we created in first every family forum and hope that will bring a lot of people good information to plan for their future three hundred people signed up for 101 counterand we so hope that is a model for success for the future and hope to do more if we learn from this one to be better >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation committee meeting for january 8, 2018. i'm mark farrell chairing the committee joined by commission

peskin and commissioner tang and i want to thank sf gof -- gov for announcing the documents. >> items acted upon will appear on the january 23 board of supervisors agenda. >> commissioner: madame clerk item one. >> the clerk: revising 42 definition of gross floor area and remove redoundancies. >> commissioner: we have planning department here to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning coat to make amendments to the area. the department has not received any public comments and on september 7, 2017 the planning commission approved the

ordinance. they could be packed as calculated in the planning code. the first amendment would remove the distinction removing the accessory buildings from the definition of gross floor area. and accessory buildings in the calculation of gross floor area. it's problematic. the code does not define accessory buildings and parcels could be interpreted from being an accessory building and the definition are included in the definition of gross floor area. therefore there is no distinctive dove mission for the purpose of calculating gross floor areas for structure. the second amendment would remove the car share parking retirement. required car share parking say

mandatory condition imposed by the city. they're mandate ford projects that meet certain conditions. it's a betterment to the public and development community to exclude it from the definition of gross floor area in all zoning districts. this concludes the presentation. thank you. >> commissioner: colleagues any questions or comments? supervisor peskin -- we'll open it up to public comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. can i have a motion. >> i would be happy to make it forward with a recommendation. >> commissioner: we can take that without objection. mada madame clerk, item two. >> the clerk: the planning code article 8 to clarify nighttime

typographical clarifications. >> commissioner: thank you. same thing. planning department speak on item two. >> the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to make clarifying amendments to article eight. the planning commission vote to approve the proposed ordinance. due to multiple revisions text has been dropped and spelling errors and some are not reflected in subsequent legislation. it's intended to correct errors in the code. this concludes my presentation. >> commissioner: thank you very much. any questions or comments? public comments is now closed. >> i'll make a motion for positive recommendation.

>> commissioner: seconded by supervisor peskin. >> commissioner: to make them happy. >> madame clerk, item 3. >> the clerk: prohibiting non-retail professional services and limit lot mergers and catering within the mission street nct and making appropriate findings. >> commissioner: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, planning department staff. just for background on the legislation, this is part of the many strategies identified in the mission action plan 2020 endorsed by the planning commission and transmit to the board last much. up on the slide will be the goal of 2020 and the categories under which the strategies and plan fall from tenant protection to economic development to advance the target goal and objectives of the plan.

most of the strategies are already being implemented. this is the second you've seen this year and we'll have a bigger legislative package with alcohol and controls in the mission related to what is next on your agenda today. i'll pass it to my colleague and i'm available if you have questions of the broader map 2020 process. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm staff at planning. just to give you a little bit of background about the specific amendments that we're proposing today, they are aimed at -- they come out of the map 2020 claudia mentioned and aimed at curbing business to business uses on mission street. they're aimed at easing land use

pressures on retail businesses on mission street. expanding options for art activities and catering uses within the nct compatible with neighborhood uses. protecting the mission street and continuing to provide space for project. so the specific amendments we are proposing include the removal of non-retail professional services as a permitted use known as administrative uses and catering on all floors, limiting lot mergers in the mission nct. on parcels fronting mission street to 100 linear feet and for projects with frontages with 50 and 100 feet it would require a special space less than 2,500

square feet. they'd have to break up larger ground floor spaces to including one that is smaller. so just on the last issue of the lot merger issues, it's probably the one amendment we've had the most back and forth upon we originally had a 150 foot limit. folks of theed requested a 50-foot limit and we wanted to limit lot mergers but not discourage project require a higher percentage of vmr. we looked at the soft sites adjacent to each other in parcels in the mission nct. we saw if we did a 100 foot

limit and all the parcels were developed to full capacity we'd get 105 units, 25% of which would be below market rate. you can get smaller projects below the 25-unit threshold for a 25% inclusionary so you end up in fewer vmr units is how we came up with the 100 foot limit. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions about any of these amendments. >> commissioner: colleagues, any questions or comments? we'll move on to public comment. i have a speaker card for item three, mark loper. if there's anybody else, feel free to come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark loper. i'm testifying on behalf of a sponsor for mission street. it's a 75-unit mixed income project. the project was first proposed in 2014.

we filed formal entitlement applications in 2016. it was approved by the planning commission less than two months ago on november 30, 2017 that was nearly two years after entitlement application was filed. this project does involve a lot merger over the 100-foot trigger talked about. while we believe state law protect the project from zoning change that are i am -- imposed we think a grandfathering clause would clarify the point and is common practice for legislation that affect housing projects like 2019 mission that are approved that haven't started construction yet. for example, this bord include provisions in recent legislation related to affordable house. the transportation demand

management program in san francisco's own density project just to name a few. grandfathering in this narrow instance recognizes the housing project that complied when the project was proposed and should not be further delayed or be subjected to different requirements after receiving approving. we request adding language to the ordinance specifying the ordinance does not apply to those that submitted a complete application prior to the effecti effective date. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> cory smith on behalf of the san francisco action coalition. i've been following this for a little while. regarding if it's a 50 versus

100-foot merger we've been work with people on this in terms of the ground floor. we want to make sure everything second floor and up isn't negatively impacted. we don't want to see anything inhibit our ability to put subsidized affordable units on t the market. there is restaurants or retail or whatever we won't have an opinion on that. and specifically relate to the comments of the previous speaker as well, this has been a long-time conversation in san francisco about changing rules and moving the goal posts once everything is establish and we also ask projects already approved are not impacted by this simple, hopefully straightforward grandfathering.

thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. commission economic development agency. i want to speak in support of this legislation and touch on a few of the important elements i think that are here and how they'll help with the stabilization of mission street under stress right now. i think limiting the lot mergers is important in terms of keeping things within a scope and scale that is community serving. historically we see which project end up being community serving. the accompanying store fronts -- though the legislation not specific to them, plays into that. i think the addition of adding art and catering is important as

it will provide significant new opportunities for our displaced art and cultural groups and new groups to grow and thrive. we have a growing system. we're having a all in all we have provisions for the street as well. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i am here to speak about the controls. given there is a conversation now about what's happening with

the permanent amendments i want to weigh in on those. first, supervisor ronen is supportive and sponsored the proposed amendments. the outreach and the discussion that have gone on in preparing these has been take joan -- taken in time and there's vetting of data and there's been a result in the proposed amendments. they were introduced at the full board in november. frankly hearing about the concerns about the lot mergers today has been a surprise. i think any consideration of whether or not there's to be grandfathering shouldn't happen today. the supervisor will take it under advisement and we'll be able to look at what the

potential effects are and if the supervisor wishes to submit an amendment i'm hoping she'll be able to prior to the full board hearing. i think that's all i need to say. we noticed there are large lots on mission street and the fact that we're trying to preserve smaller ones and ensure diversity of scale for the housing and retail use she's reason behind this. thanks. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the latino culture district in support of the legislation. we're trying to make sure the smaller businesses in the mission are able to survive the gentrification in the

neighborhood. there's pressure on the small businesses with rent increases and investor-type businesses coming in and restaurants coming in and we want to make sure the playing ground is equal. it's one of the few places that are left that cater to low-income working class folks in the neighborhood. a lot of the restaurants that have moved in are expensive and not affordable for a lot of us. we also see the spaces below are being kept vacant for a long time. developers aren't able to rent them out. in particular the development on mission street, we wanted to work with the developer to get a neighborhood serving type business in the space but he refuse to deal with us and we're

looking for large developments coming in to have smaller spaces at the bottom to cater to the local neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, san francisco and everyone else watching. i support the mission district and everything they're saying. i wish you had someone other than a black man to come and support us. we don't have no businesses on fillmore. or have you seen fillmore lately? and i'm not here to point the finger at no one, particular queen bee. i go to district 5 and i can't get action because he's playing both parts and i know y'all don't want know say this but i'm not saying it for y'all but for the african american lack negros however you want to say us. i hope you hear me, peskin, because you did a wonderful job

for herman. you opened up the box and we can't stop. this is to the city and county because they say i'm not a media person. this say news bulletin being published so i'm part of the media. i don't want problems tomorrow when go to the chamber and i'm the only black person you stop. my name is ace, dammit in the city by the bay. i've been trying to see our acting mayor. i went to her office, i can't get in there because they don't know what the hell's going on. i'm the acting supervisor of the district 5. my name is ace. contact me. i know everything in the fillmore. when she was a little girl i was working in the fillmore. when she was born in the projects, i was working in the fillmore and i'm not saying this to get at you like this way but you need to see me.

i'll be in your office in two minutes. my name is ace and i'm on the case. that's a bulletin. i don't need a press pass tomorrow. you know who i am. >> commissioner: thank you, ace. anybody else wish to comment on item number 3. supervisor peskin. >> i don't know if this say question for staff or the city senior but i want to make sure the legislative digest the amendments i don't think is correct and explain what the legislation does. instead of saying that it would restrict lot mergers by requires lots along mission streets to be at least 150 feet wide is to be no more than 100 feet wide, right? >> deputy city attorney. our office committed a corrected

legislative digest to the court this morning. it's in the clerk's file now and will be in the file going forward. >> commissioner: i wanted the chairman to know i'm reading all the fine print. >> commissioner: the chairman appreciates it. supervisor tang. >> i have the same confusion this morning and i wanted to check in win supervisor ronen's issue. i'm hearing folks in public comment and i'm confused. said she supports the amendment but you meant the legislation -- >> right. she is not proposing any amendment to this package at this time. the concern about the grandfathering provision has an effect on the specific proposed project underway has not been

reviewed and vetted and nothing -- no decision's been made about any grandfathering provision. >> i don't know if there's been a reason given because i talk generically. i'm curious if there was rationale. >> has not come up to this point. >> commissioner: colleagues, seeing no other comments -- >> commissioner: the only comment i would make is based on the public comment of the attorney representing the project at 2918 mission street. that attorney represented he believed they were grandfathered. if that's true i suggest there's an off-line conversation. it's not scheduled as a

committee report. you have until the 23 or 24 to have the conversation. i say we not take that amendment and have that conversation and as council said he believe it's offered anyway. if that's true there's no reason to include it but why not have an off-line conversation. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. i think that would be great to have happen and understand what's going upon with that said, motion by a colleague. >> i'd move it to the full board with recommendation. >> commissioner: motion by supervisor peskin. supervisor tang. madame clerk, item 4. >> the clerk: in term zoning controls for cu authorization for commercial and storefront mergers by mission, cesar chaf

he is and protrero. >> so this is a resolution for interim controls. there have existing interim controls in place passed by the planning commission. the series of controls meant while some are expiring after their limit of a two-year term. there is one control, one interim control in place that is not yet reached its two-year term and that is the requirement that spaces being converted to restaurant use would have to go through a condition use authorization process. because there's time left on that interim control and because the need remains while the process of reviewing overall

retail use and protections continues, we would like to -- the supervisors would lake to propose to continue -- would like to propose to continue the control and additional use requirement for storefront mergers to create a space over 2,000 square feet. these would provide protection for diversity we see disappearing on mission street and i'd be happy to answer more questions. >> commissioner: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? we'll me of on to public comment? anybody wishing to comment? public comment's now closed seeing none. any follow-up?

>> commissioner: we instituted controls and they've been successful. i'd be more than happy to send this as a committee report tomorrow with board of supervisor. >> commissioner: we have a second by supervisor tang we can take without objection. adam clerk item 5. >> the clerk: and the western shoreline area plan and wern shoreline area plan to restore the ocean beach shoreline and make appropriate findings. >> thank you, adam clerk. we have our planning department. >> first, i would defer to supervisor tang but i'd be happy to co-sponsor this legislation. it's in supervisor tang's

direct. i would like to thank staff in particular work the coastal commission in such a fashion unlike many of the coastal plan amendments that get rejected. this one -- if we approve it -- i should not put words in my colleagues' mouths but it should be approved at the february or march meeting. >> thank you. through the chair, i want to thank all the staff involved in this particular effort. i know it was a lot of community meetings and so forth. i will say that just to point out some of the obviouses we need the amendment to be able to include issues such as addressing coastal hazard and sea level rises.

in terms of factually we know there's issues we're contending with.

>> we have not amended our plan since 1986. this is the first time we're changing the policies and coastal hazards are the driver.

they're erosion and climate level rise and those with problems we'll have more problems in the future. erosion can happen. it led to emergency measures by the public utility commission and public works permitted through 2021. some parking lots have been removed as they become unsafe. we're figuring out the right balances for the coastal zone. this amendment does not change anything in golden gate park.

it adds a coastal hazard section and we're trying to restore the shoreline while protecting resources and infrastructure and existing development from coastal hazards. there's six policies some of which are focussed on the near term treat plan and some are long-term standards because erosion are problems we'll continue to deal with forever. this has been a multi-year process and so from the project launch through some data and model work in policy development we had a community advisory group for the professional and

interagency advisory group because again there's extensive public lands with city and federal in the area. we had fire interagency meetings. we all understand what the proposed amendments are. it's had an informational and initiation and adoption hearing. they recommended adoption in october last year and pending local approve we'll submit to the coastal commission for certification. as supervisor peskin noted if they reject it, it will have to

start back at the planning commission. i think we have done our best to work through the problems so you don't have to do this twice. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioner: we'll move on to public comment? i have two speaker cards. mike grizle and bill mclaughlin. first person, come on up.

>> one relates to this restrictions on new development in the erosion area.

recently the sf zoo has build their own science center atop at the apex at the erosion site. this is areal concern. there's been new blocking for the public and the zoo wants to build their own parking garage. we need help anything you folks can do. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the surf rider chapter and work in a leadership type

role. and we'll look at whether it can be relocated as an important >> there's a curiosity about the recycled water plant.

we have information about that occurring in the same location as the retreat is going on. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm here on my own behalf. at the community meeting may second of 2017, two issues were brought to staff's attention, one issue is the u.s. geologic survey how san francisco bay is contributing to erosion on the southern portion of the ocean beach and accretion of build up on the other portion. the other is the sanctuary. it's reviewing its management plan. it's reviewing the possibility of incorporating the waters off san francisco into the sanctuary. these waters are an exclusionary

area and known as the donut hole. they were brought to the attention of the planning commission on october 5 of 2017. this commission recused herself. >> commissioner: thank you, any other members push to comment? supervisor tang? >> thank you to those who came out to speak.

i do know that in speaking with the various agencies and including spur we haven't settled on anything yet regarding parking. it's not something we have arrived at a solution yet but it's not to say we have for sure taken away all the parking yet. it's an evolving situation.

>> i want to thank you the coastal commission for their work and look forward to passing it onto the full board as a committee report and getting to vote on it again at the coastal

commission. >> commissioner: we cannent -- entertain a mission. >> and we'll move it forward with a positive report. >> we can take that without objection. clerk, will you call item number 6. >> the clerk: item number 6 the resolution imposing interim zoning controls to require cu authorization for personal services uses. >> commissioner: we've been joined by supervisor who proposed the legislation.

>> they put together a neighborhood plan. we have been continuing until may or june of this year. it will have been a full year plus. the department of planning and office of economic and workforce development have led the effort with 26 members of the working group all neighborhood residents from all walks of life. we're happy with the process. the zoning control is meant to put a pause on these and hopefully by the time we're well

along to put together the planning, these zoning controls if this board and body supports that will then will have the tuns -- opportunity to come back and adjust later. essentially it would require institutional uses, private community facilities, social services and personal service uses like hair salons and nail salons and also other uses that aren't necessarily promoting of light retail in the corridor. [please stand by]

. >> and so when we come back to the planning commission and hopefully, eventually to the board of supervisors, we'll be looking at public mobility, land use and housing, which obviously these interim controls would impact, and how do we support the existing small businesses and continue to make it a neighborhood where folks can open up shop, continue to be entrepreneurial, and continue to support their families. i'm happy to take any questions, but it's important to think about these, thinking

as a city, how can we advance toward those goals, and i think as the supervisor said, putting a pause on some of the things that happen in the neighborhood can help us get some breathing room and space so we can bring forward some legislation that advanced us as a neighborhood strategy. >> thank you, miss tanner. i also wanted to bring up one other point. we have over the years, we have a group that's been there, working, the excelsior action group, and they have been working on a lot of these issues over the last 15 years, working with stakeholders, merchants along with the excelsior outer mission merchants' group, so there's been a lot of work that's gone into this, and the work that i've done in the community has been listening to this, kind of reflecting that desire. also, there's been behavior that has been not permitted that we're trying to help control for a lot of uses pop up that are not even permitted

uses, and so this is to put an additional eye on that, what types of uses need additional scrutiny. so that's it, colleagues, hopefully, if you have any questions, let me know, and we can move the conversation forward. >> colleagues, any questions at this point in time? okay. seeing none, we will open this up to public comment. item number 6. seeing no public comment, item is closed. >> i don't need this to be a committee report. this is fine, we're going to have some more conversations with planning and economic development and then we'll go from there. >> okay. so colleagues, could i have a motion to move this item forward to the full board? >> supervisor tang: so moved. >> and moved by supervisor tang and seconded by supervisor

peskin. okay. madam clerk, do we have any other business before us today? >> clerk: no, we are done. >> okay. that concludes our calendar. we are adjourned.

at this time we ask that you please silence all sound producing devices for the duration of the meeting. >> thank you. may have a motion to approve the agenda? thank you, any comments or questions? all in favor? any opposed. thank you, the motion carries. item 3, approval of the december 6, 2017 meeting minutes, motion to approve? any comments or questions? to the public? hearing none, all in favor? any opposed? thank you. the motion carries. item 4, reports, the director report, thank you, shireen. >> director mcspadden: thank you, commissioner, and i want to

extend a special welcome to commissioner papas very happy to have you working with us. i was at the national association on aging board meeting. i mentioned before, but for those of you who haven't heard, i'm one of two representatives from california to this national association. and it's a great organization, they're focused on building the capacity of aaa so we can help older adults. it supports initiatives such as livable communities and dementia-friendly america. they advocate for funding for services for adults and adults with disabilities and provide tools such as the elder care locater. they're a great organization to

belong to. very supportive of the aaa, the area agencies on aging across the country. at the meeting we heard from cms officials talking about feature initiatives and opportunities for aaa and our cbo partners. they promised that they're moving into an era of innovation, for those of you familiar with cms, you may wonder what that means, but they've pointed out they loosened up the reg from 10 or 15 years ago. so we'll see, i'll be reporting back on that in the coming months. we also heard from lance robertson, the newly confirmed secretary for aging and a >> adaad

administrator. one of the things that we do at this meeting that i find interesting is we go region by region, so each region across the country kind of reports in about what the challenges are that they're seeing and how they're dealing with the challenges. but one of the biggest things to emerge, obviously was housing. nobody would be surprised by that. but the second biggest thing to emerge was really challenges with respect to foworkforce. i see those as two different things, one being the workforce that supports people to live in community safely. and the other is just making sure there are opportunities for employment and employment opportunities for older adults and adults with disabilities. that's one of the things we came up with across region 9 as a challenge and something we need to figure out. so did other regions.

it was a big issue this year. i haven't heard it mentioned at this level yet. i wanted to talk next about the reframing aging initiative in san francisco. i guess i think all of you should have received an invitation to an event we're having on january 23rd. it's at the koret room of the library. if you haven't, let bridget know. if you didn't, it's not because we left you out on purpose, it's because something happened to the invite. that's the meta fund and department of aging and adult services are cosponsoring the event. and there is organization called frame works institute that has done work on reframing policy conversations across the country and across the world. one of the things they took on

is aging. we know that ageism is rampant in your society and they kind of wanted to look at what people would respond to with respect to aging. how do we reframe the conversation around aging, so that people care about it differently. this is a database approach to reframing the conversation about aging in the united states. and so we thought it would be a really good thing to do in san francisco and we're having a big event january 23rd, the library, from 2:30 to 4:00. i hope all of you can there. this will be a level setting conversation, where we can all come to the conversation from the same framework. the second day, we're going to have workshop by invite only, because we have limited capacity. that is 35-40 people meeting at meta fund all day to figure out,

how do we carry the conversation farther? what should we do as a city? i think it's a real opportunity. i want to say that one thing that is great is people who are communications experts be there. so we're asking the nonprofit partners who we've also invited to bring communications, their communications specialists if they can. i think it's going to be a great opportunity. and i'm really very happy that the meta fund has reached out to work with us on this. bridgett also sent out a notice, hopefully everybody got it, but we have changes in terms of meeting times. just general meeting, wanted to make sure everybody knows. on january -- obviously today is a meeting. you guys are all here. got that memo. on january 8th, from 3:30 to 5:00 at the borne auditorium,

they'll hold a budget forum, community budget forum with the public. and what we do, trent comes in and gives overview. dan kaplan, deputy administrator for administration will talk more specifically about the mayor's budget instructions and then trent and jarrett who is the head of the administration, will talk about the plans for the department. so it's kind of -- it's really focused on what the budget instructions are. there is not a lot of detail in the budget at this point, because we haven't gotten there yet, but if you're interested please join us. on january 23rd, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., it's here in this room, the finance committee will meet and we'll be presented with the daas budget. and the initial planning efforts.

and then the regular scheduled february 7 daas commission dating date was changed to tuesday, february 13th, 2018, that will take place in this same room, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at this that meeting the second reading of the daas budget will take place and they'll vote to accept the staff budget proposal. and obviously all meetings are public. and public is welcome to attend, but we're hoping, not sure yet, if we're going to have them televised. we hope we are, because we generally televise our meetings. i think that's it. i wanted to end by saying, i think all of us as mayoral appointees were shocked and saddened to learn of mayor lee's death. we've each worked with him in different ways. i know many of you were very, very close to him, so this has

been a really difficult time. so we just wanted to acknowledge that. and i also wanted to say that we're right now here to support acting mayor breed in whatever way we can and i know that all of you take that very seriously. and i thought maybe, i don't know commissioner papas, but maybe we want to end the meeting -- i'm looking at you -- maybe end the meeting with a moment of silence for mayor lee. >> thank you. any comments or questions. for shireen? any comments or questions from the public? seeing none, moving on. employee recognition. the department of aging and adult services commission and executive director shireen mcspadden recognize joseph formentos from the daas office of long term care and operations.

[applause] >> director mcspadden: joseph, congratulations. >> thank you. >> director mcspadden: we're here to recognize joseph formentos today. did i pronounce your name right? great, just checking. what i'd like to do today, and we don't do this often, but i'd like the people who support the daas stand. because joseph is among some fantastic people. so the daas administrative folks do all kinds of things. they do -- they check on building supplies for us, when we have complaints about the building itself, which are pretty frequent. probably daily. they handle those. they handle the front desk. they do copying, they make sure that -- what else do you do? you guys do everything.

they decorate the building when we have things happen. they make sure rooms are cleaned. they just kind of are the backbone of the organization when it comes to our building use in particular. so then, we also have people from the cqa unit who are part of the administration and they help with safety manuals and making sure staff are trained well and going out and seeing clients when there is a problem. it's a bit of a mix, but they're really a great group of people and joseph is a star. and he's our star for january, 2018. our first one of 2018. so i got a chance to ask a couple of people this morning, what is one word that represents joseph for you? and i got a couple of different ones. one is dependable and that is certainly true, joseph is on time, he's here, willing to step in and help, very dependable. one is he's very genue.