>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, april 25th, 2017 i am the chair of the ta, aaron peskin. and mr. clerk, could you call the roll? >> breed? >> present. >> cohen? >> present. >> farrell? >> absent. >> fewer? >> absent. >> kim. >> absent. >> peskin. >> present. >> rohnen.

>> absent, safahir. tang, present. >> yee, is absent. we have a quorum, commissioner would like to make a motion to excuse commissioners farrell, ronen yee and fewer. motion made by commissioner safahi, is there a second for that >> seconded by breed. without objection >> this has been a big month, with the passage, that will provide, 52 million for the road transit and biking and walking facilities through a combination of gas, and diesel fuel, taxes and the vehicle fee increase, and truck weight restoration and we join with the cities and

counties up and down the state for thanking the senator, and assembly man, phraser from the transportation committees in the legislature as well as governor brown for the leadership in getting this across the finish line, we also want to thank our own assembly members, and senator weiner who pushed for and obtained increased transit funding levels within the bill for the city and county of san francisco where we are expected to receive, 72 million per year for road maintenance and transit capitol and operating expenses and we can also compete for the other discretionary pots of money. and while that money is focused on system rehabilitation, and we need additional resource to address our growing pains and in that regard our attention has returned to regional measure three. and i look forward to working with assembly member, and senator beal and their

colleagues, as we have the conversation with rn 3, we want to address the transportation needs for access across the city. as is evident from the continuing saga of the cal train, electric indication project. and for the recent events with senator and congress woman and mayor lee and the business community, which has become very clear that we cannot count on washington, d.c. to fund the most important infrastructure projects in our region. and that is why mayor lee, president breed and i have set up a transportation, 2045, traffic force to identify the transportation needs, gaps and revenue options over the next quarter century, with the state's leadership and partnership as well as input from all of you, and the t2045 task force i know that we can may progress, and cleaning the air and reinvesting in the

transit and road infrainstruct turn, and we will convene the next meeting before may 22nd and all of you are welcome to attend. and finally, last but not least, join me in offering an early congratulations to our staff, particularly eric, and for delivering the island, vista project, point, project, which will open next week, at the western terminus of the oakland bay bridge, and thank you commissioner kim for doing the honors next tuesday as we complete this for cyclists and pedestrians across the region and with that up date, icon include my remarks. mr. stamos. >> public comment on item two? >> public comment on item two? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> three, executive's director's report, this is an information item. >> good morning, tang, the executive director. just to build on the chair's remarks there is a hand out with

my report on the desk and available to the public on the website. that details the sb1 funding package by the subaccount that will total up to the 73 million a year that chair mentioned. additionally at the state level, i want to report that last night the assembly member with the automated speed enforcement fade to make it out of the transportation committee and it had passed the privacy committee last week and that has been turned into a two year bill as we understand it and the author we believe intends to continue working with the folks on that over the next few years. and in terms of some updates, and public workshops i just wanted to call attention to the cal trans, disit four, bicycle plan workshop that is held in san francisco on tuesday, may ninth at 375, beal street and for those of you who can't attend the meeting cal train will continue to collect the inpoo ut on-line and look for the district four, cal

transbike. and bike to work on may eleventh, and energying stations across the city, and it is a fun week and we look forward to participating and continuing to support that. but the downtown, ferry terminal, south basin, improvement project will be breaking ground as well, thursday the may eleventh and the transportation, authority is providing some funding and today's board action for the 73 million dollar project, this will allow for the first major ferry terminal expansion, since 2003. so congratulations to the port of san francisco and that, and the water emergency transportation authority. quick up date on the neighborhood transportation, and group one, with the study focused and ready for approval coming to you next month as well as the district four project, and district six projects and district four and in district, six, the sfmta, will be completing the construction of a

raised crosswalk in early may, and we continue to also work on projects and plans, in districts three, four, 8 and 10, and 11, and given the heiigh, demand we are looking to try to augment those types of planning and project funds for the next cycle in the coming year. on balboa, state farm, and it has been received for the 1.le million dollars in the prop k, supported planning and construction funds for the sfmta and they have completed the wide area of safety, and accessibility and transit and landscaping improvements at balboa, we are one of the busiest in the region, there are sidewalks on gene va and relocation on the media on the avenue and with the water wise landscaping and pedestrian, scale light and flashing beacons and at the i280 off-ramp and the relocation of the polls, that

have impeded the pedestrian access to the station there is a host of additional work and a lot of needs at this location and we want to support that in the community and the commissioner safai and his leader hip to improve the area as we improve for the development in the upper yard housing project and with that, icon include my remarks. >> thank you, is there any public comment on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. any questions from commissioners? seeing none, next item please. >> the consent agenda, items four through 12, comprise the agenda of these items 5 to 11 were approved on the first appearance on the april 11th, and for the final approval, they are considered routine and they are not planning to present. any of the items removed and considered separately. >> i would sever, item 7 and on the balance of the calendar a roll call please? >> on the -- a motion?

>> override. >> this body needs a motion. >> is there a motion to approve the agenda, made by sheey and seconded by safai and on that, item a roll call please? >> breed? >> aye. >> commissioner co-hen? >> aye. >> peskin? >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> sheehy. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> those items are finally approved. and could you call item number seven? >> [final approval] allocate $5,464,675 in prop k funds, with conditions, for the downtown extension including $4,549,675 for preliminary engineering and $915,000 for a tunneling options engineering study, and appropriate $200,000 for oversight of the downtown extension, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. >> is there a representative of the tjpa here?

good morning, commissioner, yes, the executive director of the power authority. >> good morning, and so i just wanted to ask one question, in the intervening couple of weeks since we last heard this, i just wanted to make sure that the tjpa and the planning department are on the same page or getting on the same page as it relates to environmental strategy >> we will always be on the same page, we nr discussions on how to address the planning department's comments on the sequa and we are engaged with that, and we will find a solution and move forward in collaboration with the planning departments. >> so as the specifically when you move forward with the strategy, you will not be asking your pjpa board for an approval of it at the same time?

>> it depends on the document. >> i understand that, and what i am asking is that the language that you guys put in the sequa strategy, included an approval by your board and i want to make sure that the representations that you made to us at the last meeting that we were not going to predetermine the discussion that we have to make the decision that we have to make later this year as it relates to the alignments that you are not seeking approval of this alignment as part of the strategy from the board? >> until we address the xhept comments that are satisfaction. we will not be taking the action on the documents. >> so let me just say that about that. >> we have been dinking around with this for a bunch of months

and so i am intending to vote for this. but let me be very clear that to the extent there is any discord ans to the agency that you represent and the planning as to the environmental strategy and the issues that you are asking about, we can come back and put the breaks on this five and a half million bucks at any time, i hope that you get on the same page quickly and, with that on this item, a motion to approve the item made by commissioner safai and seconded by sheehy, and we have a different house so could you please call the roll welcome commissioner kim. >> on item 7, breed. >> aye. >> commissioner coen? >> aye. >> commissioner kim? >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner safai? >> aye. >> commissioner sheehy. >> aye. >> tang? >> aye. >> item is approved. >> that is finally passed. >> okay, next item please,

>> item, 13. >> we will have a presentation from logan from the ta and daniel harris from the sfmta and kate and this will be a pretty quick, note. planning director with mtc, i would like to recognize commissioner kim who are here in the meeting room and i am going to give a quick overview of the planned bay, which is known as the 2040, this is the second regional transportation plan here in the bay area to include a sustainable community strategy that establishes the 24 year, vision for how the region can grow and the transportation investments can support that

growth. we have seen a half million jobs in the region and some of that is coming back from the recession. but only 65,000 housing units. and one house for every 8 jobs created. this has created pressure on the system particularly on the rail system as well as the free what i and the cal train, and bart rider ship are way up in con jected delay on the transportation system in general, and the worker has increased dramatically and, in terms of the plan itself, we have had two rounds of out reach to date. we are in the draft eir, plan stage, both of them released .

46 percent of the new house olds forecasted for the region, will be in the three largest cities, and a third will be in the communities in each side of the bay and the remainder in the inland coastal delta communities. recognized by the region and such of the city of san francisco is a priority development area, and 77 percent of the housing growth will be in the pda, going forward to 2040. in terms of job, the big cities in large, and the majority of the growth will be in the priority development areas, in

san francisco, the draft plans gross in divisions 138,000 new households and 296,000 new jobs. here in san francisco, mr. are many projects that you can see on the screen here, moving forward, and sfmta fleet expansions and better market streets are just a few of the projects included in the plan.

the plan is measured against. and when we look at the draft plan, there are five targets that we have achieved with this draft plan and there are four that are moving in the right direction but we have fallen short of the target and we have four that we are moving in the wrong direction on. and it is notable and it is caught the eye of many that before removing the wrong direction on to the large extent related to housing and equity and get back to the challenge of the housing and the long term affordable crisis in the region. so the plan itself can be right on-line, and this is largely a plan that is right on-line and we are not producing a lot of glossy copies this time around and it has five sections. and the bay area today really gets to this over arching housing issue which is an issue at the commission, relative to virtually every issue, including transportation issues over the

past two years, 2, 3, 4, are really the guts of the plan, and describing what it is, and how we forecast the growth for the future for the region, and how the growth is distributed. and section four, gets into the strategies, to support the infrastructure investments and the funding for the investments and how the plan performs, and section five, is an action plan to address some of those issues where the region and the plan is off trajectory.

transportation funding with the housing out comes we think that while there will be much discussion about that, they may offer some direction for how we might want to move in the future. shrinking of the middle wage jobdz jobs and it is focused on

the good moving industries and the freight related industries, and the jobs related to the production and distribution that will provide a pathway for middle waged jobs and particularly for the residents of the bay area who do not have a college degree. in the direct more resources for the resilient housing in related

infrastructure. >> and we were having a lot of meetings around the region. briefings such as this and we are working on the community organizations that are engaging with communities of color and disadvantaged populations. and we have three public hearings coming on the draft plan and the draft eir and we have nine open houses that will be including here in san francisco, on may, 24th. and again, the plan can be viewed on-line, we welcome comments, and we don't know the way to get 7 and a half million people to a series of public meet sxgz so we encourage people to go on-line and provide comments on that and with that i will conclude and happy to answer any of the questions that you may have. any members of the public that would like to comment?

my name is tara and i am concerned about the people in my neighborhood and the guatemalas are driving their cars and it does not seem safe and i wonder what the protocol was. one was driving on the other side of the road and one was crossing a walk while i was walking. >> this is the hearing on plan bay area, if you have comments about that, if not, we can have one of the staff talk to you about the issues relative to the neighborhood. but it does not sound like you are commenting on the item that is before us right now. >> i would like to talk to someone please. >> we will have one of our staff come over and talk to you. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the p you believe that would like to testify? on item number 13. seeing none, public comment is

closed. and i want to thank you for your work on the plan. and look forward to our continued invoftment, and the involvement of our staff. and madam, do you have anything to add? >> mtc staff and the staff and we are working for the last few years and acknowledge our commissioners, and commissioner kim to the mtc and the commissioner nick who is in the audience as well, to the mtc and look forward to building on the action plans for house and resil ans and infrastructure and the rest as regional measure three, clabive effort. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> colleagues, i know that many of you need to scoot to another event. and to that end, i am going to ask unfortunately and please accept my apologies, that we continue the hearing on high speed rail my profound apologies

to the high speed rail presenter. but, i know that many people have got to be out of here in a few minutes. let me ask colleagues, what is your timing? >> i know that commissioner safai has to leave i know that commissioner sheehy has to leave and that will bring us down to five which is not a quorum. because we have a couple of sick commissioners. >> how long will this presentation take? >> chair commissioners, ben, northern california, regional director for the high speed rail, i can dispense with the presentation, you all should have copies of the presentation in your packet, we are in the midst of envier menially clearing. >> why don't we just call item 14. >> okay. >> up date on the california high speed rail, this is an information item.

>> the floor is yours, thank you for your understanding and patience. >> thank you, my great pleasure. mr. chair, commissioners, and director chang, let me just say that we are in the midst of clearing the section from the transbay transit center in san francisco, to ultimately connecting to the construction that is currently under way in the central valley and 119 miles of construction, over 3 billion dollars of investment in the central valley that is currently under construction on it's way to delivering the first high speed section in the united states to california, and we are working with the ta staff and the city of san francisco, and the staff with the transbay powers authority staff on insuring that the high speed rail system gets to the transbay transit center in a way that works for the city and is encompasses all of the priorities and values that the city has in developing, and this sort of a transportation system

and insures that it serves san francisco for generations to come. >> we are schedule for the current environmental review. which we are in tmidst of, extends this year through roughly the end of summer, 2018, and we expect to have a preliminary preferred alternative in the cal train, corridor where the system will be running in a blended configuration with the commuter trains and then a separate high speed system from san jose to merced and we expect to have that preferred direction in august of this year. we will have a draft environmental document, available for public comment, by the end of this year. and as i mentioned we hope to have the complete environmental review, done by late summer, 2018. and that is a very brief summary and i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you for that very compacted up date. are there any questions from commissioners? >> seeing none, is there any public comment on this item?

>> seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. and good luck. >> thank you. >> with that is there any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any general public comment? >> >> good morning, andrew yip, (inaudible) the leaders intent to (inaudible) thank you.

>> thank you, are there any other members of the public for general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and we are adjourned. li streets illuminating our ideas and values starting in 2016 the san francisco public utilities commission is xhoefl that light with new led with the did i audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and they're even better for this vitally lasting longer and consuming up to 50 percent less

energy upgrading takes thirty minutes remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred times while our street lights will be improving the clean energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power in one simple word serious as day turns

>> meeting for monday, april 24, 2017, my name is mark farrell i'm joined by vice chair supervisor peskin as well as supervisor katie tang want to thank nona melkonian and jehovah's witness for covering this meeting and the clerk of the board alicia madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. pooh-pooh mr. clerk. >> electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the may 2nd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you very much with that mr. clerk, call item >> language, delete redundancies and

make minor substantive affirming the planning department's california environmental quality act determination; making findings of consistency with the plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and adopting findings of public and with staff to speak on item one i passed out committee of the whole we'll be introducing and district attorney czar i'm going to turn it over to diego sanchez today, i'm presenting an ordinance that was initiated and adopt by the planning commission in the summer of 2016 with supervisor farrell's office and the ordinance as mentioned proposes to update the modot controls for the changes impacted by the state planning commission that organization would project was aids to make the planning code easier to use the proposed ordinance is 3 broad principle for references to land use activities are

consistent across the code and the fascinate of the planning code and third the clerical tip graph errors and delete references to section no longer in use priorities the updating is the best example of lynn this is with the organization project those tables are used to determine parking requirement by an land use activity you currently up to date and should be updated the property ordinance has a number of proposed typo graphic sections in one 55 this section will have a new sub title and in section 8 where we clean up references to the erroneous planning code sections due to the other changes that ordinance

proposes to rise the occupied floor areas this will exclude areas for accessory parking are areas delved to the calculation of areas required to provide parking in the minimum requirements another example is the consolidate maximum parking quantity to accessory parking from 5 i will argue context provisions to more straightforward ones and another example would be to consolidate the cu for residential in a subsection and not that i recall subsection that that concludes my presentation. and i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you very much colleagues any questions or comments and madam chair that appeared last week he was after having read the ordinance and

the legislative digest that is a rocket science kind of stuff that is us to not negotiated in the intimacies of planning code, section 302 and the various tables that is complicated stuff so like last week, i was going to take issue with this terminology about minor substantive changes which seems to have been nicely clear up upped allison park drill down into that relative to the multiple provisions for establishing moomdz in accessory parking in some cases results in a reduction in parking if you can talk about the with the members of the pane and for everybody is who watches the

land use and transportation committee ask them would what that means in real life that that would be helpful. >> okay. so in the ordinance on page 12 line 21 begins with the maximum parking permitted as accessory you'll see the originally are 5 provisions with the proposal to eliminate it down to 2 and reduce to 2 that f what you're speaking of supervisor peskin in the case of example of a two unit home in a two residential building planning code allows us to. >> mr. sanchez on page 12 which is a chart that says non-retail sales and services are we on the same page. >> i may have a different

standard service station. >> or in one 51 we have an amendment that has the new language i'll bet you that was bumped to table one 51.1 that will take you to page - number i don't know is it 16. >> i'm referring to an page 13 of the version i apologize looking at that. >> oh, on (multiple voices). >> accessory. >> in that situation currently 5 proposing to reduce that to two what one and sro percent of spaces or two no parking use you can read the remaining of that what it will do two to three f i

was mentioned in a two unit in a rh-2 with the planning code will allow off-street parking down to 3 you asked to be clarified. >> let's go through this together mr. chair and mr. sanchez and supervisor tang ma'am, parking permitted as accessory except as specified in subsection b blow accessory principally permitted in section one 51 shall include the following structures lots for development one i see you've deleted one so one will will become one hundred and fifty percent of required number of spaces so that would be your for

become 3 in the case of two unit and no parking required the maximum shall be one space for 2000 square feet of occupied floor area, 3 spaces with the activity is zero occupied floor or maximum specified ♪ section >> for example, the first one no parking for example not related use like an automobile shop or tire shop that type of automobile use we're saying they're loud up to one space of opt out area we'll want them to provide the parking on the office of the structure the shop not associated parking lot you see a lot of tire shops have the second subsection will be where

- i'm sorry for example, european or utility installations something that is wireless telecommunication area tower that will be one out i think in the bayview with the telephone communication towers we had to find a way how much parker that allowed for access we're proposing 3 spaces. >> how about a server farm for example. >> there is an instance in the chart the maximum x we didn't want this section to override that last phrase is to create consistency with what is going on in the chart. >> that's essential and relative to that language i was

going to prop supervisor farrell a minor substantive changes that is seems like an oxymoron but that's it that. >> it is one instance of it yeah, and another instance changing the basis how we park. >> i'm sorry what. >> how we allow parking for land uses for buildings based on gross square feet. >> so those are the two substantive or oxymoron minor substantive changes. >> those are the changes yeah. >> and depending on we're organized the conditional use finding for anyone is asking for parking above what is principally permitted by you allowed by conditional use 0 two sections 167 point one and 8 point one cu and better to put

in the 303 under p and u of that if i'm not mistaken should be. >> looking at the wrong. >> those are all the chart pages you add the language subject to section 303. >> yes. the criteria instead of - so the chart low eastbound reference 167.1 and other instances like one 57 or 8 point one because a cu findings all the majority of finding are 303 we thought a good day to put those into 303 that's how - beginning on page 50 of your packet so starts with subsection t and goes to -

>> to page 58. >> got it. >> thank you mr. sanchez all right. then colleagues any further questions. >> we'll open up for public comment is there any public comment on item number one. >> oh, sorry we have dillon from mta can give you a few minutes. >> good afternoon mta affairs sfmta supports this off-street parking legislation and want to change chair farrell and putting this possibility diego sanchez and with the background information and san francisco neighborhood services & safety committee appreciate the transportation demand management

legislation which the board of supervisors has taken final action on in february thank you, very much. >> any public comment on this item? number one, seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin any further questions. >> no, i would move to adopt the amendments and thank you for to you and the department for making them in the future to the extent that we can not have that oxymoron term minor substantive substantive or not i mean code reorganizations tip graph changes when you have members of the public and the board actually know what the changes are as we've discussed the world is a better place with that, i move the amendments and if they are adopted move it as amended to the sdobd. >> supervisor peskin a one joint motion. >> all right. motion by

supervisor peskin and we'll take that without objection. so moved. >> all right. mr. clerk, call item 2. >> dwelling unit mix of dwelling unit mix of large buildings in specified zoning districts to allow developers to have a mix of three-bedroom units that results in no less than 35% of the total number of proposed units having two or three bedrooms with at least least 10% of the total number of proposed units having three bedrooms,; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and finding of public necessity. >> okay. thank you very much ceo is the sponsor of this legislation primary sponsor and he's back with us i'm going to turn it over to him. >> i'll make this short we have a thorough discussion last week on this item i would just like to this is an hopefully thank the committee for passing in out with a positive recommendation. >> okay commission comments and questions. >> move on to public comment is there any public comment on item 2? take your time

>> next item. >> oh, next item okay is there any public comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues a motion to move forward forward >> i make a motion sdobd. >> we'll take that without objection. mr. clerk item 3. >> tempting plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making a finding of. >> that was sponsored by supervisor yee i'll i'm going to turn it over to him at the chair farrell and colleagues after two years of discussion i am eager to bring this issue back to the board as you may know san francisco families are changed with the

shortage of available childcare we have 3 thousand plus kids waiting for childcare, however, we have licensed to pass for 452 percent of children for working-class participants the reality there is limited space to build childcare supervises and the agenda pursuant to ethic commission bylaws article vii section 2. >> requirement make it challenging to finance one of the most affordable ways to over childcare through license home based family childcare especially for the care of infants and toddlers san francisco has always been in the heed when it comes to investment of children and families the first in the nation to create the dedicated challenges and youth fund in the first to offer more or for all models last year

we were no different we passed the legislation to expand the childcare impact fees to residential and commercial development this is expected to bring in more than $5 million over the 10 years to invest in the early education and childcare centers and it's the first of its kind for developers to receive a reduction in fees if they dedicate a housing unit to a licensed family based home based childcare provider our original proposal includes the onyx of dedicating an inclusionary inclusionary housing to insure the affordability for the planner the planning department in 2015 had concerns the original legislation will somehow take away the inclusionary housing unit if the developer dedicate to a childcare provider

therefore this was omit for more time for consideration when in fact, i know that the majority of those that are operating family childcare especially smaller childcare programs are actually low and moderate income earns family childcare providers are educators and caregiver that make it possible for families to stay in the city their they themselves are added high risk of displacement when their veeshthd or priced out they this no more than lose their homes by livelihoods to a community impact when they're no longer to rely on the trusted caregiver

for their infants and toddlers it is a triple triple low and something we can't stand for after a year of discussions i'm returning with an amended proposal we're able to follow through think possibility of creating affordable housing for families childcare providers more lots and slots for families when it comes to childcare the legislation before you today will create an additional option for developers to dedicated inclusionary housing to an eligible childcare provider on in the investment has 10 or more inclusionary housing their fine for the inclusionary housing unit will help to qualify for the housing requirement and have to be licensed each of those priorities would be able to serve up to 67

children i want to emphasis that by creating this option we be not taking away unit from those in the upper affordable housing charge card providers are in risk at eviction and at roanoke valley to low to myself salaries they'll have otherwise qualified for low market-rate housing this legislation will offer a win-win solution the vendors should provide affordable units and create 6 slotsz for affordable childcare not a mandate it is an option be developers may choose to opt into the program or pay the childcare impact fees and build a childcare center on the ground floor we want to incentivize

those options unfortunately history has shown that housing developments have not opted to bid childcare centers in the past so this is this option maybe more workable i understand there are many conversation that will be dictate how the closings program will change therefore out of deference and at the end of today's hearing i'll request the item be conditioned my office is on ongoing conversation with the mayor's office of housing to make additional amendments to this legislation to insure a streamline program i'd like to bring up let's see see i believe

aaron starr manager, legislative affairs to make comments. >> thank you very much supervisor yee good afternoon, supervisors i'm aaron starr manager, legislative affairs, planning department. the planning commission heard this origin ordinance on october 21st, 2015, and recommended approval with modifications the modifications that the commission made pertain to the duplicated ordinances are as follows: to remove the designated cc you and consider the d cc us u as a separate piece of legislation since this happened in 2015 i didn't review the commission comments when they made that recommendation and after listening to the deliberations the intent of the recommendation for the clarification of staff's recommendation to remove the d ccu and create a separate

program for the district of columbia c u the intentions to remove the death childcare unit and consider that as a separate piece of legislation which we create a separate program for the district of columbia cu and making this the conversation was not concerned about losing the unit by creating another preference on top other preferences like the neighborhood preference, however, they didn't want the other pieces of legislation they sincerely want to move forward have moved so i understand that the ordinance does separate out the idea into its own ordinance but not a program separate from the unit that concludes my remarks i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. starr. >> can i - i see that the representative from office of

e.c. is here would you come up i have some questions that. >> afternoon supervisors. >> i see that in front of me i have to summer summary of both files from our office. >> yes. >> because i remember some of the comments over a year ago those inclusionary unit to people i knew in my heart i work with the child providers for many decades and i know there is or are not people that are generally high income level people but generally low and moderate income so i think this study can you - >> sure in february 2016 the office of education

recommissioned did an analysis step up to the plate for the family childcare provider citywide and in preparation for its funding system approach and as part of this they interviewed the people that did the childcare providers and looking at the income which is the net revenue of income for healthcare providers the annual salary the budget fiscal between $33,034,000 a year we also have an education stipend called ss c our office support and open to teachers and clamor providers to have - to further their education and part of salary range information as part of that application and again, the

annual salary in that same in a different set of family childcare providers was that $3,268 so we'll see the similarities that show that raised 34 to 33 thousand and which is just almost a validation of what - knowing in regards to work i've done this is imagining what i thought the other issue was - there was no education around the fact that many people that were operating the childcare providers homes were getting evicted like other people. >> that's right over the last couple of years several examples many examples

that came to our attention of homeowners evicted or displaced from their properties as a result of rental situation we worked with your office and with several agencies and the city to do something from the analysis that was going on around that big challenge to the family childcare providers in particular i have that report i can share if you at some stage if you want further information. >> i'd like to see the report and maybe members of this committee might want to see 12 too. >> i'll be happy to. >> i can make sure you have access to that. >> appreciate it thanks for being here i believe there is - should i open up for open up for public comment. >> supervisor yee why not any

public comment on this item? i see family childcare providers here and other people that want to make comments here please step up. >> good afternoon, supervisors and special thanks to supervisor norman yee for being here this afternoon i'm beatrice and here to testify in support of designated childcare they're provided home cac care and family childcare offers parents quality childcare to the centers i'm a native of san francisco from the mission and have three children i can tell you that the family childcare at low cost it challenging especially, since family childcare providers are moving away from the city i know because my mother was one of them the former president the

childcare group that was shutting down her childcare business over 20 years and with the houses on the market at the highest bid my parents offered and were dismissed with no regard with the family business intold to the community what was ones my home for so many hundreds of children that were a part of the community and in the childcare since 1992 did business was constituted in july 2015 if my mother had an opportunity to relocate to a new building designated for childcare her business would be open today and my parent would be in the city let's keep them and the childcare provider in the city and tell them that is an incentive for everyone community childcare for children and families in the city thank you for your time.

>> hi, my name is anna a family childcare provider and here to give my testimony last year, i had to sell my houses and then i have 3 months for landmarking for another place this not only effecting us because it is to my helper and the 8 families api i've taken advantage low income families we have to give the health and safe and good environment thank you. >> thank you hi, i'm michelle a retired family childcare provider and going to submit a letter from the person that was evicted and no longer can do family childcare i've heard from childcare providers there is - can no longer take care of

children and he had a business for 20 years and now doesn't have a place i'll be submitting more lectures it is hard for families childcare providers to testify. >> michelle do you know if those family childcare providers you're in contact with has there any evicted urban evicted i know personally quite a few of the them have moved out of the city would they like to get out of the city a great sues. >> i'm not sure what is happening with him but irene she's got low income into low income housing but too small for her to do family chair mar. >> so - she'll be testifying

in the future but had a doctor's appoint today. >> i'm maria the organizer of voices and we support this ordinance one o 100 percent i think that is highly needed and speak if experience when in my children were younger - they went to after-school programs family childcare provided a choice for families not enough choice in the city because the vent is going up and many of the childcare providers are pushed out my neighbor who spoke earlier lives around the block

one the mothers in the city and it is difficult for her to get a place for her mother in the city that is very, very difficult to get a license the process is complicated so the families lose their place is out and then we lose important supply of childcare that is important we support the providers when we support the childcare supporters and the families they serve and when those providers serve like subsidized children the reimbursement rate is half the cost of every care so my support for the prima facie evidence is very important and this is long overdue thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors as the former early childhood

educator and teacher of the young children i can tell you that children thrive in this small group setting rather than the institutionalized care that you have to get on a actuating list is not available in the city i wholeheartedly support this measure and do hope that the full board when it dgo gets to the full board is of the compliment to accept this is reality and passive thank you so much supervisors and commissioner yee. >> hello, i'm used to be a specialist in the public school district and helped i ps to get they're first paycheck i become

pregnant in my second trimester so with the subjective childcare after 8 months i'm not able to find an open childcare place have been able to advocate for myself very, very strongly i didn't go back to my dream job i'm asking you to pass p this legislation for the community to the full board for parents single parents like me when i'm not working no money in the house so what do you mean for being living in the mission how do we survive and take care of things everyday is important we make it to the next day by opening up more family childcare centers you're not only supporting the moms and dads opening their businesses by providing opportunity for them

and providing opportunity for the spots per child like 10 spots you know and also creating as a parent once i want to open my own childcare center i urge to pass it so parents like me can go back to their dream job and not looking at for a better job again, thank you. >> thank you is there any public comment on item 3 seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee. >> so are there any questions. >> supervisor peskin. >> sure first of all, let me change thanking supervisor yee through the chair to continue to push this and also for acknowledging that given the broad conversation controversial conversation that we are getting

closure to having as it relates to the hi level issues around inclusionary housing with the ami percentages will be split and how we're going to deal with the density bonus program and the piece of legislation i want to thank supervisor yee for acknowledging that we should resolve those kind of issues i think something similar with supervisor president london breed brought her divisadero legislation that was one of no offenses pausing in the weeks or next few months we'll resolve those issues and once we have god forbid we are not able to resolve that it is time to take thank you i agree with the

intentions i don't know if the right number is 10 but i definitely agree with the sentiment of it and hopefully, we he resolve the high-level issues and come back to this in the weeks ahead. >> thank you supervisor peskin i share a lot of those comments and certainly add my support to the general focus of that thank you to the people for coming out we need to think how is it effects and look forward to the conversation with that so supervisor yee was that a motion i understand to the call of the chair. >> once again thank you to the public for coming out, i 79 to reiterate what that does when we have the option of developers building the childcare centers basically, we're taking that option we are prernl a few that

important thinking about that so what we've done is build for unit increasing our childcare availability and i call this a win-win once again mainly because it provides services within the housing units especially the large ones and it is helping the low income or moderate income person that happens to love children and take care of children to allow spaces to live and actually provide the services and also you can the third factor is that provides for most of those families providers they are trained and well-trained and they take the e.c. unit the children are leon and helps the

families that cannot afford nannies those families need to find affordable childcare services so i urge us to consider this deeply when we answered the other questions but again, it didn't take away the inclusionary units for someone that didn't qualify those people qualified in a system we've worked out as far is so include the offers of d.c. to help you identifying those families childcare that providers that want to provide that service and asking many of the lord known community-based organizations that work with those providers so that there is can lead into making it easy to identify people and without doing a lot

of marketing and outreach to say where are they where are they so i want to thank the committee once again for listening and hopefully, when we bring this matter back up to the call of the chair we'll hopefully have a positive results. >> thank you supervisor yee so colleagues another motion to the call of the chair. >> motion by supervisor tang and we'll take that without objection. >> all right. thank you supervisor yee and mr. clerk items 4 and 5 ordinances amending the planning code for rh-2 to make other technical circulations and finding. >> okay. thank you very much aaron starr manager, legislative affairs, planning department. to speak on those items. >> thank you, supervisors i

have handout for the committee. >> good afternoon, supervisors aaron starr manager, legislative affairs. for the planning department are the item i'm presenting is phase two of the organization on article 7 for the commercial districts so initiated in 2013 that will restructure the planning code planning code to understand and use accomplished by the consistency to the definitions in the format help to achieve this 3 phases phase three is effect in march of 2015 and

effect in march of 2015 and focused an article two with phase three phase two and focuses an article 8 why is this necessary over the past thirty years the planning code was revised with the overall structure the result the code is difficult to use and implement leaving to mistakes and misinformation the complexity makes it difficult for the members of the public and developers to comprehensive the land use controls and creates inkwaebtsdz within the city for those who have the time to assess the expertise and those two do not the code maintains the structure until

1986 when the article was added and article 1 and use controls fro organizing the tables for their definition since we had a do so zoning district and fewer regulations this format worked but it is gained in complexity added to the code for the concerns over development and uses in the commercial districts trying to have consistency and address those concerns the city added article 7 added section 7 instructor for the zoning district tables and added a definition with a different format so all the while art two is the same we have definitions and

that ways to convey the planning code so where are we going from 3 ways of promulgating it we're down to one since this is the format you can read one chart instead of 4 definitions one located in section one 0 it while the land use regulations in the zoning district since the definitions have been consolidate in section one 0 that is to reenforcement article 7 and use this definition in one 0 it as part of the progress the definitions in section will be deleted and used for article 7 a significant number of definitions in one 02 are based on the article 7 and 890 for a

smooshth transition it eliminates planning code 316 for the conditional use authorization in the mucked e mixed use and those controls are the same in section 306 that covers the entitlements to the rest of the city one main difference the 20 day noticing and other zoning district that is a period of 10 days and this it organization makes it consistent throughout the city the ordinance also eliminates the tac out use and amend it for the local definitions and devices article 7 into the individual uses those individual uses will be regulated the same as that and clarifies the difference between limited restaurant and special seating in the latter so finally it includes

substantive changes requested by supervisor peskin and supervisor kim for supervisor tang it amends the sunset district for the conditional use authorization is required for barred and lou gehrig's disease and person uses in the second floor and the c requirement for mcds in the outer sunset neighborhood supervisor peskin has requested ground floor commercial and be prohibited the vehicular assess on grant avenue meaning driveways and prohibits the loss of dwelling units and kennels and 24 businesses reestablishes restaurant and removes the exception from movie theatre and add specialist food manufacturing as a definition to the north beach ncd and requires the cu and and for side eating

and drinking ordinances and supervisor peskin requested that the draft eirs ncd be i'm sorry the broadway ncd amend to allow the restaurants as of right and require cu for bars. >> under phase one how we've you structured the uses in the planning code under phase one we kagd those in other sponsors collaring it includes the argue and entertainment arts and recreation and institutional, residential saves and services each is designed in section one 0 it and covers that category filmmakers agricultural includes neighborhood and large-scale and greenhouse you go to section one 02 and you identifies this

category we identified which category each use is in for the definition for example, jewelry stores sales and services that involves the sale of juvenile and on after that the way it works in the chart this is a generic place that the 3 columns on the right for first story and second floor and third story and above that lists the industrial uses of categories and those uses are not permitted since not permitted in the neighborhood commercial district for institutional uses we list 8 individual uses and the use category is to show the controls if we look at institutional for the asterisk those institutional is not listed blow the 8 blow

that have different controls in the overall category inform things that helps account for every use in the planning code for this chart and also helps shorten the chart for uses we don't have to list duplicate controls under the same category i've helped 3 outreach meetings over one thousand people came in the neighborhood organization and changes in the e-mail list and offered to retain groups that have me with the north beach and the divisadero and tenant the council merchant meeting and presented to oewd and the historic preservation commission and will say the historic preservation commission was confused why i was there i continued to brief all on the progress and issues i presented

to the small business commission and received their endorsement and maintained the website about the outreach passengers and the ordinance and that concludes my presentation. also before you amendments as a whole i've written out a one paternal the first amendment is section 202 on page 35 on 15 to 18 it was just classified that used primarily serving persons under 18 years of age includes both school public and private-public facilities and private facilities currently if you read state your name sounds private because their own subject to this age restriction and the second one lists changes list for formula retail uses so we list all in formula retail

what that does it reverses that all retail are considered formula retail this helps to remove some ambiguity in the code retail sales and services is listed to the formula retail controls and lists those uses that are included under the retail sales and services that is confusing it listed the overall category and also individual uses in that category making it unclear if all retail sales and services or just those list are subject to formula retail. >> so by restoring it we're saying etch the retail sales and services are not identified we'll consider that formula retail that is how the zoning administrator interprets the code and why retail sales and services is in that definition i

believe those will be referred to continuance i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you very much supervisor peskin's so first of all, let me acknowledge mr. starr for what is truly even absent any type of controversy a monumental undertaking this code as evolved over decades and as mr. starr said in the 1980s the neighborhood commercial district ordinance emerged was i think crafted with the fundamental premise that different neighborhoods had different needs and different desires and challenges and opportunity and along the way new things like formula retail came and i want to appreciate mr. starr for

everything he's been undertaking having said that, i fundamentally continue to think albeit in the two weeks that hopefully the committee will continue a large portion of this and i will work with the department to resolve our differences i still fundamentally think this is a solution looking for a problem the analogy that i liken this to say the keys on a tip writer it didn't makes sense that the different letters on a tip writer are spread but way they are but offer decades or a century people are learned how to tip using kind of tip writer ♪ monumental effort to simplify everybody has learned over

decades how to use this tip writer even though the keys to go abc d e f g in order by simplifying that in some ways we're making that more complicated that is the policy desire of the department and the commission we'll grandpa especially with that here and i frankly wonder where that is more of a one-size-fits-all sort of formula the needs of the neighborhood commercial districts are fundamentally different so i just wanted to share those high-level thoughts with that said, i do appreciate the fact you're working to accommodate some of the unique needs and opportunities and challenges of the neighborhood commercial districts be they in supervisor tang that supervisorial district or polk street where i introduced

legislation at the request of polk street resident and merchants or in the north beach ncd and sud and look forward to working with you mr. starr over the next couple of weeks to improve them to the best of our ability to make as many of us happy as we can >> supervisor tang. >> thank you thank you to the planning department for this also incredible difficult task i'll say that i guess i respectfully disagree with supervisor peskin it is worthy embarking on an effort to make that easier for everyone to read the planning code i know that commissioner peskn is a huge period of time in land use and have neighborhood individuals that are also experts but frankly in our office for example, my years as as legislative aide i spent a

lot of time pointed to the planning code having developed interest in the planning code though but, yes, i have encountered instances the planning department staff has confused certain portions the planning code it is confusing for those people that are experts at that so i do think it is important we consolidate things to make that easier for people to read not funning changing the things that we don't want to have changed in the district so i think that the way i have read this it maintains everything we wanted and the 0 desires in the neighborhood but in other words, of reading so for me we have worked with the planning department over a year now to clarify a couple of things in our own ncd and hopefully, a create 4 new ncd during the short period of time and had customized controls we wanted in place and saw this is

a vehicle to include those changes permanent so i'll say that because we're continuing this item today then i would like to make a motion later pending any questions or concerns to duplicate the file and sever out a portion that deals with district 4 and those controls are number one, requiring the conditional use authorization for bars on the first floor number 2, ring with the harmonies of liberty; a cu for liquor stores and 3 a conditional use authorization for mcds and then the other one is for a conditional use authorization for personal services on the second floor all of which will only apply to the noreiga, irving, taraval, and judah ncds and those tables begin on page 313 and stand through page 20040 on this version we have before

us today. >> so we can take public comment that's my motion to sever it out and send that portion covering district 4 full board of supervisors. >> i want to add one thing i understand there is a desire we've seen it now in the previous work phase one of the reorganization project and saw that earlier day as it recommended to parking requirements and have no tension to circumvent that effort i respectfully through the chair to supervisor tang i've noticed with previous large-scale code restriction this is three hundred and 42 pages of is this happened in the eastern neighborhoods which is with the best of intentions i mean no nefarious behavior we ended up creating all of those unanticipate changes that none i

mean this is why i give into my route but minor substantive changes that turned out to not be what other sponsors intend but all of those things spent a lot of time picking out some of the things some have yet to be fixed when we go into a three hundred plus page revision i want to thank mr. starr actually constituents of maintain brought up earlier in this process that due to no bad intentions the fundamental way that formula retail was defined that is fixed was going to in vertically weaken the formula retail use controls we're dealing with three hundred and 42 pages want to make sure we get it right while we have things relative to the districts that can be strength i want to make sure we don't end up having to fix this

for a number of years of our life. >> okay. thank you supervisor peskin and we can vote on those that motion right after public comment open up for public comment on items 4 and 5 is there any public comment on item 4 and 5 come on up 2 minutes each. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm anastasia district 8 resident who lives on 24th street neighborhood cord i'm concerned about the unintended consequences of ordinance as proposed to amend article 7 of the planning code ordinance mcds are the product of thirty plus years of crafting each neighborhood commercial district history is unique and each ncd has particular characteristics

regulations severing mcds can't be allowed to be one one-size-fits-all proposed kleenexes and replacement could a result in a water down planning code for noah valley castro railroad van ness and golden gate park ncd a negative flanagan effect by lunging the extinctions for all ncd in one place as a planning code and having those extinctions apply to every ncd furthermore, community members can't be expected to understand the meaning the zoning tables to be determined whether or not they're in mcds will be substantially negatively impacting therefore each supervisor must engage with the planning department staff for the technical expertise to carry out the grand last year work necessary and see how the

changes in the railroad he reorganization of article 7 will impact the nblgdz in their district i have to add to the presentation by mr. starr that when it was brought up the small business commission the public comment there was the small business community and the chamber of commerce did not know anything about it. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> eileen district had resident the concerns i have regarding the article 7 code have been communicated to the district supervisors aid for the taraval organization this is also been present at the california district merchants association the main opposition is the zoning of judah from the 2347 to

nc-3 the second opposition was the distinction of rear yard being above the ground floor or at the level the first story of dwelling units that will allow the ground floor to be built out to the lot line without rear yard the open space above the ground floor or at the level of first story will be compromised open space like a deck the finally concern the catered of taraval and ivy streets in district and 4 sections east of 19th avenue in district 7 and questionable the creation after a restaurant subsection in the section of taraval there are only 3 restaurants in this area and in general dividing eir viking excuse me - taraval and

irving into this is arbitrary. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on items 4 or 5 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor tang. >> no. >> i was going to say one technical thing relative to what supervisor tang is proposing which i'm sure we'll hear from staff or the city attorney which is i'm absolutely fine with intent of what you're trying to do you know to for conditional use authorization to control for various things and those four mcds all of the references from pages 2 to 13 to 240 implement all of those new so i don't know technically how to do it until we've figured out how to deal with one 02 one of the concerns

with one 02 we're defining terms yesterday, i was searching the code i was putting in those terms or what those terms used to be and finding places that these definitions are used in small letters not in all caps i'm not sure mr. starr you have them all we have a little bit of work to do on one 02 i don't know how that will work supervisor tang. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> so what i think we'll end up doing is supervisors i assume on the committee will make mr. star's proposed amendment and duplicate the file the one version with supervisor tang's duplicated version we will make the amendment to existing codes

not copy and paste the 13 pages so that chang's amendment will go into the existing coat and article 7 rewrite comes back to the committee we'll very shuffle and chang's chances will be lost. >> okay mr. starr any further. >> yes. the use that she is referenced to in section 302 and 90 not hard to change from medical cannabis dispensary bars and restaurants stores that should be straightforward and appreciate that supervisor peskin has gone through that and i saw that it will be good to compare did notes on that and willing to work with our office. >> it is much appreciated i'll be happy to duplicate the file and move the measures that

supervisor tang referenced tied back to the old 790 and not the one 02 we'll continue to discuss over the next few weeks. >> thank you supervisor peskin so supervisor tang has duplicated the file we're going. >> - chair we need to accept the amendments proposed by the planning code for the duplicate. >> to the call of the chair let's adopt the amendments regarding page 35 and line - pages 70 to 71. >> before i duplicate the file and sever out the portion i want to address some of the concerns raised during public comment i number one, we're not thank you for the opportunity judah into a negative impact i'm not sure where that is coming from we

established years ago under former carmen chu four neighborhood noreiga, irving, taraval, and judah ncds it is not thank you for the opportunity it both an nct, and, secondly, there was reference about the taraval sub use district and that was already in place i'm not changing those those were the kaurtdz with the restriction on formula retail restaurant now unifying been the clean up in terms of the restaurant and bars definitions so categories, however, i'm not touching any of that that is in existence and can't be sdwrargd into the rest of the taraval and nct i was suggested their different compromising boundary i'm not touching that that was from do board. >> and then i have one question what was raised from

another speaker regarding the definitions of neighborhood there's confusion a concern by bundling the extinctions into a section incidentally hollering changing the ncd controls in neighborhoods i'm not sure what they meant by that maybe the planning department can speak to the consolidation of existence is chances the controls in any of the mcds. >> they seem to think each section has a different definition that's not true they're related to in that sense but a one-size-fits-all because all mcds currently use definitions of section 390 under section 8 they use the

section 890 what this allows for what we're doing we're braegd be what we call the other institutions like childcare facilities, schools and churches and some other ones we're breaking down those so each use can be regulate into the commercial district for commercialization in the district i tried to correct that error several times but mcds ncd one set of definition. >> and reference to district 4 it is easy to go to page 213 through 240 again, we're changing before different types of uses and the mcds and the

conditional use and bar the conditional use and permanent services conditional use on the second floor those are the only changes we're making a and one quick thing you're talking about continuance i'll be in new york on may whatever it is the 7 a planning conference so defer to - >> let me suggest we continue to the to the call of the chair not a problem okay. >> so then i will make a motion or i'd like to duplicate the file one version will separate out only district 4 controls i've mentioned and. >> send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> and the other one continue to the call of the chair. >> sxaung e supervisor tang duplicated the file and pushed forward district 4 on one item and keep the remaining bulk of this item to the call of the

chair. >> that's fine for the record some of the amendment that we previously adopted actually still on page 72 so just for the record on 3 pages and then i assume what we're moving forward as we discussed 0 before is cross referenced to the existing 790 definitions we we finish the best of this project will be replaced with the one 02 definitions. >> with that, i'm good to go. >> 0 we'll take that without objection. >> >> item number 4, and 5 does that continued to the call of the chair. >> i'll make a motion for item 5 as well. >> motion to continue the call of the chair. >>

additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> mr. chair. >> thank you, everybody, we're adjourned

>> all right. ladies and gentlemen, good morning the meeting will come to order this the regularly the budget & finance committee excuse me - board of supervisors budget & finance subcommittee i'm supervisor cohen chair of this committee and to my left is supervisor katie tang and to my right is supervisor yee and our clerk mr. john carol and linda wong thank you jesse larson and phil jackson from sfgovtv so for assisting us today madam clerk, any announcements? devices.