from an outreach, i think that's part of the application, but today we are more into neighborhood and the helping hand to other businesses. you are not just in there for yourselves to make a buck. you are in there for the neighborhood too and that particularly resonated with me. i would be interested in having a discussion that wow, these are the parameters that we have heard in the last four sessions. it would be a great discussion. >> i just have one comment and i'm hoping that you can bring it up next year to maybe revisit the process to which nominations are brought forward. i think it would be much more open and much more positive if we have other avenues to have small businesses be introduced to us and be considered. >> thank you. >> i think we have a motion and second. >> we do indeed. >>clerk: on that motion to

approve the three matters for legacy business registration. to recommend approval. right. commissioner johnck, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman, yes, commissioner hyland, commissioner wolfram, yes, that item passes unanimously 6-0. >> that was our last item? >> that was indeed our last item. >> the hearing is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >>

>> good afternoon everyone. i want to welcome you to this meeting that will now come to order this is the regular meeting of the land-use and transportation committee. i am melia cohen chairman of the committee and to my left is erin peskin. i want to recognize our talented technicians at sfgov tv systems with this broadcast. my apologize to everyone that this committee was started at 1:30 pm. i was tied up in the rules committee. this is our last week in session and so we are taking care of last-minute business in details and it ran over and please, xmi appalled that without further ado clerk any announcements this afternoon? >> yes. besides all cell phones and electronic devices.

>> thank you clerk please call item 1 >> >> item 1 sidewalk >> change portion of the 30th ave. between clement street and geary boulevard >> we have mr. rivera from the public works with us. he's been a make a presentation on this item. >> good afternoon. public works. this legislation is for the reduction of a small portion of 30th ave. on the east side. it's part of the presidio middle school modernization project. what it will do is allow san francisco unified school district to create ada compliant ramps in

the pickup drop-off zone. the maximum reduction will be 5 feet for this area and it will be 10 feet remaining as sidewalk. if there's any questions i'll be happy to respond. otherwise that's pre-much all i have >> mr. riviere-thank you for that correction-i have a couple comments and then we will go to supervisor peskin. mr. peskin >> thank you chairman cohen should of just going to raise one issue relative to the noticing. i think if you're a member of the public and you see this notice in so far as it doesn't tell the public that

the sidewalk length is going to be reduced. i think these type of notices would be much more constructive to the public if instead of just saying, changing dope width it actually says reducing the width from 15 feet-10 feet or reducing it by 5 phuket that way, you might bring somebody's of a comment that otherwise might not really understand what this about did i just kind of really maybe less of a comment for you and may need a common for the deputy city attorney who drafted the legislation in the short title. >> absolutely. that's really something we could change in our legislation. to be honest, the majority of these are widening so they no longer come to the board but we could certainly add that to anything coming over here. >> maybe even we forwarded today depend what the chairman once knew we could actually change the short title to reflect that. >> sure. i think it's perfectly acceptable. we'll just changing from 15 feet, 210 that is that correct?

>> yes a drop-off pickup zone with ada compliant grounds >> let's take public comment. ladies and gentlemen, please come up for the public on item 1. you up to minutes to spea seeingk public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> do we have a motion? >> i would suggest that we amend the title to say- amend the short title to say sidewalk width reduction-portion of. save with change, with the reduction. send it forward with recommendations to the full board. >> without objection that motion passes >>[gavel] >> clerk next item

>> that was a motion to end either motion to recommend it? >> i would remake it recommended as amended. >> without objection that motion passes >>[gavel] >> next on the agenda item 2 medical cannabis dispensaries in the irving judah noriega and neighborhood commercial district and opposing conditional use authorization i just because supervisor tang is still in the rules committee which should be ending very shortly. she's as we continue this item to later in the agenda. all right with you? we have a motion to continue this for later in the agenda please. may i have a motion? >> so moved >>[gavel] without objection. clerk next item >> would you like me to read item 3 and four together? >> >> yes. >> item 3 to order additional vacation of certain san francisco utilities commission

service used in that exists within subways 1 am one be a part areas approximately 162 acre site located in lake merced district and bonded by by geldof pinto avenue and serrano tried to the n. 19th ave. [inaudible] brother away to the south and late merced two w. in favor of the sf puc authority to the director of real estate to ask you certain quitclaim deeds. item number 4 the vacation of san francisco public utility commission public service is examined exist in some phase 1a and 1b of the park merced bowman area approximately 152 acre site located in the lake merced district.

>> thank you. supervisor yee is the author of these items. i believe we have a member of of the quirks to present on this item? item 3 is simple it's an easement vacation. item 4 corresponds to item 3. >> >> correct. public works. yes, this is various locations with easement throughout the 152 acre acre park merced yet what others easement we always follow the same protocol as we do for streets because it provides more notice to the public. as far as letting people know when and where there will be vacated. again, this is pretty standard for the development needed for the development and puc will have some easements remaining until

there are replacements for those lines and those lines either have been approved or there's a public improvement agreement in place. again if you have questions, i am here and also the project sponsor is here as well if you have any questions. >> i don't think we haven't quite yet but go to public comment. any public comment for items three and four? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> peskin >> i'd like to make a motion to send item 3 to the full board as a committee report with recommendations and send item 3 to the full board is a committee report with recommendations and send item number four for our next board meeting on january 20 ja 10th, - excuse me - >> re: item number four i believe you would want to refer that without recognition to the january 10 2017 meeting

>> that is my motion. >> without objection that motion passes unanimously >>[gavel] >> next item >> >> item 5 to create a ordinance on mission street and nine street amending the zoning maps street to great commission and nine street special use district of moaning zoning map sheet change the height limit >> item number five is a sponsored by supervisor kim. she is on her way to the meeting now.. so we for this item before. it is back before us due to supervisor kim's office. there has been some slight changes i think she wants to make.

>> i think mr. starr may be able to speak to those from our department of city planning. >> sure. i believe it's been a create a new suv? >> i am actually on the tangentially aware of it but i believe it's revising the ordinance to add the commission's recommendation which is to add another 3 1/2% affordable for moderate income or under 50% area meeting in the supervisor kim is here i think she can speak to it >> thank you. supervisor kim, welcome. we are just discussing item 5 the planning code zoning map for mission and ninth street. suv. >> so we did hear this i then use committee last week i guess or two weeks ago. we realized on tuesday that the commitment that planning department had

negotiated with the project sponsor at the commission hearing wasn't actually enumerated in the language of the ordinance that is before us today. so i can make a motion to amend last tuesday. it did require that we come back to committee and it is simply a slight increase in the affordable housing commitments of the project sponsor.. committing to 11 units at 150% of average median income. on top of the units that the community had previously negotiated with the project sponsor. so this is now a total of 75 little below market rate units ranging between 55% and 150% of average median income. in many ways this is a can to the policy discussion that we had in regards to the dial and ensuring in a single project that we have bmr units that will be marketed at a very

diverse range of average median income from low income to clearly middle-class income. some colleagues, as per your support today for this amendment. >> take you. let's go to public comment on item number five. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> thank you supervisor kim can any last remarks? >> again 01 organize the project sponsor for doing a acute herculean job making sure came for to the fun commission and the board of supervisors with the deal that this entire community is supporting including subtle market committee action on united players, sf at central market cbd and san francisco building and construction trades council did not often we get it of him and project like this neatly tied with a bow tie. thank you for saving our office the work

of the negotiating and i'm very excited about this budget moving forward did i ask for your support one more time >> thank you get a motion for this item? >> yes i think the other time is a charm. i would like to send this matter to the full board with a recommendation as a committee report for consideration tomorrow >> date. without objection >>[gavel] >> any additional amendment today? >> no. >> my apologies >> know the ones and the ones i introduce tuesday believe their embedded into the ordinance. >> this matter is recommended as a committee report. he was thank you. these: item 2 >> item 2 extending interim zoning controls for medical cannabis dispensaries imposing

additional conditional use authorization criteria. >> supervisor tang is the author of this measure spews thank you very much. committee members for entertaining this item. i do feel that a little bit of background is seen as are committee members aren't paying attention-i feel the background is actually important for this item. back in 2012 former supervisor carmen chu had passed legislation to impact just the district for ncd get lb irving, judith terry open door ea got acquiring conditional use it the ground floor use was not in active use. the intent actually stemmed from committee input about wanting conditional use process when consumed in cities. what to clarify that this is not to prohibit but just to include a neighborhood notification process and appeal process and so forth. so however later on in time the planning department had proposed that planning code cleanup as you know it's a massive document with 1000 pages or something

like that. it contains a code change that inadvertently impacted the zoning change for the ncd's and the district for neighborhood commercial district. so then when i was supervisor we had to introduce interim zoning controls to fix that problem. we had intended for another planning code change legislation by forth by the planning department to properly fix it but since that is long-delayed we want to prevent any confusion over the law in district for so that is why we are extending the interim zoning control for ncd's requiring acu in the district for corridor. with that i am happy to answer any questions or have planning department staff come up before us today. >> thank the idle couple questions. i want to get your philosophy. i understand-i could understand in initially the desire to introduce the interim controls but now that we are - excuse me - postpartum

64, i want to get your take. do you believe we should be legislating the piecemeal type of fashion? >> i think that like we do for even restaurants or businesses that are generally speaking very favorable to the committee we sue piracy is good all the neighbors are asking for some neighborhood notification. the ability to the planning commission and department to look at and cds with the necessary and desirable criteria. again this is not a probation. on and cds in district 4 >> so the issue is in notification for the neighborhood? >> it's not only notification but also benefit and desirable criteria that the planning department and commission be looking at >> have you spoken to the advocates are trying to come to some kind of an agreement clique

>> are you talking oh cannabis advocates are community residents? >> i imagine you talk to committee habits oh yes, cannabis >> note >> no. we have not. this a neighborhood issue in our district that comes back even before 2012 in the initial legislation was put into place could really predating my time as supervisor that it is something that was only because of an inadvertent code change to the planning department the we've had to go into interim zoning controls in the first place. otherwise i would not have done that. >> let's go to public comment. public comment is open at this time. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you supervisor tang for bring this for. my name is terrance alan. i'm a patient in advocate, founding board member of the first medical cannabis dispensary in san francisco known as champ. arrested in the early 90s for growing 24 plants in my closet for nine a letter lost a battle with aids, i used

cannabis for appetite increasing during the time when the aids drugs were not only very difficult on your system but really did not work. i moved on to help pass prop 215 and founded as the founding president, the san francisco entertainment commission and currently a citizen who's involved as the chair of the san francisco state legalization task force. which was created by unanimous vote, thank you very much-of the supervisors and signed by the mayor. i am speaking on behalf of myself among not on behalf of any group with the task force. my introduction is for informational purposes only. i began-i begin by access my great respect for the neighborhood process and the need for a diverse forum where all voices affected by city policy are heard. i'm disturbed that the cannabis community was not involved as in all voices heard in this process. in my

appearance here today is to make the request that that be done. i know how inclusive the existing mandatory discretionary review process is currently required for all and cds and asked that creating a higher barrier by creating a conditional use authorization simply trumps out any of those socially disadvantaged, those leaving the incarcerated state, those were social justice and equity are the primary reason for them to move into cannabis industry. they are locked out by the addition of more cost and more expense and i urge, while i would not stop this from going forward, urge that we consider those folks and those patients in any legislation going for. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other speaker like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>>[gavel] >> i would like to recognize first supervisor kim than supervisor peskin. >> thank you i was not intending to [inaudible] but i didn't see it before in the forward counter and supervisor tang i'm so sorry you did not include this in your opening remarks but seeing that this is the second time that we are now continuing the interim controls, is there permanent legislation that you are working on for the neighborhood in regards to this? >> to the chair to supervisor kim, as i alluded to it, i would not have even brought forth the first interim control had it not--had this zoning control change been in overtly changed by one of those massive planning code cleanups. so honestly, this is not my preference to be here so it was originally supposed to be permanent. >> is there legislation in

place to make this permanent? >> yes. is currently making its way to the planning commission did i think now it's been pushed back to february. we want urban confusion over what the laws are in district 4 could hence the second interim control been extended. >> i think the one concern i've the same one supervisor cohen had shared about the outreach that we done to all the impacted stakeholders can understand this is done on behalf of the neighborhood so that light initially the work is under but it's impacting the group of small businesses here in san francisco and i think it would be helpful to hear from them even if the time to make sure that there's much notification as possible. by the way i'm a big believer notification on the one a push for that. in our ceqa reforms we did several years ago. i think we should provide as much public notification is possible for new businesses coming into i just have concern about legislation moving forward we don't at least hear from group of stakeholders 13 impacted even if at the end of the day we move for the same piece of legislation. >> supervisor peskin spews i

think supervisor kim bardsley said what i was going to say. i'm fine with this. it's a result of one of these well intended code changes that then as an subscribed of all kinds of things. but-it's an existing one that's been extended for six months. i just want to concur with the thought that in the wake of the past prop 64 we need to this comprehensively citywide and not piecemeal but this is a continuation of existing interim control that hopefully will be rolled into some of the way of comedy when we do citywide controls. >> right. if i may bring up-i don't know if you're still here mr. townsend get supervisor peskin brings an interesting point. this is existing conditional already out there looking to extend for another six months. in the extension of six months does it-disrupt the

legalization task force process? in any way can be, mentoring an extension? can they coexist? >> i think of done correctly and if there's an invitation by the supervisor to include the task force then it can be. there's not yet been six months in normal life means very little bit six months in the cannabis world is a complete change. 12 months ago we did not have a task force. we do not have recommendations now until this week on wednesday. 18 months ago the state had not moved at all on medical cannabis legalization recommendations and they have not done that since 429 six months is a long time in this world and with the state requiring vocal authority

before an application can be brought to the state, this six month could be a fatal blow. >> what is the task force goal in the next six months? >> the passports in its first report will demonstrate the entirety of what cannabis touches as we look at our present citywide cannabis reform and then in the second year in executive legislative committee will be put together that will come to on a regular basis with specific regulations and legislative reform that we would like to see. so this, making permanent of these controls should be a part of that process in the task force would then be a stakeholder in the process. so it would be neighbors and the supervisors and other groups involved and the task force should be recognized because it was created by you and it should be recognized as a major stakeholder in that discussion.

>> thank you get supervisor tang >> with all due respect, again, as i've stated before i would not be here the first time around or the second time around with interim controls had it not been for an error that occurred in overtly a mistake. so that is why i cannot do it was necessary to reopen this conversation a new way because i'm actually just try to fix which is been in place since 2012. >> i see parents are from planning to bomb. >> i want to recognize from supervisor tang was in the code but in a roundabout way we did advise against putting it in a roundabout way just for reasons like this could it's not as clear. we like things to be clear so we can implement. also with regards to prop 64, medical cannabis dispensaries there's project that. medical cannabis which is legal in california since 1990s. what happened in the past november was adult use cannabis, there two separate things. they do

overlap but with the task force is charged to do is focus specifically on adult use cannabis and how we will regulate that in the future. so the changes that supervisor tang is 19 are independent what's happening with the task force and what was approved under prop 64. >> thank you for the clarification. sure, supervisor kim >> mr. starr, what you mean in a roundabout way? >> was put in the code as anything that is not an active ground floor use required for conditional use authorization. rather than putting under the line item medical cannabis dispensary in conditional use, and that's the way they did that to the attention was to make cannabis dispensaries conditional use. >> so in the previous to the cleanup in the planning code, there was a cu required for non- active ground floor use and was applied that ncd's were included in that although not

explicitly expressed. in the cleanup you took that out >> no. in the clinically added cannabis dispensaries to the list based on the 2014 report we did for medical cannabis dispensaries, which sought to normalize use with the neighborhood commercial districts by opening them up to the public, making transparency and making them a little more friendly to the environment or to the pedestrian experience >> are ncd's active ground floor use? >> yes. >> okay. in the previous planning code you have defined them as in active ground floor use menu changed that category categorization? >> correct. it's not defined. it's a list of uses considered active ground floor uses and we added that to the list. >> i see. the concept of the cu was really to prevent non-active ground floor use, not specifically to create additional notification for

ncd's? >> supervisor denied >> that was actually former supervisor choose intent. additional notification and the thinning criteria of necessary and desirable. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor peskin further thoughts? no. thank you very much for your presentation. supervisor tang before i take the motion i want to make sure i'm clear in all the record that this is an extension of an already existing exception and this is only for six months and it is until the cleanup languages reflected into the code. is that correct? >> yes. that is correct >> thank you peskin to a motion for this item? >> >> yes. why don't we move this to the full board with a

recommendation as, i believe a committee report. >> thank you without objection, was four. thank you. >>[gavel] >> clerk where do we leave off? >> item number six is next >> supervisor kim i think this is your >> may i read the title >> please >> item six on-site >> supervisor didn't get your also the author of this item. >> we can proceed until the supervisor campos can- >> correct. could you go get him? thanks.[pause] thank you.

supervisor kim >> thank you chairman cohen and supervisor peskin back in 2014 the project sponsor of the intercontinental hotel first approached our office about requiring they had to build on their site officially known as private owned public spaces that require our downtown buildings. after several years of opening actually close a decade, to the usage even with additional signage they found that this fourth floor terrace bobo, was not well utilized by the members of the public. they came to our office to see if there was a way that they could quote unquote this off-site this obligation through av or through a acquiring more open space in the neighborhood. so we could have actively used open space that members of our community would enjoy and the hotel could then utilize this

existing-for private use. we worked with them over the course of a year and a half to identify an alleyway that we could prove hot i'm sorry-improve acquire and turned into an actively utilized open space. in the reexam at a lot of different alternatives but could not find one that both the community could agree on but also that we could acquire through the city. so we can instead worked through a fee out for the first time here in the eastern neighborhood open space plan and we originally proposed seven a dollar per square foot fee out at the time. with the fee going to the stabilization fund for future approval good afternoon additional views the committee conversation and negotiations with members of the south market community, the planning department, we now have the introduced after two years, legislation which has negotiated a new fee based on

real costs. we also in the end decided to invest these fees into existing open space but one that would allow us to use it for greater expense of time,. therefore, i making this open space much more actively use. the community had said that improved lighting and are only multiuse park [inaudible] on fulsome street was one way that we could activate increased use of the existing open space by having lights that would allow the part to stay open until later and have basketball games, basket baseball games as well as dog walking richer people feel safe using the park at night especially in the winter when we know that the day off and go start by 5 pm. we work closely with the office of economic and workforce development to help calculate a fee not just based on--not based on the transbay

-sorry transit center discipline but one that was actually based on what it would cost to acquire or improve open space here in the south of market. they calculate the fee based on recent deposit any alley and eagle plaza improvements in the south of market. this legislation specifies the amount of the fee and also how this fee will be used. we also to ensure that this improvement actually occurs requires that the much-needed improvement be delivered bet within two years park and rec receiving the fee. if this improvement is not made this fund will then be default into the soma civilization from for the community to determine how best to improve open space in the south of market area with these funds. because the inter-can owns intercontinental hotel is in a project to begin with with its own suv we want

to make it clear this not a precedent being set for future fiats of other downtown buildings that may also determine that there privately owned public spaces are not well utilized and therefore want to convert its private use and fiat to the city in a way that improves our open space. we know that-a key feature of the central soma requirement plan. we want to make sure that future-arts much as possible activated accessible in on the ground floor. in this case, this requirement was not in place. the fee that is before us today is approximately $290 a square foot. this was based on the cost of improvement i didn't deposit equal alley in any alley that took place in the south of market area that is the legislation before us today. so colleagues, no in-is here from the mayor's office economic and workforce development is here and i believe that sarah matalin from park and rec is here as well. if they need to answer any questions-mr. starr from the planning department as well. if there's any questions from members or the committee.

>> i have a couple questions mr. starr to have a presentation or should i jump into my question >> i have my presentation. >> i will wait >> good afternoon. and start the proposed ordinance would amend the [inaudible] special used to do one authorize the monitory contribution for the private owned public space also known as a--. exclude certain features from floor area ratios and growth for area ratio calculations and would dedicate the money generated from this fee for lighting and safety improvement to the--park. on behalf of the commission department think supervisor kim for incorporating the recommended modifications get these modifications will accomplish two goals in the first change ensures that any impact that these fees would be due to the city for enclosing the-without will be paid. the

second change tightens up the findings in the ordinance to avoid setting future precedent for other requirements. the commission reinforces the strong preference to not allow the project sponsor to opt out of providing on-site usable open space by paying an in lieu fee. the commission noted that the intercontinental elevated-were noted by the commission to be subpart e tells original 2002 approval hearing. to be sure the internet condo hotels complicate the matter by closing-to a private events from time to time. the planning department has an active enforcement complaints dating back to march 13, 2008 for failure to abide by conditions of approval. nonetheless, the commission of greece with that--park agrees that the victoria park provides the community with accessible and active and passive recreation.

if the commission concluded that as the park is open from 5 am-midnight lighting and safety improvements at this part could offer the community a more usable resource than the maintenance of the elevated terraces as open space. we do think supervisor kim for all her adverts over the two years to find a solution in the commission's recommendations approval as amended. >> supervisor kim i'm can ask mr. starr a couple questions and if you know the answer supervisor kim just jump on. so really how do we come up with the $290 per square foot in the cost calculation? >> i think it was just conversation between the supervisor's office looking at what when cost around the area and-- >> supervisor kim, my question you may be the process and windsor i did you come with a two under $90.70 cost per

square foot? >> as i mentioned my opening remarks we do not come up with that square footage fee. it was the mayor's office of the economic and they came up with that the based on the cost per square foot to improve open space in the south of market area. in the neighborhood surrounding-[inaudible] and we used the cost at me plaza, you alley and any alley as a reference point to come up with the two under $90 square foot proposal. just so you know, we did consider two other open space these calculations. one was eastern neighborhoods of which intercontinental hotel is close to. that was only $96 a square foot was actually the original proposal it the planning to him and said that was not enough funding per square foot and so our office

agreed with their assessment and we went back to the table to figure out another fee that we could utilize the would more accurately reflect what cost to acquire or improve the open space in the stock market. >> a follow-up. could be a comfort much revenue the current spaces generating or has generated in the past? >> the current space being the global at the intercontinental hotel >> yes. >> with a generated by using a for private rentals versus not being able to, no, we did not calculate the revenue or profit they make that they can make. using the about for private use. the project sponsor is here if you would like to ask that question. >> love to. do you so stephen queen >> yes. project sponsor is a good

>> with the project sponsor please come up. i the couple questions. is the project sponsor your? >> there are. a representative of the intercontinental hotel could come up and speak? >> thank you. my question is, we are talked about the calculation and want to know specifically if we took into account how much revenue the current spaces generating or how much it generated in the past? >> larry back there about their urban plan representing intercontinental hotel. no, don't we we took that into account. >> the question is how much revenue will you be able to generate if you're able to convert this bubble into private use among not much will generate but how much do you asked me to generate. that's the question from the chairman >> i actually don't have that figured i do know what it will

do in general terms is allow greater occupancy by the union hotel, union operated hotel allow greater meetings also which will benefit both the city for tax base and the art fund and also improve plumbing in the hotel. but i do not have- >> i do know the hotel has discussed calculate because you would not come to our office to ask for the out if you had to figure out the potential revenue by converting this public space into private use. so huge and i have the answer, then i would like a member of the project sponsor to come up with a number at committee today could i know that number existed we would like to have it her. >> okay. >> thank you supervisor and kim advanced important to get to the bottom what's happening. i suppose this question is for the project sponsor it is not

planning where you supervisors and bit my questions from the terrace on the fourth and six laura they did howard,, they still available for rental today? wraps the project sponsor could sit a little closer to the microphones we get these questions answered quickly? let's all make this difficult. >> i apologize with consult with the client can i do not hear your-he was the question is if the terrace on the fourth and 64, of 80 howard, is it still available for rental today? >> some of the terrace on the fourth floor is available for rental. >> how much? half, quarter squeak >> i was a about three quarters. >> okay. >> in defiance of the planning enforcement before you are legally renting out this public space? that was not minor stamina introduced the ordinance. >> we have, for the past four

years than looking for an open space to substitute for that it's been a ongoing prospect >> but during this time publicly-is by lyons public space. lastly cannot be renting this out. you are told me that three quarters of the space is currently being rented out? >> three quarters of one of the terraces. >> that's not acceptable. i cannot move forward with expedience >> karen johnson, the intercontinental tried to get peter-the general manager here in the chambers to answer the question about projected revenue. just to be clear, the fourth and sixth force a public open spaces. they're not exclusive public open space. so the code does allow for private use. but-but this is not a part

of a business plan being generating every revenue right now. on occasion, that had events below spillover to the fourth floor terrace but it's not dedicated revenue at the hotel in choice right now. >> i'm sorry i'm i don't know what is going on here. supervisor put kim but with awful website today, this is the form that you would use. it's advertising being able to be rented. the spaces. so that's on the website. intercontinental. >> could we possibly get the general manager to answer these questions. he's the one that's on the ground that actually manages the hotel. we will get amir >> here's another question it was the status of the violations issued for the fourth and 64 terrace? use that, larry can answer because i believe that there was some discussion about the class of the intergovernmental adult widget been corrected to the violation costs. then as related to the fourth and sixth floors, the meter for that over to larry. >> larry guide targeted during

the variance because over the last four years we been searching for an open space. the planning apartment has asked for updates. we been working with them. so they have not proceeded to go to the next step in enforcement but because it was an understanding we were looking for an alternative open space or 4 feet >> so the violations have not been paid? >> there are no dues pay. there is no fee. there is no fine. there is a notice of alleged violation and i think a notice of violation. it's never proceeded to another further step because the department i believe has been sent by weaving trying to figure out a way to address the issue. >> mr. starr? please, utah

get a question? the question is what's the status of the violations issued on the fourth and 64 terrace? >> i believe mr.-has a group we've been working with him over the last several years to try to find a solution to this problem. this theoretically would-be a solution to this problem >> theoretically, what? >> theoretically a solution to the bowman of violation be taken care. he was supervisor peskin >> to have any information whether not the violation was abated this regard out to different stories from representatives of the hotel good one that the violation continues unabated and the other that it does not. do you know which is true? >> i don't. i know the enforcement action is still open so it hasn't been the issue has not been resolved. it seems like they still are renting it out. if supervisor cohen founded on the website. >> yes. all right. thank you. supervisor--mr. shaw-supervisor kim

>> questions for mr. starr. i am supportive of a fee out in this particular site. because it is clear that this project owned open spaces publicly a public open spaces not well utilized and even with the additional signage. it makes much more sense for us to use funding for this to improve open space which will require more open space in the south of market area. but i'm curious as to why if we pass the ordinance that would take care of of violation this already occurred. that's the first question is the second question is, what is the penalty or fee associated with that violation of this law? >> to the first question, if we try everything we can to make the violator abated so we don't go to that step of charging a fee.. so we have been working with them over the past few years to try to get them to abate. as for the fee, i'm sorry i'm not sure i can try to check with my colleagues

to see if they can let me know >> we do have a set fee, though >> yes. i believe- >> why would we believe that if we pass this legislation because it violation did occur but they were not opposed to rented out previously. so moving forward, they can use for private open space but in the-that doesn't mean just because you're looking for a solution you can go out there and start renting it out. >> correct. you are correct. >> i don't see the passage of the ordinance would abate the fees >> i don't agree started assessing the fees. if you like i can double check. was an information i was given for this but i can- >> do you know how many times the space was used for rental? >> no. i do not, no >> over the last four years? >> no. >> the impression it was not on the market? >> we were under the impression that it had been used for private events but we didn't

have it i don't think we knew it was a continual thing. >> supervisor peskin >> mr. starr, this is bit of recalling to need the academy of art issue where we are being asked to potentially settle the matter where in we would wrap up the entire case. we would grant them certain entitlements and we would get certain fees and penalties and wrap it up in one case. it seems to me that if there's an ongoing enforcement action that has some amount of penalties that need to be assessed or settled, that should be part and parcel of our granting this approval

or entitlements or get out of jail free card that should all be wrapped up together. does that sound right to you? >> i'm not sure penalty fees have been associated either with a multistep enforcement process. we don't start assessing penalties until a certain point. i'm not clear on where we are at that point >> way. if artie said it's been years. i mean at some point-that doesn't seem to make any sense. >> i think they were trying to get intercontinental into compliance. we have been working with them over these last two years on this particular solution. >> mr. starr if i make for the project sponsor comes up, how long is the process before planning to carmen actually enforces their actions? i feel like two years is too long. >> certainly. >> how many other downtown buildings are violating their obligation to the city and are relating them just get away with it?

>> no. no i would not say that. >>, a notice of violations the planning department issued on couple here in the downtown area? >> i don't have that information. >> i just don't understand. i just have to agree with supervisor peskin i wasn't aware that the project sponsor was openly listing rentals of the pope pio to the ordinance getting past here at the board of supervisors is inappropriate. it is in bad faith. i'm actually surprised to learn that not only would have these violations been going on with the last four years but we haven't even assessed a penalty or fine for that illegal use of the-. please, tell me if i'm wrong. can they rent out either the owned open space for private rentals at any time? >> no. i don't believe they can. i am happy to get more information from you be like to have the project sponsor group i can clear up the violation issue.

>> supervisor peskin >> with supervisor kim and i and another incarnation served as supervisor kim is a memorandum of the alternate on the bay conservation development commission. and we had a case this year where the individual was in violation of their existing permit could they came in and settled that case they came back several months later and asked for some other approvals. we were not going to-it seems to me that cart is before the horse about what planning should say is, the unauthorized behavior has stopped. he finds have been levied and paid or otherwise settled. and this is the way we are going to bring it into compliance with this piece of legislated it seems that that's the proper series of steps. i have to concur with supervisor kim. exist troubling particularly given the decade

that it's taken to getting serious about the academy of art that this seems to be a little bit of a pattern of failure to really enforce. for what it's worth. >> thank you. looks like the project sponsor has a few remarks? >> good afternoon my name is john-representing the intercontinental hotel. i was originally the development manager during construction. like to clarify the space is not rented out good it is an integral part of the hotel operation and is used when we have insufficient space for example, we have 42,000 ft.2 of meeting space. two ballrooms and 21 meeting rooms. there are functions which cannot be handled in all that. there will be a supplementary lunch in their on the terrace

occasionally and breakfast occasionally but it is not rented out to the public it's an integral part of the hotel operation of the public-of the public spaces. it has been very successful and to emphasize, we spent more than four years looking for alternatives to the supervisor kim has said. we have tried to do a joint venture to create additional public space and we feel that this solution, which takes a very unsatisfactory, i think everybody has agreed that the fourth floor and 64 terraces are not satisfactory as pope oh. the solution that we have arrived at and we are greatly encouraged by gifts, increases bite manyfold the number of usable hours of open space. but please be assured, the space is part of the hotel. that is the only way it's been run. if this additional revenue is sales tax will go directly to the other

appropriate people. it does create additional jobs, girl union jobs,. there's nothing illegal other than the fact that we are not doing it with a permanent [inaudible] >> i just cannot hope ask a couple questions by your statement because this is actually news to me that you are openly using the-for private use. when user first over breakfast and dinner spaces to you charge an entity for that or do you let him use it for free? >> i don't know the answer. the digital but it's an integral part of the revenue that would come for the use of the ballroom. if you're catering in a ballroom or conference room, there's a charge for it but it is not an additional rental to some outside party. >> is not an additional two so you do not-you rented out for free then? so when you have a breakfast for dinner, spillover on this,, you let the entity

that is sponsoring the dinner or progress use it free of charge? >> supervisor am not an operator and mr.-clarify for you but the fact is the use of the ballroom >> if you don't have the answer to the question that you're have to provide an answer >> it's the crossing >>[cross-talking] [off mic] >>[cross-talking] [off mic] can >> even though that is a clear breach of the law what you're required to do under the current mandate of the poco. spears i don't think it's a clear breach. >> why do you think it's not a clear breach? >> what is a bridge we don't have a accessible to the public between 9-55 days a week. occasionally, it's occupied by the tenant spears about it

question the planning department in terms of the hours because it could be the case that the planning department is clearly articulated the opel only needs the open from 9 to 5 which case i would understand if you used rented out the poco outside of those hours. i'm not sure breakfast always and by 9 am etc. but am very troubled by the fact that the project sponsor has repeatedly violated the law. i've been working in good faith with the project sponsor over the last four years to find the solutions that you can see out so that we can better usage of funds for open space in the south of market area. i agree instilling committed to the intent of the legislation but i'm troubled that during this time i been working in good faith with the project sponsor, the project sponsor has been openly and blatantly violating what i believe is the law in terms of privately rented out this public open space that it's doing it on its own website. which i was not aware of. supervisor melia cohen's office has bought this to my attention

at committee hearing today. so i think we have a little bit of work to do before i feel comfortable with this moving out of the committee. >> thank you supervisor kim just so i'm clear you want to continue this to the call of the chair? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin can make a motion >> i like to note this matter has been noticed in the newspaper that we do continue to the culture will need to reissue the notice. >> we also will take public comment on this item. let's go ahead and think about what motion will entertain. let's open up for public comment did anyone the public like to speak on this item? any public? >> good afternoon commissioners. this is the glamour stuff. i appreciate a lot of the questions you raise today and of course i fully support those questions get answered but i'm here today really to speak about the community need for lights. like

i said it's a glamorous sexy stuff we've been talking about for 10 years. i went back to my e-mails this morning to see exactly how long as a community we been asking for this. went back to 2010. so i personally am not a fan of any poco and i definitely hear the concern and worry about any kind of precedent this would set but i feel like supervisor kim captured it very well and i was at a presentation about central soma a couple weeks ago and they were very clear about how much they learned in the last two years about cocoa and what makes a good one woman makes a not good one and i feel like the city is kind of learning how to work that a little better to where it will actually benefit the neighborhood and residence around. so i really want to the size that this part needs lights for a long time. the community stands in full support of that, not just to extend the use of the part ring

today by extending the hours and making it more accessible, but even the folks who live around the park having increased lighting will reduce vacant. it will just increase the level of safety. when you walk down a dark street you feel a lot less faith than when there are lights and you can see was going on around you. i also just really want to emphasize we'll park pd delivers the lights is transparently as possible. >> thank you. >> public comment public comment is closed. timma >> mr. peskin >> thank you i do have a high-level comment just as a member of the board who i can't remember what year it was but over a decade 14 years ago, was one of the votes in favor of creating a su d to entitle all 20 to entitle this hotel. one of the things i noticed was one of the findings from planning

was the fact that these open spaces were hard to utilize by the public it is you were not good propose. this a larger policy issue really mr. sark or mr. battered from the day which is to the extent that we create su d and entitle these projects we should actually in approving a design to them in ways that are actually useful. i think ultimately, except for the enforcement issue and whether or not these are being rented out in violation of the requirements, there is i think more fundamental underlying issue which is that as a matter of urban design, when we do these projects we should say actually you are forced forth and six workers are not using private public cannot openly

work creating private open space which may be a fine design for the hotel but also we not beneficial to the public. we should take heed as we entitle these kinds of projects so that we actually have open space of use. one of these san francisco's 30 dirty little secrets we have all of this public open space on all of these downtown buildings that not a soul knows about except for every couple years john king races same story about they exist and we need to have signs and that people should know that there are these amenities that the public can use and then everyone once in a while planning gets around to remind those people to put their signs back that they've taken down because they don't want unwashed masses coming on top of their building or what have you could this is really a part of a larger policy issue that goes beyond the fourth and 64 terraces on the intercontinental hotel i just want to put that on the record. in approving this years ago the in suv is pressure we give some special entitlements allow this

project to go forward. this was not an as of right project. adherence to these laws because we made a special law to allow a hotel where otherwise was not going to go. that's why we changed the law and created special use district. i think you have to be held wider standard when you come to the city and asked for su d and, you better really taught your i's and cross your t's >> >> okay. supervisor kim spews so i can make clear the ass between now and when this is brought back to the land use committee of couple things i like to understand. can an individual project sponsor actually utilize-rent out for private use, privately owned public space queen if there are hours attached to poco then can

they rent them out outside of those hours? if you can get that clarified that would be helpful. the second is committed like to understand what the penalties and fees associated with violating this planning code is and i would like to have that resolves before we pass this at the board of supervisors. i do still continue to support this the out. i do think-i want to concur with the words of supervisor peskin that moving forward we should be very careful about the types of propose we support and put into place especially if they're very difficult to enforce. and we know that we don't have a robust enforcement arm in the planning department around many types of requirements that we ask of developers and property owners making it really cumbersome for the city to actually enforce our own laws. i understand that. i think as we move forward the central soma plant with other developers i hope that and i know we are think a lot about

this obligation in particular good one, how to make it more accessible. more on the ground floor more accessible to the public. but second, that we really think about what the city has the capacity to enforce. i just want to some more assurances from the project sponsor that what i am just seeing before me on your website today about renting out the hope hope is your thinking around that, why that is been done before this legislation was passed took place. i would like to work out what the cost of that is to the city before we pass this. so can committee member squid thank you again for your questions and concerns and look forward to when this comes back to the land use committee >> supervisor kim do you have any preference on when? no. let's get a motion on this. >> i would move that we continue item number six to the call of the church >> without objection the

motion passes >>[gavel] >> next item seven a night adam eight seven and a together >> >> item seven, when 80 john st. of formal housing and excepting two million-dollar gift. >> ugly supervisor kim has remarks about this. >> just to get item number eight that is a resolution approving authorizing an agreement the convenience of a parcel of real estate located at 180 jones st. for one dollar consisting of approximately 4007 or 40 square feet inland area the mayor's office of housing and community development. spews >> through the request of the project sponsor because they're continuing discussions on these two items from your making a request to continue this to the next man use committee. i

believe because of us moving the inauguration today of the new board of supervisors to january 9, and mlk day on january 16, this means this item will not be heard until january 23. >> okay. january-that's acceptable. clerk we need to take public comment on this >> yes. >> ladies and gentlemen if you like to speak on the item 7 and eight these come to the podium. >> thank you supervisor. steve-on behalf of [inaudible] i understood january 9 was a possibility there's not the via land use committee on generally not? our preference would be generally not if that's possible >> thank you for stating your preference for the record anyone else alleges begun public comment. public comment is closed. speak >>[gavel] >> any committee person?

>> before i make supervisor kim's continuation motion, i want to explain to mr.-that because the inaugural board of the new inaugural meeting of the new board is generally ninth at noon the one the land use committee. so the next one would be the 23rd. so with that i will move that we continue item 7 and eight to the meeting of generate 2017 >> without objection >>[gavel] >> clerk next item please >> i want to confirm action and file was written as committee report >> sagan? >> item 5 >> committee report, yes that's correct >> >> item 9 >> terrance hill info for noncompliant structure is made as is a given building under

article 11 located c-3 zoning district >> supervisor peskin is the sponsor >> thank you. this is a very narrowly crafted piece of legislation that is specifically aimed at one structure at 495 geary also known as the craft hotel. it is an existing noncompliant structure in our downtown area which is higher than the current height limit at some point when i was told by limits must've been down zoned years ago. there is this is a different type of terrace situation. there is a terrace there that the project sponsor wishes to fill in.. this would require before they even applied to do so, for the board to change the law as to that noncompliant structure and this matter has been reviewed by the used word preservation

commission and the planning commission both of which recommended three changes which are the subject of the amendment i'm handing you mdm. chairman and specifically the past that we narrow this to only include the assessors block upon which 495 geary says as well as to strike one finding, which is on page 3 at line 6. they felt it was not necessary and finally, to add a sunset clause which would sunset by expiration of law on january 31 2019. with that i would turn it over to mr. starr from the planning department. >> good afternoon supervisors.

aaron start planning department staff. give another hotel with a terrace. this person does not in violation though. the item before you was an independent >> and it's not a poco >> it's not a bubble the item before you would amend the planning code or designate significant under article 11 and in the c-3 district noncompliant with regard to height and bulk limits would be allowed to infill in existing tariffs of up to 1500 ft.2. in the infill require major alteration permits and subject to historic preservation commission review and approval. the store is for preservation commission has decided on november 16 planning commission her this up item on december 8. both commissions voted to recommend approval with modifications. the modifications the recommended are as follows. one delete finding number two and findings before stargell restrict the

proposed change only to the block that contains the hotel and three place it to your time of it on the proposed clinical change and include wang which there would allow the city to direct the publisher to remove the language without having to change the code. supervisor, on behalf of the both commissions we thank you for adding those perks to the birds amendment to. that concludes my remarks and of course happy to take your questions. >> thank you. >> let's take some questions. any member of the public like to speak on the item nine? anyone? okay. public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> mdm. chair i would like to move the amendment if you have no objection? >> i don't and let's move them >> like to send the item as amended to the full board for consideration at her first meeting of the new year on 10-generate 2017 >> without objection will take those amendment. >>[gavel] >> passes as amended. thank

you. anymore on the agenda? >> that completes the agenda for today could >> thank you. this meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >> okay. this is the regular meeting of the small business commission held on monday, december 12, 2016, this meeting is the meeting will come to order. at 535 thank you for the staff for tlifgz that viewed an commissioner honda two or live streemd an sfgovtv.org