for working wage jobs and this deserved a complete

pause during the central soma planning process. i think there are arguments for both and what i see today on calle 24th is more kin to what i have seen in central soma; where we're rapidly losing space and we absolutely should put a pause on it while we study it. is it doesn't mean that after the study, a prohibition will be in place and at that time a conditional use could be more appropriate and at that time we'll have a set of criteria to ask the planning department to apply the conditional use. they will have studied it and know what we want to see. it's temporarily and an interim control and not a complete prohibition in the long-term. we have heard a lot from the residents in terms of why supporting small businesss is incredibly important. in fact,, it's really, you know it's part of our priority policy to look at controls that preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods-serving retail.

and enhance future opportunities for employment and ownership. large footprints make it very challenging for residents to start businesss and also to hire locally. so i think this is something that will be a positive moving forward. i want to add to the mission alcohol special use district, something that supervisor campos myself and supervisor wiener have all worked on. when was originally proposed i think it was appropriate for the neighborhood. there were too many liquor stores in this part of the mission and i certainly see it in the tend erloin and neighborhood that i represent today. now today, especially along the valencia, guerra corridor the neighborhood has rapidly

changed, seeing businesses coming in with liquor sales on-site and they are not contributing negatively to the neighborhood either in criminal activity or other negative repurr repercussions. so even with moving forward we have a prohibition on commercial mergers in the special use district, there is nothing preventing the board in the future from overturning that if it's not appropriate for the neighborhood. i will be supporting this today. >> supervisor campos. >> i just wanted to respond to supervisor wein wiener and i appreciate the comments about the conditional use and may be that it's appropriate for a special use district, but in this case the community has considered a conditional use. for the reasons explained

before, including the reasons outlined by the planning department, while a conditional use perhaps is the right approach in district 8. it's not the right approach at this particular time for this section of district 9. so with that i will ask my colleagues to please forward the ordinance that is before you with the amendments that i have proposed. and i would respectfully ask that you forward this item with the amendments with a positive recommendation to the full board. and you know, i would ask all of my colleagues to please consider providing some deferrence to the residents of this district? and again, i want to thank the mayor, and the planning department, and the mayor's office of workforce and economic development for their supplement. >> thank you. before we take these motions and go to a vote. i have a couple of comments that i wanted to share with

everyone. and express that i have a deep understanding that there are some concerns about the proposal as it is, but it is an interim measure. i want to also remind people that i have previously sponsored interim controls as a way to stop displacement. particularly this was in the design center, you may recall? when artists and pdr spaces were in jeopardy of losing their space due to a tech company's interest in coming in. and we used -- we established a conditional use as a process and criteria for the office conversions in the design center. this process did give us an opportunity to get some breathing room and come up with a more comprehensive solution that was thoughtful and measured and fair to all parties involved. so really the point that i'm trying to drive home today, we may ends

up with a conditional use requirement in the special use district. i just think it will take us some time to get there. i agree that we need diversity on the commercial corridor. i think that word is thrown around very freely in this city. i'm not quite sure how people are defining "diversity." but i'm always keeping a watchful eye on that definition. i think we all have different working definitions of what "diversity" is. i'm prepared to support this temporary measure as a means to pause any new mergers and give everyone an opportunity to work on the permanent controls, but i will be watching this process. and i would encourage everyone to be as inclusive as possible, and this is an all-hands-on-deck opportunity to have input into the community that we all profess to love. question for the city attorney, do we need separate motions?

>> yes. >> supervisor campos >> thank you, mr. assist ant city attorney -- >> deputy city attorney. >> how many amendments did you have before us? >> it's one set of amendments. >> if i can get a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> wow, thank you, supervisor kim. [laughter ] >> second. >> all right. without objection, this motion passes -- to the amended legislating -- the amendments are adopted to the proposed legislation. thank you. supervisor campos has made a motion, but i need it to be made by a member of this body to move this legislation forward as amended but to the july 28th board meeting. may i have that motion, please? >> so moved. >> thank you. is there a second on the motion?

>> there doesn't need to be a second. >> okay. supervisor wiener reminds there doesn't need to be a second on the motion. which is correct. thank you, supervisor wiener. roll call vote on the motion, madame clerk, please call the roll. >> on the motion to recommend to the board for july 28th. >> yes ma'am. >> supervisor kim? >> aye. >> kim aye. >> supervisor wiener? >> no. >> wiener no. >> and supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> cohen aye. >> two ayes, one no. >> the ayes have it, ladies and gentlemen and this moves forward as amended. [ applause ] >> item. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. well we still have one more item. item no. 6. madame clerk. >> amending the planning commission code to clarify in a inclusionary affordable housing program applies to housing projects >> we have joining with us

supervisor avalos and i would like to first recognize supervisor kim. and we also have joining us supervisor christensen. supervisor kim. >> i don't know if supervisor avalos wants to go before me. >> sure. i think i found my place here. thank you. madame chair, thank you for calling this hearing on this legislation. and i want to also thank my co-sponsors to this, supervisor kim, who is also looking at this idea as well. this ordinance clarifies inclusionary housing program applies to group housing program. group housing is housesing that does not include an individual kitchen like a boarding house.

the program is based on the fact that building more luxury housing increases the need for low-income workers and therefore, increases demand for affordable housing. the program has been designed to apply to a wide range of types of housing. the definition of "housing projects" subject to the inclusionary requirement has always explicitly included group housing. but at many point, the planning department made an unofficial determination that group housing was not subject to the inclusionary housing program. however, this determination was never formalized in a written zoning administrator determination, which could have been appealed to the board of appeals. therefore, we only recently became aware of this unofficial policy. and recently developed and proposed a number of market-rate group housing projects that have brought to light the fact that the planning department is

currently not requiring them to comply with inclusionary housing program. so this ordinance clarifies that the planning department is to follow the original language of the inclusionary housing program, and apply it to group housing. i believe we have staff, who are also here from the planning department to present. and i believe we also have some amendments that i believe you will be prepared to talk about as well. so i appreciate that. the amendments that i have copies of. there are three essential ones that we'll go over. and also, my colleagues have other comments to add and is there an amendment that has come from supervisor christensen as well, that she will be here to talk about. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, chair wiener. i wanted to add some comments to supervisor avalos, actually our two offices were both drafting this legislation at the same time, unbeknownst to

one another. so i'm happy that we're able to introduce this together. as he had mentioned in 2002, when the board of supervisors originally passed the inclusionary housing program, inclusionary affordable housing program, an ordinance that is not replicated throughout cities across the country it was one of our most successful initiatives in ensuring that the producing of affordable housing okurds and also to ensure that the private market rate developers are part of the solution in building units to the vast majority of san francisco residents. as i said many times before, 60% of the san francisco residents qualify for affordable housing in the city. the board intended this program to apply to all units built, and explicitly stated that group housing was one of the types of housing which should apply under the inclusionary ordinance. it only became clear as supervisor avalos mentioned, to our office last year, that the planning department has been

interpreting this ordinance differently because of a difference in how dwelling units are interpreted versus "housesing units." and because group housing is not considered under the umbrella of "dwelling units," the zoning administrator has therefore been interpreting our ordinance as excluding group housing from the policy. this clean-up legislation just explicitly makes clear that it is group housing as defined about under the housing code that is now included in inclusionary housing ordinance and not based on how we actually define "dwelling units." 1178 folsom, two blocks

within -- two blocks/sorry two blocks away from one of our public schools, as well as two sites in the tenderloin as well. again, this is just to clarify what the board expressly articulated back in 2002 and it's just clean-up language. >> supervisor christensen. >> thank you, madame chair. i want to thank supervisors avalos and kim for this measure, and for their patience with some potential additions to it. at the same time, that they were working on this, my staff was also looking at some similar issues in commercial districts in the c3g and c3s zoning districts. the code gives additional floor area to projects in this district for providing onsites bmr units. unlike the rest of the units around the city, these units are only required to be affordable for 20 years and they will also be for, as much

as 150 ami, with no specifications on unit size, mix or rental versus ownership. so aligned with the intention of the avalos and kim ordinance is to clarify and provide technical clean-up, regarding group housing and inclusionary housing requirements. i move to make amendments that seek to do the same, regarding inclusionary housing in the c3 zoning districts. this amendment would require bmr units in the c3g and c3f zones to be permanent affordable housing at no more than 120% ami for rental -- creating permanent middle-income housing and further technical clarification is included to bring the units in the same process for approval as the rest of the inclusionary housing program and to make them family-sized units. the planning commission recommended that these additional unitss are subject -- also be subject to impact

fees, which we have added. this is a good policy and a cleaner process for those projects, and we have been advised that the time to do it is to add it to this legislation, if the supervisors will accept that amendment? >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. well, the good thing about this discussion happening now is that we're actually building group housing in a broader way in san francisco. i think when the inclusionary housing ordinance and i actually checked with some people back when the inclusionary housing ordinance was first adopted and none of them could occur group housing ever coming up as a topic of discussion and i would assume at the time, the only group housing was probably 100% below market rate, senior housing or emancipating foster youth so forth. so the fact that we're