november 8, 2016. >> supervisor cowen is not able to make it here today and so we have intended to have this duplicated version travel to the full board of supervisors along with the original versions that was called from committee so at this time i'm not going to be making an amendment to item 2 so unless supervisor cowen has convicting open up for public comment so anyone wants to come forward seeing none, public comment is closed. and now if we can get a motion as a committee report for the july 19th board meeting >> supervisor we'll take that without objection. item 3. >> a motion ord submitted to voter for the conditional use authorization for conversion of division and repair institutional community use and

use of respective of space under the california environmental quality act and an election on november 8, 2016. >> thank you. i think i see april from supervisor kim's offi office. >> good afternoon supervisor tang and supervisor cowen april from supervisor kim's office this measure is the conditional use and replacement requirement for pdr, arts and institutional institutional community use thank you to be here at the rules committee we were asked to consider two items i'll present and it was in response to request from many projects in the current planning pipeline and also to that think small projects and exempting small

projects so we have some amendments to that effect as well as some clean up amendments or not clean up amendments but 09 amendments i think were important to some of the stakeholders in reviewing the legislation again and i wanted to just go through those line by line last year let's see here - >> the first one being that on - i'm sorry one of the amendments that we have proposed to have interchallenge ability of the respective continue pdr and institutional community and art use but after speaking with stakeholders i think there was a desire to insure the replacement space would be replacement for the loss of the prior use that

was pdr for pdr institutional community use for institutional community use activities. >> the other amendment actually on page 5 he let me start from the top i'm sorry starting from page 5 the following controls shall apply in the eastern neighborhoods plan michigan, eastern soma and western selma and as suggested by the city attorney if adopted accident central soma that was the intent i think that is important to say if adopted central soma as well as there was a clarification or provision to insure that the most prior non-temporary use in the space would be required to replace pdr and institutional community use there was a concern that there

was temporary uses in a space that was would be considered a new use after speaking with the city attorney's office it is okay to clarify that the prior use was if a prior use of pdr institutional community or arts activity use that was a non-temporary use the concern of temporary activists for a pop up bagel store or something like that that was of concern to the community members. >> united states pop ups would not be required to be respected. >> exactly. >> let's see so the issue that i was bringing up is listed on my page 7 line one

replacement space maybe space for pdr and institutional community or arts activity use that would be redacted the replacement would be one for one the loss of prior use the - ass as far as the grairlth what we came up with with the grandfathering we'll move to grandfather projects of the environmental application of june 14th but there is about 10 to 20 list in the pipeline they're contemplating a pdr replacement in they're concentrated site but it was important to capture some pdr

replacement even in the pipeline replacement the replacement is 40 percent for projects in the pipeline but had not received they're planning approval by june 14, 2016, so you'll be capturing some replacement and let's see here - there was a specific case that was raised about a project that had received affordable housing credits with the affordable units on south bay marina and want to exempt that particular project. >> so - i think. >> i'm sorry explain why we want to exempt that project. >> there was a case of

investor that provided a commitment to insure there was the 200 i believe thirty unit anothers south bay marina an expiring new development use they cameefore the board and they basically provided that benefit to these south bay marina apartments with the expectation that that'll they're concentrated future affordable housing credit for a future site would be credited towards saving those two hundred. >> i remember this now sorry. >> and i believe those captured the majority of the amendments - oh, we did consider an amend to the smaller site

but after speaking with the stakeholders they were more concerned about not necessarily the future small sites more about a particular project that was and the impact the grandfathering date so while we considered an exemption for smaller promotions i think that moving forward as long as the roles are clear moving forward the smaller project exemption was not as much as a concern. >> okay. >> any other amendments or are these the only ones. >> i'll wait to speak until you're done with the amendments. >> i think those are - most of amendments. >> so what i have here is

interchange ability it will was for the replacements of that use or the same use a clarification that the prior eye if it was temporary for example, that it wouldn't need to be subject to the new requirement grandfathering there is a clause about environmental applications being accepted prior to june 14, 2016, but there will be a 40 percent requirement for pdr space for those projects in the pipeline if they didn't get the approval by june 14th and specifically the south bay project and a small beach exemption not at all; is that correct. >> and looking at the legislation i think for what we start to go into the replacement requirements so call the roll. >> the legislation in the areas of july 1st, 2015, the

replacement space shall include one square feet of institutional use activities we'll delete m because of showcase square and castro street and that was the request also from supervisor cohen's office. >> in the areas of july 1st, 2016, are devoted umu and u m u 0 the respect shall be 7. 5 pdrs we're till redacting m u g and r for the .7 requirement that is office and retail and dropping down and adding a section to have the replacement at the want 5 research want 75. >> okay. can you repeat one

more time the areas you've removed from the requirement. >> in areas that are removed are m u g and m u r. >> okay. >> if deputy city attorney mirena burns. if i can clarify one of the amendments that was discussed regarding the temporary uses i believe the intent not if there is a temporary use not to replace that but rather than let's say a site with pdr use it is vacate for a year and a temporary imply pop up the idea then the next permit uses proposed will still have to replace the pdr use if it intends to demolish the building so the temporary use in between wouldn't wipe the slate clean that is the intent as i

understand it. >> thank you for your clarification. >> okay all right. supervisor cowen >> thank you very much good afternoon, everyone so last time we heard in committee you heard from me i had several concerns i want to thank the folks for speaking take into consideration i want to talk about the amendments proposed sforp the removal of the m category i'm in support of as i said, i didn't see a reason m would be included and now we've scaled back the scope of the measure any reference in zoning a requirement so thank you for that and changing dates from july 1st to july 14th i'm supportive of that as well i think that makes sense to have one be consistent date not that

really the changes in this area or properties at that measure impacts so the change is acceptable to me now as a relates to the m u r and others districts a president 5 square feet replacement obligation instead of a one to i support and the change it acceptable we have this lower obligations overall and the removal of the option for the pdrs or constitution of community use to insure it didn't compete if pdr have removed you must replace that with pdr and vice versa i support that the change make sense what we have said is that we don't want to fit one of these desiring uses over another

and this change will help to make sure that the pdr space is not taken over by institutional uses and also vice versa the grandfathering provision i think that is better but i don't think that it goes far enough i think that the grandfathering provision from the final planning approval to the environmental obligation is a step in the right direction and however i do have concerns about the president 4 replacement arrangement we've got projects in the pipeline nearing the planning commission approval or we've received they're concentrated approvals i'm saucer aware of the feasible - this is a question i can pose to you have you guys talked about the obligation with any of

the folks. >> i forwarded to them but none has addressed the feasibility of the .40 option. >> how did you arrive. >> as a policy we are isn't it true those new replacement requirements and trying to insure balance moderating moving forward with the different terse based on the only .75 and .5 the idea that while there is currently a pipeline of projects that we didn't want to exempt too far too many of them without requiring a replacement with the discount of .20 in the project sponsor is committed to pdr that's one of the concerns for the stakeholders and you know the potential replacement requirement would be .2 so that

would be .4 must .25. >> so do you think this makes sense for all of the projects impacted. >> i know there was projects that have already envisioned a replacement of pdr i think it would take to looking at each project individually to understand you know what potential impact there say, i think because central waterfront and potrero are not included there is probably a list i think about 8 there are other projects that are in the central soma plan the conversation with the central soma will be ongoing so i would like to take a closer look at the pipeline to get kind of the fine-grain and find all the different projects. >> again on appeal you guys think twice about bringing up this to the ballot and really

handle this to be able to reach out to all the parties involved particularly those the parties are impacted you know colleagues a week passed between our last hearing and the proposal and i highly doubt that was provided enough time for the planning department or the project sponsor to begin to redesign to determine if they meet the requirement and in pcos on this requirement at this point is it so arey i'm supportive of the change to the provision to apply to the environmental application dates but i don't think we've done our due diligence to decide that .4 is the right requirement that's part of my overall

frustration with this measure you've heard me articulate that last week, i feel if so not adequate time for people to review it there is little or no conversation of those that are impacted by it i know this is not the way to make the planning policies inside of san francisco is feels incredibly undemocratic and unfair and executive i'm disappointed the small project exemption is that going forward i can't tell you introduced that. >> i don't have any further remarks. >> supervisor cowen. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you to you and move the amendments proposed and say

i'm really pleased you've looked at the concerns raised at the last meeting a couple of days ago any understanding with sfmade communications that addresses the concerns that others have made but for this issue i'm supportive of the south of market leadership and the mission district advocates as well as i think this is an important piece of legislation that should move forward so i'm supportive and appreciative of the efforts to address the concerns that were raised. >> thank you supervisor eric mar and thank you for bringing forward this amendment that will make this measure slightly better i concur with commissioner cohen on the grandfather provision so still requiring the 40 percent replacement for those projects in the pipeline i think that again another instance the city changes the rules midway through

the permitting or fee process and in terms of the small sites or smaller projects exemption that's something that has i react to that we should have one in there but without the analysis to the new areas that sorry i guess the reduced amount of areas it is covering i don't know what that means i don't know. i, ask the planning department staff to come up later wanted clarity around the smaller projects and if it is necessary at this point and thirdly, flipping through this i want to calling your attention the 100 percent affordable housing 100 percent may be added as a permitted use if the replacement space includes one square feet of pdrs institutional communities or arts activity for each square

feet for conversion so in my mind as i'm reading not an exemption for 100 percent affordable housing it is saying i must provide this space replacement space and i have a problem with that especially given the work at the board trying to promote 100 percent affordable housing through the affordable housing bonus program i'm really concerned there maybe projects impacted and not move forward given provision i don't know if supervisor kim is open to changing that there is a full exemption for 100 percent affordable housing. >> i'm just to address- definitely will raise that with her in terms of the 100 percent affordable housing requirement exemption i apologize but i totally understand you passed the 100 percent affordable housing bonus program and it would be this provision would be a requirement only on the

specific district of pdr and s e g not a replacement requirement for all 100 percent affordable housing projects. >> sure i think i want to give the flexibility when issues may arise or projects happen in on the flexibility to figure out what we may want to include in the wvld projects that's my only concern i do so sophie hayward i don't know if you want to speak to that. >> hello. >> and deputy city attorney. >> the response of that and our supervisor cowen's comments regarding pursuing this protectively rather than the ballot you know as we put this forgot one of the things that

was important in issuing the finding that relate to both not just the loss of pdr but the nonprofit and art space one of the solutions that has consisting come up in the northern california grant makers report on the status of nonprofit one of the solutions they've identified in zoning tool to be able to preserve and retain the existing nonprofit uses in the city and so this is really coming from from best practices and ideas for solutions and so i think that we want to continue to push forward this initiative at the ballot to say either the requirements for those types of use but providing this board and the next board with the flexibility to address issues as they arise on a comprehensive basis so i think

that the amendments that you all have put forward that would allow the board to amend this legislation if it adheres with the scope of the - this legislation is where i feel we have been able to try to find that flexibility moving forward. >> i do appreciate that amendment it is critical. >> deputy city attorney. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. for clarity for the committee our office hat has not signed off on the 100 percent proposal that the committee is discussing today we're fourthly u figuring out what did board could do to the ordinance that within the scope and factoring the to thirty day rule the proposal your discussing would effectively

allow the residential uses in districts not currently allowed that is beyond the scope of concept of the measure introduced we could, of course, worked with the very important or any of the supervisors after this meeting to see what is possible if the committee is interested in discussing further but for today, the committee could not adopt amendments with 100 percent affordable. >> can i bring up sophie hayward from the mayor's office i'm curious to whether mohcd will consider those areas for promotions in the future. >> sure tuff sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing and community development as i read this i could be wrong the conditional use requirement i think applies

to all projects within the mission and eastern neighborhood and western soma on the opening paragraph based on that we'll ask for exemptions more affordable housing projects because of the fact that the density bonus passed we're hopeful we'll not have a automatic fee based on the presence of the pdr use i would say currently the ground zero of wvld affordable buildings include the uses like itself units, tenant services manager offices the lobby and, of course, the community room that is a requirement for our state financing be included so we if we have to move those to europe floors that is the at cost to the units we want to see the exemption for the projects if

this measure would apply to all of those areas within the central soma yes projects we are compensating in those areas. >> any in the pipeline right now. >> well sure the shot well site within the mission area for example, and sites on fulsome street and other examples. >> but i maybe misunderstanding the application. >> can we get clarity from the city attorney's office on this. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. you'd like clarity about the application with the promotion amendment. >> around the existing provision regarding 100 percent affordable housing so the john gibner, deputy city attorney. made a comment about where the 100 percent informational will not be allowed in certain types of zoning but if we are reading

this correctly i read it the someway as ms. hayward this applies to the western soma and the central soma it will impact 100 percent project that are in the pipeline. >> my understanding and this is based on conversations with april i'll defer to clarify if i'm misunderstanding what she's proposing the draft in front of didn't capture the continued as i audiotape it i think that we might need to take a step back the intent i understood and april clarify this is that the proposal would be to allow affordable housing projects 100 percent affordable housing within the s a i l sally at the deduct they're not allowed in the district whether or not

they're concentrated affordable or not zoned residential so for the provision that allows affordable housing projects in the zones if they're concentrated projects we're doing a pdr institutional community and artists replacement if it is a project that because of the conversion they're doing has to replace the use as an allowed use for the project they'll be allowed to put in one hundred affordable housing development as part of that project to replace the pdr uses. >> i understand that is not acquit the language in front of i understand the amendment that is the intent of the language as mr. gibner said earlier we're working on whether there is something the board can do within the scope of the ordinance as introduced because of a ballot measure we have restrictions on the noticing and requirements allowing housing in

a zoning district where this is currently not allowed maybe beyond the scope of this committee. >> so that helper. >> only the sally 3 g. >> we're trying to sort this out the cu will be applicable to the eastern soma and western soma and that's what we're seeking clarification that will impact the proposal we'll move another a minimum 4 units at the ground floor if we were to move all the communities spaces and tenant services to the second story up to 12 unions in addition subject to a conditional use we're not subject now. >> can i ask you work with the city attorney thank you. >> so again, i do more

comments i want to recognize some of the speakers so for public comment first and then continue our discussion i have mohammed (calling names) and anyone else that is here for item 3 please come on up. >> good afternoon mohammed for the partner supervisor tang and councilmember cole and supervisor mar thank you for having me. i was here last time a remembered 1 plus units open fulsome the corner of 23rd and fulsome one thousand square feet of art gallery and another 3 thousand square feet of art so for a total of 4 thousand art space we're thankful and appreciative of the conversations over the loose few

bases days but need to be clear with the grandfathering progressions you've project will not be able to go forward we ask that we have the grandfather provisions limited to projects with the environmental application submitted by june 14th we submitted our application october 2014 and so that's almost two years ago our planning commission hearing is on the 4 ugly four we have come applied completely with the eastern neighborhoods not asking for anything from the zoning change stand point so everything is as much as it can be imply the book to say a unexpected hit city last minute we want to push if the legislation is going to go forward we focus on the grandfathering before june 14,

2016, for the environmental evaluation thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon madam chair and supervisors i'm adrian field represent with the carpenters local 22 and i think that supervisor cowen said it best this really is not fair we've spent a lot of time and effort getting candidates from developers with the carpenters union local 22 and have a lot of work we have committed to do future work this is going to put people to work and apprentices and apprenticeships and help carpenters stay living in san francisco and have to redo the rules in the middle of the road is just not acceptable so, please if you can we'd ask you

exempt the projects grandfather the projects and don't change the rules thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors from reuben, junius & rose first thank supervisor cowen for her comments we're in agreement primarily to ask you to add a provision to the matter for the replacement projects project a conditional use pursuant to the planning code as part of eastern neighborhoods a number of historic surveys were to identify the historic buildings presently historic buildings in certain district maybe converted not for the recreation this b

and c in support of viability of preserving the buildings that are in historic district excuse me - preserving the buildings of historic pornls with the umu district and this recognizes the cost of rejection of the historic building is a higher cost and the ballot measure will contradict the section 803 point do 9 therefore we'll urge the committee to consider the exemption and i drafted potential language. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> and if any other members are here to speak a card for ace on the case. >> good afternoon supervisors i'm throwing with access development group and want to

echo a couple of things and make a comment we started on the project nearly 2 years ago and purposed the property last argue it was a considerable sum and really impactful and devastating is a strong word but has a strongly impact and potentially compromises the feasibility of our project if those proposed new protections coming up two years a after we've started our project it is unfair and very detrimental to the project and secondarily one of the things we want to point out is that the challenge or problem with an ordinance like this it really is a one-size-fits-all approach that didn't fit you'll dynamics our

project is next to a children's park an historical pdr slash industrial use on the property but really not appropriate for the current uses around it is the entire block is residential and there than a children's park on the corner in addition a elementary across the street so it is really not suitable for industrial use this ordinance will require bringing back sort of an industrial pdr type of use for a site not appropriate thank you. >> >> next speaker, please. >> ace washington everything says who they are their the czar of out emission and the corridor ambassador and social media the king in the media here at city hall i - but i'm here to say

i've been here over 25 years that's along the supervisors combined and the clerk that's a good idea that eye is not jaw by and large not talking about grandfather issues we have a lot of grandfathering in the western soma we put that there no accountability i'm here trying to find out now the special hearings that supervisor cohen's who are the supervisors we have servicing are you progressives or moderates or you guys who are i want to know when i found out the interviews a lot of supervisors were elected and say something else i'm a prime example i'm an african-american black i'll not name names two supervisors in office right now and i - none are accountable to

our community about any issues you're talking about you're talking about listen i have a solution to the pollution this called community remorseful and start introducing everyday everywhere i go and by way of i helped to create this ass ask ace washington to go to the board of supervisors and give to michael free man and put the paperwork and that's why you have the w channel i know how to work this system you going to see me on you'll self-community talking about my community remorseful we need that my name is ace and i'm on the case but i'll be inspector duffy fourth street who are you all. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> kate director of sfmade

thank you for the last comments at the last meeting they're concentrated essential i take the point i think this is far better as a protective process ann and an initiative the case in the back and forth on this for riders and .3 or whatever affordable housing in the pdr zone i think this goes to show not enough computed from folks that have actual real data is taking a look at as we craft this policy with that said to comment on ways have i want to thank supervisor kim's office that reached out to me at the last committee meeting unfortunately, one meeting is not enough and this is not in our opinion deliver the results we hope for a couple of specific comments 3

is problematic to introduce affordable housing through the pdr zones and not in support that have we're in support actually supervisor tang in allowed housing for considering the allowance for pdr replacement more affordable housing the second is i want to ask that we look twice at the how we're wording the like use replaces like use pdr is not a like use arts for example, is a allowed use within pdr i think you want to look at nonprofit office use that is a building term and scoping term and pdr use which includes arts we don't have a problem with arts and other pdrs replying one another we want to make sure that nonprofit and pdr uses including those don't compete with each other and last but not least nothing in our

service for - that shows that .4 for grandfathering mapsz we're in support of keeping it clean grandfather with you have and move forward with the new policy thank you. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> anyone wish to comment on item number 3 seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can go back to the question regarding the fee requirements regarding when we had first affordable housing >> whoever has the answer. >> they're concentrated encouraging not an exemption for 100 percent affordable housing there was a - we originally are the affordable housing in the pdr and c-3 g and so in speaking

with sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing i think we wanted to talk about more about an exemption more affordable housing i heard as an exemption not just only in the exemption to the replacement requirements but to the conditional use requirements this legislation currently contemplates that that projects that would have a pdr loss will have to go before the commission to get approvals so i need to get back to the supervisors for consideration. >> i'm glad we'll continue to discussing that that is credibly important to me did the planning needed to weigh in on the fee requirement i guess josh from planning. >> good afternoon, supervisors that was more a clarification of the intent of the ordinance which we remember discussing a couple minutes ago the measure

was written the conditional use will be triggered by displacement are conversion regards what the plan area will include the residential dissected but the respective requirement will be on additional layer in the district so a clarification where the continued to capture all the districts with the conditional use. >> for example, if let's say josh sorry stay up here for example, were we in district 4 and have mcd that's not being covered. >> we're talking about the area plan in the mission or in the neighborhood commercial on valencia street or mission street the fee will urban design triggered but the clarification is that's the intent for the measure. >> and so mr. among will you

bring that back to supervisor kim. >> okay supervisor mar. >> yeah. i had a quick question i had to say i'm in favor of the exempting the fee requirement and ask josh and others i think in the legislation is cites 2005 a 10-year-old study on the impacts of pdr on our eastern neighborhoods and i know that mr. al berry link and - any more improvements on the areas on housing and the impacts of pdr as well. >> josh with planning department staff the most current study conducted has been the eastern neighborhoods monitoring report which a draft that was published last week and

the most up to date matter not covering the entire city but the eastern neighborhoods but provides the most up to date information so not in the southeast. >> i know when you met with nick from my office has that report been shared with all the offices. >> i can make sure it is. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so i will say i'm okay. where accept some of the amendments and i think there definitely needs to be more discussion to be followed up on even some of the meantime amendments i'm of the mindset i expressed that i feel this is really not the way to be addressing this and in fact, could do something quicker if we introduced an ordinance at the board of supervisors very soon

so and to address particular neighborhoods in the mission there are impacts i know that supervisor mar you're interested about so all of that said to if this makes to the ballot there are certain things we need to change from day for example, i'll prepared to accept the amendment to make the clarification that if there was pdr use but vacate and taken offer by another temporary use that didn't wipe the following developer or project sponsor from the replacement requirement on that the grandfathering i'm okay with hud we'll accept the environmental application prior to june 14th will be exempted and not see the 40 percent requirement i'm okay with the 80

south beach requirement they understand that issue before the board and the issue the various areas the leading the m u use because of the non-need because of shaurdz and potrero hill were removed the change for the .75 to the 5 and removing the m u g and martin luthern king jr.'s u u those are the ones i'm comfortable with the change ability with the art pdrs use i think i'd like to see some fine tuning in public comment to make sure that again, we're not putting the various groups wire trying to help against each other with different uses i want to see more work on that. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you foreclosing

remarks i want to acknowledge supervisor kim's for that's a good question my concerns take into consideration of the legislation i had most severely strongest problems with i that that based on the discussion today that all of those issues are something we can solve legislatively through the intrrmdz or ordinance i will hope you'll seriously consider this i think that speaks to wisdom and leadership when to take something in the ballot and not a decade to establish the eastern neighborhood plan and a inspirey committee that has been curriculum vented really i'm calling foul and highlighting that the focus is not working and circumvented for whatever reason the connotation and

public- i find that note acceptable particularly representing parts of community that have been historically locked out of the process and feel that the processed that the legislation is brought has that same theme of people outside of community making the decision for you will have an impact but not including with the conversation i think that is mean spirited and hurtful the pdr and land use regulations in the eastern neighborhoods are incredibly implicated and not changed this quickly without a robust analysis and very strong community process i think that this is the wrong way to be making change we don't make others planning changes that way and didn't pass the

density bonus and condominium conversion we didn't pass short-term rental legislation this way this is really not ready and the sponsorship please i beg try the legislative route before the ballot i just will finalize my comments on just the acknowledgement none tried the legislative process that was jumping the gun bringing it to the voters thank you. >> thank you supervisor cowen i forgot to mention a couple of things maybe before the next rules committee i want to see more analysis on the small sites for projects whether on exemption for the proposed unit size or square footage and don't know what that means and impacted but something that i would like to address if necessary if not great we'll not need it here, and, secondly, there was the issue that was

raised during public comment about certain areas recognizing the historic buildings i'm wrornd in supervisor kim's office could look at that and honor in terms of the 803 section 9 that was raised earlier those are the two things i want to add to my comments earlier so at this time then i don't know how my colleagues feel about the various amendments i know supervisor mar you're ready to take all of them i'm okay with a few but supervisor cowen i'm not sure you, you feel. >> i'm prepared to take some of them. >> we'll start with the ones in agreement. >> in terms of the why not start with the clarification that the prior use with pdr but maybe a temporary space came in and it was a different use not

within the scope the slate clean the next project sponsor will be held to the replacement okay shall we motion for that to accept that. >> without objection and the other one regarding the south bay marina do we have a motion we'll take that without objection. the removal of the m use from what was originally the requirements under the sally pg r and loechl the m we'll take a motion we'll take that without objection. >> and the requirement going from .75 removing the m u r a motion to people that. >> we'll take that without objection. >> now going into the

interchange ability for the institutional community recuse for a like for like replacement do is where he have a motion again, i've asked supervisor kim's to work with me on the lunge. >> i'll second that. >> as i stated the motion. >> so it wouldn't be a motion to accept it i don't know supervisor mar you want to accept it or encourage the future evaluation great we'll not take that amendment grandfathering provision so again as i satdz i'm okay for this prior to june 2016 without the 40 percent requirement replacement requirement. >> so moved. >> are you okay with that supervisor mar or a roll call. >> (inaudible) as a proposed i'll allow - (inaudible).

>> okay. great if we can have a motion to that effect we'll take that without objection. thank you supervisor mar that's adapted and again further look at small sites and small projects and further look at small buildings and the entering change ability of the uses and again, just want to encourage supervisor kim to try to address that through the legislative process deputy city attorney. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i wanted to clarify there was two other additional amendment one was several amendments for the findings to add findings regarding the community uses and the arts activity use that was one safety net amendments don't believe we've discussed and et seq. >> can you please read the changes. >> certainly so the draft

version i have of them added 9 additional amendments if you like i'll read into the record and okay that would be great. >> the first one a new findings a san francisco is a unique city and made up of diversity and businesses b as outlined in the general plan it density creates a experience and encounters on every street and you can reach places by foot an urban protection san francisco is the center and crotch efforts for the quality of life has been done and retailing the tourism and education it's rich one and 50 year history gives the diversities to the neighborhoods the residents strive to maintain the welcoming of the people around the world to have a

promise of a healthy be city c in the recent years it is threatened by the way, of the high cost of real estate and d the real estate remedy be rates have pushed do office rates one owe 22 percent where they were 10 years and the real estate market is the toughest in the nation and f the businesses important to the city and finds themselves unable to compete in the market nonprofits and spaces for people to work in jobs that didn't require higher education find themselves out of the market and g by the say entitled status of nonprofit and space in march of 2016 two out of every nonprofits have to make a decision to move within the next 5 years and h many nonprofit

will have to as part of they're concentrated mission created by the high real estate relocating and i did report identifies the pressure can be addressed at the local government level by using the zoning suitable to turn to public space and affordable housing developments and then what of the prior understanding a was amended and proposed for amendment to a new findings j overseeing pressures although stuart have felt in the south of market because of this the eastern neighborhoods planning process began in 20051 and the finding are as overflow room property explicit for the 3 lettering. >> i don't think we saw that versions that was helpful anything else we missed. >> yes. the inclusion of the

south of market proposed plan area that is an amendment to the very first sentence to 2 point a the following controls shall apply not eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted centra eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central i eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central n eastern neighborhoods mission, eastern soma and western soma and if adopted central soma. >> supervisor mar. >> i'd like to move we accept that evaluation of the central soma language and accept those finding as amended. >> all right. i'm okay. are accepting those additional findings at this time you don't why not do that first a motion without objection and the central soma language i mean obviously i don't want this

ballot measure but at this time i'll do what the sponsor wishes and do that without objection? >> (laughter). >> no. >> okay. let's do roll call. >> on the last motion supervisor mar supervisor cowen no supervisor tang we have 2 i's with supervisor cowen in december sent. >> this amendment is adopted anything else that's it okay. so again, i just want to reiterate how much i think that is important to involve all sets of pdr community not just a couple of people from there this is really important we do all support the chair goal it is brought forth by supervisor kim but clearly a lot of folks have been left out of the conversation we want to see a

more conclusive process with that, is there any other comments or questions from supervisor kim's office we will then make a motion to continue this item to the special rules committee this upcoming thursday a motion. >> so moved. >> all right. as amended without objection and mr. clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> no more items

>> this coffee memory i remember having coffee with any grappled. in the old days myelogram ma get together >> i was six or seven i made a faces a good face. >> when i was younger i know it did something to my body. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i've been drinking coffee since i was 17 really the only thing i'm good at i was trying to find out what i was good at i

got a job at the coffee shop i decided to do that the rest of my life. i like the process of the coffee and what are those beans where do they come from oh, they come from a fruit. >> the coffee stays with me since i was a kid i grew up and opened coffee shops everybody. in the 8 i visited over 11 hundred coffee shops maybe more to see why people go to coffee shops >> we're searched the beans all over the world from east afghan and tokyo. >> when i wanted to do was get into aspect of the personal coffee and the processing and

everything else there was multiple steps in making coffee and we did have a lighter roost because of the qualities of the keep once you roost it it home gisz the coffee. >> one thing about the coffee they were special blends and i spent seven years on one blend so that's my pleasure. each bean they were all chosen and blended with each with different cultural and beans is like people and those people give me a reputation i can't buy. people love you my clients love me they take me to the moves

movies. >> fell in love with coffee and went to the coffee shops the community aspect i really enjoyed. >> i think it's important to have a place for people to show up and talk to their neighbors and recorrect. your surrounded with all those behalf communicated i communities >> i love my city san francisco has a good name my has every cultural in this planet living in san francisco it's a small city 7 by 7 but it's huge. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i really like the idea of

staying in the neighborhood and living in the mission i've lived here the whole time and the community really stick to it people talk about seattle and portland now they talk about seattle and san francisco. or portland and san francisco but san francisco is definitely on the cutting-edge of the coffee scene in the entire nation. >> there's so many romance in coffee is surrounds the sourcing of that and thinking about where it came from and how and coffee is wonderful. >> i know for a fact i was born to make coffee. i have a notice from the dad let the life i live speak for me and let's have a cup of coffee and

talk about it. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ item 6 introduction of new

or unfinished business by board members. >> members of the board are we good? >> item 7, directors report >> good after chairman nolan and members of the board and members of the public could i want to start out by recognizing some of our employees and a couple other quick items for you. first i like to ask don ellison to come forward and recognize a long time training spreadable of ours who's decided to retire after mere 39 years of service. >> good afternoon. director

nolan and fellow directors good it's my honor today to recognize a gentleman that was for this agency for over 39 years. that is paul peterson. he was a superintendent of operator training along with him is a manager of operator training kim anderson. they were together for six years and operator training but much longer within the agency. all began his career as an operator in march 1977. in 1983, he was promoted to transit supervisor in central control and then later to operations. in january 20,000 2000 he was superintendent of operator training. paul peterson's 39 years and four months in operator training is marked by core value of supporting people and their job and careers, making sure the public transportation needs are met and if you ask any of his colleagues, patience and persistence. paul success includes restarting the sfmta

eight the bus radio in april and peevishly managing all bus rodeo. with this he graduated 1000 new operators in the last five years with a record 481 in 2015. training operators and also training operators who are now or past managers in the transit division. paul says his favorite position with the agency is the one he retired, now i'm a but a close second was his work as the evening shift transit supervisor for cable cars. without setting the standard for keeping service on time and working with groups and conductors on customer service. on june 22, paul was honored with a banquet attended by current as well as retired staff of sf mta and muni. i was protested up her certificate of honor from the board of supervisors and a plaque from his coworkers.