2018 ballot. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: , i was asking if we could sever item 69. >> of course. >> and we have just called it madame president. >> supervisor cohen: i know. >> supervisor tang: i was just asking if we could continue this given recess. >> supervisor cohen: madame clerk when is the next board meeting? >> clerk: september 4. >> supervisor cohen: septembese. i would like to acknowledge the house has changed. madame clerk do we need a role call vote? >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> supervisor mandelman: i have a question. >. what is the reason to

continue it. >> supervisor tang: she doesn't need one. >> supervisor peskin: if i may, matters on the adopt with that committee reference calendar except for motions, resolutions require a unanimous vote. if there is not, it goes to committee, so a continuance is a polite way to then have a vote at the next meeting, but that requires eight votes. aye. [laughter] >> thank you you. [roll call]

there are 10ayes. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next item please. clerk io time 70. [ reading item 70] >> supervisor peskin: thank you madame president and i want to thank the clerk for preparing the appropriate amendments before everybody and i would like to move them and add one more, which is based on our earlier action today where in the t. n. c. gross receipts tax wasn't submitted to the ballot and i would like to strike the words online 22 to page 23 at line eight and then adopt the other amendments as presented by the clerk.

>> supervisor cohen: i would like to modify the language. it should read cannabis business tax. >> clerk: which page? >> supervisor cohen: i believe it is on page -- it starts on page three madame clerk. i am looking for the exact line. i am looking at the amendments you circulated for us, so amendment e, it just says initiative ordinance cannabis tax. i have want to change it to cannabis business tax. >> i believe it does in the legislation. >> supervisor cohen: that is right i just wanted to make sure

we were consistent. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor peskin made a motion, is there a second. second bysym by supervisor fewer. can we take the amendments without objection? we can take the amendments without exception. the motions are amended. without objection the motion is approved as amended. madame clerk, is there any other business? >> clerk: yes, today's meeting willing adjourn on behalf of the late ms. mercedes rouis, for the late phillip scott ryan, and for the late mr. gus constantinutus.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i want to bring to your attention by legislative aid britney, today is her last day and she is going on maternity leave, and she and her husband are expecting their first child. she has been a delight to spar with intellectually. we haven't seen eye-to-eye on a few things but for the most part have enjoyed each other and i want to thank her for her thoughtfulness and incredible ability to give shade. she was the most impeccable dressed woman in my office. if you see her between now and the next five minutes, please thank her. britney, i wanted to say thank

you on behalf of the city of san francisco for your time and also for your talent. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel] [meeting adjourned]

[ gavel ]. ourned] >> supervisor tang: all right. good afternoon, everybody. welcome to our land use committee meeting for monday, july 30, 2018. to my left is supervisor ahsha safai, and our clerk is erica major. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. copies of any items to be included in the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be included in the august 6

meeting. >> supervisor tang: thank you. will you please read item number 1? item 1, planning code - massage establishments - union street neighborhood commercial district. >> thank you. supervisor jack gallagher with supervisor stefani's office. we made two changes that needed to be made by today, and other than that, we don't have anything further. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. gallagher. any members of the public wishing to speak on item one, please come up. item one, public comment. >> i'm here as peace -- peace in the middle east. i'm here speaking on and not really supporting or not supporting, but on the issue of

the union street neighborhood commercial district. as you all know, i come up here to speak regularly, and my specific issues are what's happening in the fillmore. all of these districts and all of these programs have been played upon for a number of years. it always seems like it's put in the western addition and it fails miserably. and then they put it in the rest of the city to see if it's going to work. see, they put it in the fillmore and all the efforts start in the fillmore so you can get away with what you're doing in the fillmore. supervisor safai -- i won't do that. i also came here to make notice because i read in the paper some shall bey leadership in our community on housing. my mind regulated, and i went

back in my archives, and i said wait a minute. now i know where i know a certain supervisor from. it was on the housing authority commission, a failed commission, a failed commission that failed our whole community, black community. so we going to have to sit down and talk. there's some thing we're going to have to sit down, my brother -- tack tang can we keep the comments -- >> you know, i'm like trump. i started this station here, the p.e.g., the community station -- >> supervisor tang: all right. mr. washington, i'm going to have to cut you off because this is about the washington. >> i know, supervisor, you're the lame duck, i know you need to stop it -- >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry. the time has to stop because this is the union street and the massage establishment, okay. were at the beginning, but now, you are not stopping. >> all right. so 40 seconds. start it.

i'm here talking but it's a parallel. we're going on in the city by the bay -- oh, my gosh. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. any members of the public who wish to comment on item number one, please come up. all right. public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. colleagues, can we get a motion on item number one to send this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor safai: i'd like to make a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. we'll do that with a positive recommendation with supervisor kim absent. all right. madam clerk, can you please call item number two? >> clerk: yes. item 2 is a plan to review the six month report by the planning commission item 2, hearing - interim zoning controls - conditional use for restaurants and storefront mergers. hearing to review the six-month report conducted by the planning department, for the interim zoning controls for conditional

use for restaurants and storefront mergers in the mission interim controls area, enacted by resolution no. 006-18; and requesting the planning department to report. >> diego sanchez with the planning department. today i want to provide a report on the interim controls in place in the mission district. the interim controls require documentation from the planning department for two thingsz. one any new restaurant use serving alcohol or two a proposed storefront merger resulting in 2,000 square feet or greater. these control right side in place for the area generally bounded by cesar chavez street, potrero avenue, and mission street. the interim controls note there's a rapid increase in the number of restaurant serving alcohol in the mission neighborhood may crowd out other restaurants. the interim controls also note that smaller sized commercial spaces can be leased atloer rates due to their size and are

found in the neighborhood's retail corridors. losing these would be detrimental as well to the existing cultural and exec diversity of the neighborhood. so to address these concerns, the planning department along with oewd, mohcd, have been working to generate land use controls as a response. as part of the effort, the following groups have been engag engaged in talks about the possible use of controls. throws include mission merchants, central mission neighborhood association, calle 24, mission delores association, there have been in person visits with mission street merchants. we've reached out to the c.a.c. and we held a general community meeting at the women's

building. so all of this has helped set a set of land use controls that will do the following. they'll preserve existing and promote the creation of new smaller sized storefronts. three, they'll help protect long-standing and character defini defining legacy businesses and they will allow for nonprofit stories that allow for offices along the mission street corridor. it is anticipated these will be introduced very shortly, so this concludes my presentation and i'm here for questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you for that overview. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: if you could come back up. i couldn't really hear everything that was said. you did the community outreach, met with community stakeholders and now there's going to be a proposed set of permanent controls? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. any members of the public who wish to comment on item 2,

please come up. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed for item number two. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: has had a

which might mayor might not prohibit them from being able to utilize home-sf, our local density bonus program is a legislative set back. this is a really interesting case because i think between the city attorney's office and other staff, as well, at planning looking into the history and how it is we're supposed to change this

legislative set back, it was very interesting. i will note that it is my understanding that there are many inconsistencies in terms of legislative set backs, especially on the west side of town. for me, what i would really like to achieve out of this despite some of the reservations i heard at planning commission and from the staff report is for us to be able to proceed with this amendment so that potentially this project sponsor will be more incentivized in using home-sf to building more affordable housing on this particular corner or where they're going to be merging together several parcels. so with that said, i would like to bring up mr. aaron starr from the planning department and get their feelings on this. >> thank you, supervisor. the planning commission heard this last week on july 26. during the hearing, some new information was revealed about a bulb out along 19th avenue. the staff's recommendation was

to approve the ordinance with a modification to not remove the nine-foot set back. this was in order to help protect the pedestrian realm of it. during the hearing, we couldn't verify one way or another if the bulb out was actually going to be approved, but we did get confirm mission from sfmta that it will be. so the commission's recommendation is to approve the ordinance as is, and this was because we confirmed that the long bulb out would be in front of it, and that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor tang: wonderful. that's great to hear. as you all know it's potentially impossible for us to get new housing on the west side and especially on a transit corridor, so we wanted to at least preserve that option. all right. any members of the public who wish to comment on item three, please come up. >> irene berkowitz, speaking on

my behalf. [inaudible] >> -- particularly, lot 33 at 2121 19th avenue and lot 31 at 214519th avenue. the current zoning is inconsistent with the current uses. the report has not been updated to reflect the comments that were submitted. those comments have yet to be responded to in the environmental document. caltrans district four has been contacted about the bulb out. the response from caltrans is inconsistent with comments made at the planning commission. the assessor's name also appears on federal documents. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item three? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: and i will just note this lemgs lation is try to, again, incentivize the

utilization of home-sf, however there is still quite a lengthy process that if the project sponsor wishes to pursue, they would need to engage in with the community in terms of what their project would look like and have that dialogue with their neighbors. this is just to again, setup a potential situation but there's still a lot of work ahead to be done with our neighbors. okay. so with that said, any other questions or comments on this one? >> supervisor safai: no. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i did want to say that we have a few of these in my district, as well, and it's a little bit unclear exactly what they exist for. in this situation, it seems pretty clear that there might have been a reason for pedestrian safety, and i do appreciate the comments of the public speaker, but in this instance, we have a really viable spot that potentially would be for dense development, which is what we're trying to encourage along transit corridors, so thank you.

>> supervisor tang: all right. thank you, supervisor safai. so with that said, can we get a motion on item three to send forth to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor safai: right, so i make that motion. >> supervisor tang: all right. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> clerk: and as a committee report. >> supervisor tang: oh, and as a committee report. i apologize. all right. madam clerk, item four, please. >> clerk: item number four is an ordinance allowing the planning code to allow payment for an inlieu fee for an a.d.u. street tree requirement. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. this is another one of our items and we had already gone over the a.d.u. legislation at the full board but had just severed out the portion regarding the street tree planting requirement because of a notification or notice issue at land use committee. but that was the only reason why and so the only portion before us today is that piece. so i don't know if you had any

comments, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: well, i did, in general. i know we've had this conversation, and you and i unfortunately can't have conversations about this 'cause we send it to committee, but we've tried to have some dialogue publicly. i -- haven't worked at the bureau of urban forestry, i am a big proponent of planting trees, as i know you are, but this is incentivizing the coming on-line of these as quickly as process to incentivize the housing process. so whatever way facilitates the a.d.u. process to move forward, i will say -- and we did have this conversation on the record, that doing the inlieu fee is actually more expensive than planting the tree, so i would encourage the public and those project sponsors to take advantage to plant the trees, but know that if you pay the inlieu fee, the city does have the option to come back and plant that tree if it's

possible based on the undergrounding. i did ask the fire marshal to come today. i did want to have a conversation with them in general about the process. >> supervisor tang: is there a -- yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. and forward, we are going to be duplicating the overall a.d.u. file at the full board and we'll be sending it book ack t this committee and then to the full board. we did talk with some of the other commissioners their desire to further that conversation. so mr. starr, we will be sending the file back to this committee and making amendments so tend it back to the planning commission for further conversation. but thank you, mr. fire marshal, for coming today. wanted to have a conversation about we have heard some general -- and i did convey this to you, some general concerns from project sponsors. and if you can speak a little bit about the fire code as it

pertains to single-family homes versus multiunit properties and what the difference is. >> so with regards -- first of all, dan decostio, fire marshal. happy to be here. that's a good point to make that designation, where you have -- differentiate between an r. 3 which is a single-family or two dwelling units or a multifamily dwelling unit which is three or more units, which is more like an apartment building. so if it's an r 3, a single-family dwelling unit, and you're adding or proposing an a.d.u. for your home, an in-law unit, let's say, that does not fall in the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal. my role and my job -- >> supervisor safai: excuse me. so what does that mean in terms of the ability to add that a.d.u. are we talking about sprinklers or what are we talking about? >> so that falls under building

department jurisdiction if it's two units or lessor fewer, building department jurisdiction. once you become a three-unit or more building, greater, now, you become an r 2, multifamily dwelling unit and dwelling, condo, etc., that now falls under the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal. as such, the state codes as adopted by the state fire marshal are enforced for that application. >> supervisor safai: and so what does that mean in the instance of multiunit properties because we've heard differing things from project sponsors and others in the field that relates to fire rating and egress, as it relates to springlkler system. what is the main difference? >> i think the main difference is springler requirement. so if you're r 3 -- there's been an interpretation -- there's actually an information

sheet that the state fire marshal put out. if you're -- that does not apply to apartment buildings. for apartment buildings, if you add an a.d.u. -- and there's fs 05 which we signed on with the building department, sprinklers are required for that new unit and that the egress path out to the public way. >> supervisor safai: but not for the entire building. >> not for the entire building. again, with our fs 05, i welcome anybody on-line watching this to go look up fs 05, and it outlines the requirements to what extent you sprinkler a whole building. >> supervisor safai: well, if you had to springler the whole building, you'd be talking about displacing residents,

while you do the whole building. you have decks and the cantilevered portion of a property. in that instance, you have to have two forms of egress if you just have -- i'm sorry. >> what we're seeing, and again, this is prescribed in the code, i'd like to make a quite point here. earlier, i was sitting here and taking this all in with -- we're amending the planning code, and you have that authority to do that as this board, this body. the fire code, the state code, and so does the building code. and as the local jurisdiction, we do not have the authority to waive state requirements on building and fire code requirements, so i think that's very important for all of us to understand that. and the other thing to understand is those codes and those requirements are there for the safety of the occupants of the building and for firefighters responding to the building. and those codes have been

developed over decades at great loss of life sometimes, and so they are there for a reason. so we cannot be less restrictive than what's prescribed in the -- in the california building and fire code for fire and life safety. setting that aside, with that understanding, there are times you cannot meet the letter of the code. if you are land locked, if you have zero lot line set backs, etc., we have the local authority to come up with equivalencies, offsetting measures and enhancements that mitigate that deficiency in that design, and therefore, in our opinion, rise to the level where it's equally as safe as it would have been as prescribed. so with -- getting to your point on our biggest challenge is when the applicant wants to utilize the pseudo code

exception in the code. and it says for a designer to utilize a single exit exception, the building has to be fully sprinklered. that's state code. we cannot be less restrictive on that. so what do we do? well, we've come up -- fire department, i've put a team together with two captains, a lieutenant, and an engineer, offsetting measures, equivalencies, what can we do in lieu of sprinkelering -- we have a one hour separation. >> supervisor safai: one hour separation of a fire rated door? >> we're trying to think outside the box, come up with alternatives and to not just say no, you can't build this, but some solutions that we feel increases the safety of the building to where we are as safe as if you went to the letter of the code. >> supervisor safai: since you put this working group together, have you seen project sponsors utilize some of the suggestions that you have? >> yes, we have. and just as recently as last

week, we have about 60 -- if my memory serves me correctly, 60 a.d.u.s in the cue, waiting for our review. >> supervisor safai: just 60? >> 60, 61, i think it is. the process is it comes through planning, starts through planning, and that's where we need to get in early on this. if you're going to use a single exit exception, maybe you'd bring in fire early to have that discussion way down the road. starts at planning, then it's routes to building, and then it's routed to fire. sometimes we get it way down this plan where a lot of money is sunk into the design, etc., etc. and i think as an owner, you're caught off guard thinking wait a minute, it's not feasible. to the point i was trying to make earlier, we put a team together, we did a sampling, it was either 12 or 13 a.d.u.s last week, and the biggest challenge --

>> supervisor safai: with the single exit. >> with the single exit, right. and with our draft proposal -- and i was hoping to bring the building department on board. i'd like the building department input as well. i think if we have both departments signing off on equivalencies, offsetting measures, i think it not only expedites the measure, it increases the safety for all. >> supervisor tang: i'm going to jump in really quick. just because you just mentioned this one point about trying to get both fire and d.b.i. to sign off on i guess a policy that both departments can live with. and again, none of us are asking for any departments to relax any sort of standards, especially when it comes to life andi safety, absolutely not. but i think what we're hearing is project sponsors hearing different things from different departments at different parts in the process. last i heard, there still hasn't been that signoff from fire and d.b.i. so what is the hold up at this

point? >> the way it typically works, you go through planning, intake through d.b.i., building department to irrelevanter. we look at the plan, we review it. do you meet the prescribed code? no, you do not. it goes back to the designer. the designer comes back and says okay, how about if we implement this or add this to our design? will that offset those equivalencies or the responsibility of coming up with solutions is on the designer, typically. we're doing this a little bit backwards, given that this is a priority of the city that we want to partner with -- with other agencies within the city and we're on board with affordable housing, but we want safe affordable housing. we've jumped ahead and come up with these equivalencies on our own that we would accept. but to your point, supervisor, those are only as good as if -- if both sides aren't on board with that, it doesn't do us any good. so if it's good for fire and not good for building, we're still as an impasse.

that's why we're wanting to meet with building together to come up with a document together that we can all sign off on for consistency and to represent the review process. >> supervisor safai: so what i'm going to ask for when we duplicate the file to come back tomorrow and make amendments, when it goes to planning, i'm going to ask that you all have the recommendations to put together those recommendations and working groups, so by the time it comes back, you all will have a plan implementable. you say there's 61 in the cue. i understand from the report it has the potential to impact hundreds and hundreds of these a.d.u.s. and so we're coming down the cue. we've heard the equivalency conversation, the fire department conversation, the quality. we don't want to discourage project sponsors and these projects out of the gate. so it's going to be good because we're going to have the opportunity for the conversation of new a.d.u.

construction. you build into the plans all of the different things that are needed, that's a lot easier situation to deal with than an existing building with regard to exiting and fire rating and so on. >> agreed. >> supervisor safai: so we'll probably ask you by that time to come back -- so you all have come to some conclusion when we have the next committee meeting. >> thank you for doing that. >> supervisor safai: thank you for coming today on short notice. i appreciate it. supervisor tang, do you have any additional questions? >> supervisor tang: no. i think a lot has been said when we considered the bigger package of the legislation. really, we're just trying to figure out where the hiccups that project sponsors have, trying to navigate all the different city agencies. i kind of hear reports back from the working groups, but i think what's still resolved is that piece where fire and d.b.i. are in alignment with each other. and again, without relaxing any of the life and safety

requirements for anyone. so yes, i think as supervisor safai said, we'd love to, whenever it's next before us, to see a resolution on that front. >> absolutely. appreciate it. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: i appreciate that you understand this is a priority for the city and you all are trying to adjust and work your staff into a position to be able to facilitate these with respect to health and safety. that's very important. i just -- through the chair, i wanted to ask aaron starr from planning to come back up. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. decostio. so i wanted to ask they're coming to fire and to planning and to you. is there any way that planning could help to facilitate bringing -- since it seems as though fire marshal needs to weigh in on some of these issues earlier, is there a way that we can bring them in earlier into the process?

is that possible? >> i believe there is. it's not really up to planning. we're just one review agency in the process, and d.b.i. is the controller of that process. >> supervisor safai: when we had the conversation about -- when we had the conversation recently about pop outs and notification and mandatory neighborhood notification, do these d.b.i. -- do they go through a mandatory notification when they -- i see someone on your staff. >> i'm going to let marselle -- >> hi. marselle boudreaux. i just wanted to comment briefly on the combined preapplication meeting component of supervisor tang's legislation that i believe has been carved out, maybe duplicated, but it's a conversation that we've been having amongst the different agencies that has evolved out of our working group. >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry. excuse me. >> sure. >> supervisor safai: chair tang, is there a mandatory -- can you repeat what you just said? >> sure.

d.b.i. hosts currently a preapplication meeting between d.b.i. and fire. starting, i believe, with our working groups, and i believe supervisor tang has introduced this through some of her a.d.u. legislation, there is the idea of inviting planning to these meetings. >> supervisor safai: so i'm sorry. i don't meant to interrupt you, but what i heard was the fire marshal say they're brought in late sometimes to the conversation, and that seems different than what you are talking about. >> what i was talking about was inviting planning to the meeting between d.b.i. and fire so these three agencies would be together at the outset before filing. >> supervisor safai: that -- >> that's part of the legislation, yes. >> supervisor safai: so that's what i was going to say, because it doesn't sound like it's still happening yet. >> that is an ongoing conversation happening, developing a screening process as well as inviting planning into the d.b.i. procedure. >> supervisor safai: well, it sounds like it's now going to

be required when we finalize this at the board, so it sounds like you have a system in place ready to go. >> we are currently working on the final touches of that. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, miss boudreaux. and i think supervisor kim had some comments. >> supervisor kim: sure. i do want to thank chair tang for all of your work on how we can ease the procedure and process for our property owners to build accessory dwelling units which we know is one of the most efficient and affordable ways to increase housing and density not only in san francisco but throughout the bay area. when we first worked on both legalizing and allowing new accessory dwelling units over the last couple of years, we've found that many homeowners were having trouble moving through planning, fire and d.b.i. and the comment i often heard was the planner would offer two

very similar units, one would get accepted and one would get rejected, and i think we need to stream line the process. i appreciate all of the listening sessions that supervisor tang has hosted throughout the city so we can ease this process for many of our homeowners. i just want to say, and i did not state this at land use when this was originally before this, i support the ordinance that was originally stated which got rid of the tree requirement in order to build an accessory dwelling unit. i just worry about adding a requirement to homeowners that want to build an additional unit that will be out on our rental market. we already have a number of restrictions on the a.d.u., that it's rent controlled, that we protect our tenants, so i would prefer the ordinance as it was originally authored with just taking out the requirement to plant a tree and also not support this in lieu fee.

>> supervisor tang: okay. thank you, supervisor kim. and of course i originally supported that as well but tried to strike a compromise with folks who wanted to have a tree planted by the city, but also -- and i said this previously, having my own landlord deal with this very issue around having the sighting of the tree down on the property when he wanted to create an a.d.u. and running into issues and time delays. so i appreciate that supervisor kim is -- i don't know if you're planning to make a motion to amend or if you just wanted to state that. >> supervisor kim: well, i guess we're in land use committee, and i see supervisor safai shaking his head no, so i'm not going to push this issue. i will -- i'll just ask for a roll call on this item, then, because it's specifically on the inlieu fee, and i will be voting against it at the full board. but i just think we need to be making this process as easy as

possible, and i think there's certain things that this board has stated that is a bottom line for us. and i think rent control and tenant protections is one of them. along, of course, with safety. and for me, this is just -- does not meet that criteria when we have a housing crisis. i think we should be making it as easy as possible as we can for those homeowners to be building these accessory dwelling units, so i'll be voting against this portion of the ordinance today. >> supervisor tang: okay. perhaps i could ask the city attorney today because this specific ordinance before us today is just on the tree requirement. would supervisor kim need to vote against the entire item? is there a way to sever it out? >> mr. givner: yeah, that's the only piece remaining, so i would be voting no on the motion to send it to the full board. >> supervisor tang: okay. all right. so any other questions, comments? okay. i know there's a lot more

ongoing work on this effort between the various city departments, so thank you for that. any public comment on item four, please come on up. any members of the public? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: so madam clerk, can we get a roll call vote on item four, please, and i believe this item is supposed to be sent out as a committee report as well. >> supervisor safai: first, we have to make a motion on it. >> supervisor tang: yes, make a motion. >> supervisor safai: make a motion to send to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion to send this matter forward address recommended as a committee report, supervisor satisfy. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> clerk: supervisor safai aye. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: no. >> clerk: supervisor kim, no.

supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: yes. >> clerk: tang, yes. the motion passes and will be sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: thank you. madam clerk, will you please read the next item. [agenda item read] >> what this ordinance does is it adds one additional use to partial zoned sali in the south of market as well as there is no habitable structures on that parcel currently and that is to build 100% affordable housing only. sali is a very important zoning in the district that i represent because in many ways, it protects arts, manufacturing, repair, the types of jobs and uses that we want to continue to preserve in the south of market, which is what the south of market was originally known to be a

neighborhood for. but as the south of market has grown rapidly with both office and residential, it has become more important than ever for us to preserve areas that are zoned p.d.r. and sali. however, we also know that 100% affordable housing and addressing our homelessness crisis is also a great priority for our city, and that this land is slightly more affordable simply because of the uses that allowed on these sites. this simple change will add one additional use to sali parcels in the western soma planning area, especially s.u.d., and that is to build 100 % affordable housing, as well. colleagues, i'd love to ask for your support on this item, and i believe, yes, that we have a representative from the planning department to say a few words about this ordinance, as well -- as well as some -- i'm sorry, requested recommendations from the

planning commission and staff. >> good afternoon, supervisors. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs on behalf of the planning department. the proposed modifications are, one, to retain the original height and bulk districts for eligible parcels, two, to remove the term habitable and replace it with clarifying language and three, clarify that surface parking lot eligible for 100% affordable housing projects may be permitted or unpermitted lots. that concludes my presentation but i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you so much, and i do support these amendments and also understand the importance of permitted and unpermitted as a number of these parking lots are not necessarily permitted. so that distinction, i think, was very important to include. i have no further questions comments or questions on this item, so madam chair, if we can open this up for public

comment. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any members of the public wishes to speak on item five, please come up. >> good afternoon, members of committee. peter smith to support the legislation. as the need for affordable housing gets more acute, a lot of us in the housing community have been putting on our thinking caps to come up with increasing increasingly better ways to come up with affordable housing in an increasingly competitive housing market. the other essential ingredient in affordable housing development is land sites, and i think we tend to forget about that or take it for granted, and we have ended up, many times over the years, in a cash rich-land poor situation. so land banking and being creative and proactive is

really critical. this is a very simple piece of legislation as you heard from staff and from supervisor kim as a sponsor. i think in a really nice way, we've come together with the housing accelerator fund and with tipping point and really kind of coming up with this creative tool. and i want to give particular credit to sophie heyward who good for us in the housing activity committee has work today do a lot of the creative thinking. this came together in a nice way. it may be even a bit of a template tool that we can think about applying in other targeted geographies in the city. the conditions, obviously, are not sali, but the idea being able to have an overlay that particularly prioritizes affordable housing is something we might be able to replicate. so again, strongly support. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, supervisors.

good afternoon. my name's rebecca foster and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco housing accelerator fund where i'm the executive director and also tipping point community. and as you -- as you know, tipping point is a grant making organization aimed to break the cycle of poverty in the bay area, and the housing accelerator fund is a nonprofit fund dedicated to accelerating the production and preservation of affordable housing. we've joined together, along with staff and as peter mentioned, working with peter and sophie heyward's great work to pilot a model for much needed affordable housing for individuals using all philanthropic housing. with that in mind, we are very supportive of the proposed legislation based on the experience we've had -- the

very challenging experience we've had over the last year trying to secure a site on which to build this first prototype affordable housing project. put simply, we've learned what everyone is painfully aware of, that buying land in san francisco is incredibly expensive, and there is a lot of competition in negotiating a purchase, particularly, we've looked at a site in supervisor kim's district, in the sali zoning, as surface parking lots. it looked really promises last year, and we were not able to -- housing wasn't included in the zoning. so we think that this is a small and -- but very meaningful step towards making it more possible to do projects like this. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. absolutely in support here today. and i also just kind of wanted to touch. if i could get the overhead,

please. this is a map of san francisco, perhaps, surface level parking lots, 25,000 square feet or more. overhead, maybe? the tricky part, where you have to press the power button in order to get everything to turn on. somewhere here -- there we go. all of the 25,000 or larger parking lots in the city of san francisco. we have been working with an individual that has accumulated a lot of planning data and a lot of opportunity site data, so i think this would be a good place to build a lot of affordable housing because it's pretty under utilized given what we're doing, and obviously happy to help in any way we can. obviously verytive.

thank you very much. tapping tang thank yo >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item five? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i was just looking through the ordinance, and if we could further define habitable. was that change already made? >> i believe that was already taken out and referred to kiosks and things on parking lots. >> supervisor kim: can you point out where it is? sorry. i was just looking for that change, that particular change. i just want to make sure that it was included today. >> i'm going to have to look for that. >> maybe -- >> supervisor kim: i saw that permitted and unpermitted was taken out, so that was clarified.

>> mr. givner: supervisor kim, deputy city attorney jon givner. i think it's page six in the table, around line 18, would remove habitable buildings and replace it with structures. >> supervisor kim: okay. [inaudible] >> supervisor kim: it says line 15 through 17, affordable housing projects are principlely permitted in this district on parcels containing. i do see that permitted is taken out, and it just says surface parking lot so that there's no distinction between parking lots that are permitted and unpermitted. and i saw the first recommendation also, i believe, was included in terms of keeping the heights consistent. but it does look like habitable is still in the language of the ordinance.

and perhaps planning was okay with that being in there. [inaudible] >> mr. givner: so in a -- in a draft with the amendments that we sent to your office just before this meeting, we've replaced habitable buildings with structures on that line. >> supervisor kim: okay. great. do i have to make that amendment, then, in committee? >> mr. givner: yes. >> supervisor kim: okay. great. my apologies, so i'll make that motion to amend to take out, on-line 17, page six, habitable buildings, and to replace that with no existing structures. >> mr. givner: and so just to confirm, supervisor, you're moving to adopt all of the planning commission's recommendations, including that -- that change in the -- on page six?

>> supervisor kim: yes. it looks like the permitted and unpermitted change is already in this ordinance, so i'm a little confused. you know, while -- can we continue this and go to item number six? my apologies. >> supervisor tang: we'll continue this item until later in the meeting, and we'll go to item number six, then. we have a new clerk. >> clerk: agenda item six is an ordinance amending the public use code on the water use. >> committee members, if i could have the slides, please. yes. i'm here to talk about the recycled water ordinance and how things have evolved relative to recycled water in

san francisco and elsewhere. the recycled water ordinance has been in effect since is 991, it's amicable to new and remodelled -- applicable to knew and remodelled buildings and has designated recycled use areas where required installation of dual plumbing areas exist. those are the areas in purple noted there on the screen. this is driven in part by geographical differences. the west side has large parks and golf courses, and the east side has newer and more dense urban developments and more opportunity for indoor, n nonpotab nonpotable uses. we would come up with a centralized water recycle facilities to produce recycled water for these nonpotable purposes. on the west side of san francisco, we're making progress in irrigating our

parks and golf courses, such as sharp park, actually in pacifica in partnership with the north coast county water district. we are delivering recycled water to the sharp park golf course, which is owned by the city of san francisco and hence is a customer of ours. we are in partner with daly citys to serve hardy's and fleming golf courses with recycled water since 2012. we are in position for the reconstruction of the oceanside plant. potential future use at other locations with heiigh demands such as the san francisco zoo. since 2015, the nonpotable water ordinance requires new development projects of 250,000 gross square feet or greater to

meet their own nonpotable demands for toilet flushing and irrigation on-site, and that's applicable citywide, but it really focuses on the east side. so we're really looking at kind of a two prong approach for meeting san francisco's nonpotable demands. the west side would have a centralized facility to delivery cycled water to large irrigation areas, and on the east side, we would have distributed systems in effect that would serve each of those developmen developments that not have a centralized plant. what this really has come to now is because of those requirements for large developments, to incorporate on-site water systems, we think there's limited value to maintain the dual plumbing and to continue planning for an east side central water plant for nonpotable uses. therefore we recommend that you rescind recycled water ordinance. we also have a nonpotable grant program where buildings with

existing dual can apply for a grant to utilize the existing plumbing. we've just added a feature to it that $100,000 would be available, in addition to our $250,000 grants and $500,000 grants to replace 1 million gallons peryear or 33 million gallons peryear respectively. there are additional opportunities for use out there. i want to make sure that folks are aware of that we're not stopping here with recycled water. we're turning our focus to study potable reused to study purified water. it's recycled using advanced purification treatment process and many communities in california are already

considering purified water. we were actually doing a project at our headquarters and trying to test real-time monitoring so that we can collect data and understand the potential for purified water as a building scale, so we're using additional advanced treatment on our advanced system, and then returning that system for toilet flushing. i plan on having a pitcher on my desk that i can offer water for anybody who cares to taste it. we're also examining feasibility of centralized purified water. we're in partnerships with other waste water agency to see do so. we're studying the feasibility of surface water augmentation in crystal springs reservoir. we're also doing feasibility studies with the santa clara water district and the alameda

county water district. so the pending actions to rescind the recycled water ordinance were here at the land use committee hearing in july pending approval by the board of supervisors and the mayor, and the legislation would take effect in october. so the elimination of dual plumbing requirements would apply to any construction projects in any stage of planning, approval or construction, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i guess i will have to seek you out so i can see that pitcher on your desk. so i think that what the p.u.c. is doing here makes absolutely sense. i think -- absolute sense. i think the 2015 ordinance passed by this board was a good one. compared to the 1991 ordinance that was originally in place, you know, there's a difference in terms of what is required for difference size buildings, so for example, the 1991 ordinance applies to new remodelled buildings over 40,000 square feet as wel