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 well as new and existing irrigation over 10,000 square feet, but the 2015 ordinance sponsored

by, i believe it was supervisor wiener at the time applies to new development projects that are 250,000 square feet or greater. so can you just describe for us kind of what we might be potentially missing out on as a result of just relying on the 2015 ordinance. >> yes. we did meet with the planning department and look at their pipeline report, and there are currently nine projects that are smaller than 250,000 square feet or greater than 40,000 square feet, so the ordinance would miss those. on the other hand, that is something they could do where we would potentially provide a grant for them to be able to do dual plumbing and a treatment plant in a facility. >> supervisor tang: okay. so those nine projects are actually trying to help them -- >> well, that's what the grant could go for. >> supervisor tang: okay. okay. my understanding was those nine projects potentially fall under projects sponsored under mayor's office of housing.

i don't know if that's -- >> yeah. we're looking into that. we're not aware that any way, but we're double-checking with them to find out if any are. certainly, the mayor's office of housing, if they didn't have to do dual plumbing, that would be a cost savings that we would be happy to make sure happened. >> supervisor tang: okay. because certainly, again, i think this totally makes sense. we want to make sure that especially if there are city projects, that we are partners with nonprofit developers on for, say, 100% affordable housing or so forth, that we certainly wouldn't want this to be a hindrance of both development of those projects, but i think moving forward, having this apply to developments of 250,000 square feet or greater is a good one. colleagues, any questions or comments on this particular item? okay. well, thank you very much, and all right. we'll open up item six to public comment, then. any members of the public who wish to speak, come on up. okay.

seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. colleagues, can we get a motion on item six to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor kim: make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: all right. and we'll do that. so i'll go back to item five. >> supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor tang for the additional time. i've passed out copies that incorporates the three recommendations made by planning commission, one on the height in making that consistent throughout the district. the second to replace habitable buildings with structures because there's no definition of habitable. and then, second, to ensure that this is on any parcel that contains only a surface parking lot and no existing structures

so that we won't distinguish between parcels where there are parking lots that didn't get permits which exist in the south of market. so i'm going to make a motion to amend this item as articulated. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you, supervisor kim. and questions, comments, on the amendments? no? okay. so we'll take those amendments without objection. >> supervisor kim: and i'd like to move to send this item with a fupositive recommendati to the full board? >> supervisor tang: all right. we will send that to the full board with a positive recommendation. all right. mr. clerk, is there any further items before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: okay. great. we are adjourned.

good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our land use

committee meeting of monday, july 23 -- sorry, this microphone is crazy here. i'm katy tang, chair of this committee. today i'm joined by vice chair, jane kim, and catherine stephanie joining us to phillip for supervisor safai. we would like to thank sfgov tv. can we get a motion to excuse suspects safai from land use? >> so moved. >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones and recording defsh uses. and any documents to be in a file should be submitted to the clerk. items here will be on the july 31 supervisors agenda. planning 1, planning code, permit review procedure and

zoning controls neighborhood commercial districts in districts 4 and 11. and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: colleagues, we already heard this item in land use. it's our pilot program to attract more businesses. today we have amendments to introduce in light of the process improvements legislation passed by the board of supervisors. there's been an entire reorganization of the planning code. and so the amendments i'm introducing today literally just put our legislation in the proper sections now given that change in the planning code. so i won't have any further comments on that, but it's really a technical change. if we can adopt the amendments, i would like to send it to the full board as a committee report. questions, comments? seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. members of the public? mr. carnolowicz?

>> good afternoon. i'm president of the san francisco council of district association. this is great legislation. thank you, supervisor tang and supervisor safai. we're having a hard time these days with on-line shopping and then the storefronts that don't generate the foot traffic it would like to have for shops and so forth. i'm speaking on behalf of the council. we don't vote on this. i did contact bill barnacle and grace from excelsier and they're very supportive of the legislation and urge you to pass it. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 1, please come on up. okay, seeing -- come on up if

you want to comment on item 1. >> scott havey. i have a business on 33rd. i'm here to support the proposal. i there i it makes a lot of sense. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you very much. any other members of the public on item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we get a motion to adopt the amendments to the legislation? >> supervisor kim: so moved. >> supervisor tang: without objection. underlying item with positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor stefani: i will make that motion. >> supervisor tang: without objection. item 2, please. >> clerk: amending the planning code to allow catering as an accessory use to certain restaurants and make appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: this is an item sponsored by supervisor safai here. i don't know if he has staff that will comment. but i believe it was continued last week due to amendments. if i don't see anyone else, we'll go to public comment on

item 2. any members of the public? >> hi. henry carnelowicz. again, the amendment with the catering at the restaurants, a lot of them close at the certain time or have black mondays when they close on a mondays and it gives an opportunity for the caterers to get out there and provide service to the communities around town and so this is another piece of legislation that i support and we, again, the three -- the locations, i think, are really great, so looking forward to having this passed, too. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. i, too, am very supportive of this legislation.

i think we need to be more creative with retail and commercial spaces and figuring out how we can best have people occupy spaces with more flexibility. our office will have more follow-up legislation to that effect soon as well. so with that said, again, this was continued from last week. if we can get a motion on item 2 -- >> can we have there as a community report? >> supervisor tang: yes. without objection. thank you. item 3, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to establish 2001 lombard street special use district and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to the sponsor, supervisor stefani.

>> supervisor stefani: i would like to ask for a continuance to call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: we have staff report? no? public comment. >> hello. diego gomez, research analyst. this item was proposed for continuance, that was the ask that we came to make, so we support a move for continuance so there's an opportunity to understand more of what the project sponsor is proposing and have a chance to engage. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment on item 3 is closed. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to add that this item will be heard at the planning commission in october. so we won't hear this in land use until after that. and there will be plenty of time to have conversations with the

community around this legislation. it's not a proposed project at this time. we look forward to a robust community engagement on this legislation. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. so that item continued to call of the chair. we just did that. okay. did we do that? okay. motion to 21 to call of the chair. without objection. all right. item 4, please. >> clerk: amending the planning code to permit massage establishments in union street neighborhood commercial district and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: this will allow three businesses, which happen to be massage establishments to be permitted. currently, they are not allowed because they didn't file in time

under supervisor tang's 2015 massage establishments ordinance. we propose a path to legalization here to support the continuance of small businesses in the union street n.c.d. on march 26, planning commission heard and hey proved this ordinance the commission provided two recommendations, which we agree with, so i would like to propose two amendments, which came from the planning commission's recommendations. the first will amend note 1, page 2, to include an 18-month timeline for filing a building permit to legalize their business. and the second recommendation will amend on page -- let's see -- will amend it to specify that only massage uses currently within the union street neighborhood commercial district may avail themselves of this legalization process including the exemption. and i can read the amendments

into the record, if that's necessary. no? okay. so these are three businesses that are currently in operation 2, equinox and spa radiance and elements. i urge your support on this piece of legislation. if not, we'll have three more vacancies on union street and these are three vetted establishments. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor stefani. mr. sanchez? >> diego sanchez, planning department staff. i would like to reiterate the planning commission's recommendation. it was very much in support of this ordinance. voted anonymously to supervisor report this with the modifications that supervisor stefani had mentioned. and they did this because they thought these modifications

would help to improve the legalization process and implementation going forward. so that concludes my presentation. as mentioned, i'm here for questions. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. all right. seeing no other comments, questions. we'll open up item 4 to public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed on item 4. supervisor stefani, if you want to make a motion. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, supervisor tang. i would like to move this forward to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: john givner. >> this will trigger a continuance in land use. so the committee should continue it and send it out next week. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to amendment motion and continue this for one week to land use committee. >> supervisor tang: okay. without objection. this item is continued for one week. >> clerk: were there amendments to accept provider to that? >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry.

we have to accept the amendments. we'll rescind the vote. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i move to accept the amendments that were read and then continue this to the next land use committee hearing. >> supervisor tang: amendments first. we can do that without objection. and underlying item as amended continue one week. without objection. all right. thank you. madam clerk, item 5, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to correctorors in enacted legislation, updated out dated legislation and reorganization of articles 7 and 2 and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have david brosky, planning

department. >> it improves errors and the code itself. it completes article 2 and 7, as well as overlooked items. the majority of the amendments are not considered substantive, with a few exceptions. 145.4 would allow an exception to ground floor. the code is silent on it, but has provisions for other zoning in the code. the second is from the cannabis ordinance, which removed applicable requirements. the change is consistent with the intent of the cannabis. and the failure to remove it is a drafting error. a third came at the mayor's office and housing that continued development. it would change median to market. using median as benchmark is not a valid standard for the

problems the provision is attempting to solve. the planning commission voted to approve the ordinance with modifications april 19 this year. the one recommendation is to remove limited commercial uses to be permitted in the store and zoning districts per 186.3. this was inadvertently deleted and this has been added to the ordinance. so staff has additional corrective amendments, that include page 2. deleting 312 from the sections being amended, since 312 is being revamped. it's being taken out completely of this ordinance. corrections are no longer needed. page 6, line 5, accessory uses are being added to the definition for reference. page 8, line 24, and page 9, lines 5-24.

this table was completed in the version adopted by the commission. it removed the duplicated section of the table and adds the direction to nc3 and nct3 to the table that's remaining. page 10, line 9. section 206.3 to contend with the hope sf legislation that was passed last week. removal of section 312 for reasons previously mentioned. we respect that the committee makes the amendments and moves the item forward with the positive recommendation. this concludes staff presentation. >> supervisor tang: and to clarify. i think i saw in there that we are also adding a reference to the sub district because it was

not carried over to the new format. correct? >> yes. >> supervisor tang: i know that's a handful there. colleagues, questions, comments, on the massive planning code cleanup? no? okay. all right. hopefully everything was caught there. why don't we go to public comment then on item 5? any members of the public that wish to speak on item 5? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. so with that said, colleagues, there are a number of amendments that were suggested. i would be happy to help adopt those on behalf of the planning department. so i make a motion to adopt them as was stated. can we do that without objection? okay. all right. so -- yes. if we can get a motion on the underlying item as amended. >> supervisor kim: i would like

to move this forward as a committee report. >> supervisor tang: as amended. without objection. all right. moving right along here. okay. i think we need to call item 6 now. >> clerk: item 6 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow limited nonconforming uses in specified zoning districts to operate between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. with conditional use and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have mr. aaron starr here from planning. >> the item before you is an ordinance sponsored by the planning commission that would allow limited nonconforming uses in specified zoning districts to operate between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. with conditional use authorization. they're only permitted between 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. now. it's normally found in residential districts. when a lot of row zoning

happened in the '70s, the businesses were allowed to operate and stay open per the limitations in 186. they can reconstitute when use is abandoned. that process is how this ordinance came to be. from a conditional use authorization for legalization of nonconforming event, located at 3359 cesar chavez, chicken john's. the applicant wanted the ability to stay open until midnight, but the code did not permit that. during the hearing, the business thought they should be able to stay open until midnight, so asked for an ordinance to allow the extension of hours of operation. the commission heard this ordinance on april 19 of this year and voted to approve the ordinance. that concludes the presentation

and i thank you for your consideration of this item. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. starr. were there comment outreach or comments that the commission or department received on the potential extended hours of operation? >> there were no comments during the planning commission hearing. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i was curious what other types of uses fall under this category. >> supervisor tang: mostly, it's like your corner store that you see in residential districts. sometimes a restaurant or an architect's office. >> supervisor kim: legally nonconforming but grandfathered in in the '70s? >> right. and the board passed something that allowed them to be re-established if they go out of business. so then conditional use authorize can be obtained to

open up in the commercial spaces again. >> supervisor kim: retail, low-impact office and spaces like these that are arts and -- is it general assembly, too? >> i'm not sure what chicken john's is considered. it must be a general entertainment or something like that. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. starr. seeing no other questions or comments, we'll open up item 6 to public comment. any other members of the public that wish to speak, please come on up. light public comment today. okay. we'll close public item on item 6. collegues, can we get a motion on the item? >> supervisor kim: so moved, with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: to send forth to the full board with pos recommendation. without objection. all right. let's call 7 and 11 together.

>> clerk: through 11? >> supervisor tang: yes. amending south of market with amendments and appropriate findings. item 8, amending the zoning map to create the special use district and other amendments to height and bulk district maps and zoning use consistent with the sental soma area plan and appropriate findings. item 9, amending planning codes and business and tax registrations, to provide a streamlined process for certain housing projects within the district. creating an expedited board of appeals process and making appropriate findings. item 10, ordinance amending administrative and planning codes to give effect to the south of market plan and make front findings.

item 11, san francisco special tax financing law, related to the central soma area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, chair tang, and we did already hear this item last week at the land use committee and i made a series of amendments, 48 in total, largely technical, all discussed at the planning commission, which we incorporated into the central soma ordinance last month. i have a second series of amendments i'm introducing today, largely requested by project sponsors or members of the community that would require rereferral to the planning commission. this would allow all the amendments, i hope, to be heard at the planning commission all together, so when this item

comes back to land use in the fall, there will no longer be a rereferral to the planning departments. so i distributed a list of the amendments. i'm happy to answer any questions that committee members may have. in the meantime, what i would suggest is that we move to public comment on the items, so that members have a chance or opportunity to read through the amendments if they haven't had the opportunity. i did want to offer planning department staff an opportunity to say a few words. i know that director john ram is here, along with planners lisa chen and josh switski. amy chan is here. so we have them here if they want to make any remarks. director ram, because you are here and we don't often see you at land use committee, and it's a walk, i want to give you an opportunity to say a few words. >> thank you. no. i don't think we have a whole

lot to add today. i want to say much i appreciate, supervisor kim, your leadership and working with us on these changes. we're very aware of them. i will not take up any more of time, but thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you, director ram. it's been a pleasure to work with the planning department on this plan and i'm really looking forward to seeing us approve this plan in the fall. some quick highlights, just so members of the public can understand some of the amendments we're making today. some of them were requested by project sponsors, they're predominantly all amendments that would allow more housing on sites. so whether it's on some of our key sites, where we're allowing flexibility, where it's zoned hotel. we're giving them flexibility to build housing as well and keep their height. and allowing exceptions on bulk on parcels again to increase housing. for projects that decide to

participate in h.s.t., housing sustainability district, we're requiring them to build 100% of inclusionary units on site. if you are going through the ministerial process, that we would like these project sponsors to build their obligation entirely on site. it's not only accelerates the production of housing, but ensures that below-market rate, low and middle income. seeing no further comments or questions currently, madam chair, if we could open it up for public comment. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. because it's the first time i'm seeing the round of amendments, i may have some comments, but we'll open it up for public comment. items 7-11, central soma. if any members of the public want to speak, please come on

up. we have speaker cards. my apologies. anita diaz, jim warshel, cynthia gomez, anthony vercamp, mike buehler, andrew wolfram, cindy heightsman, jonathan haber, and susan millhouse. >> thank you to the committee. i'm anita denz, d-e-n-z. i'm here to represent the victoria alliance of san francisco. we're the city's oldest, all-volunteer, nonprofit organization dedicated to historic preservation. founded in 1973, we protested the destruction of the paris dome and went on to see that.

we've raised and awarded $400,000 in grant-worthy projects. many went to fine arts, windmills of golden gate park. when it comes to the old mint, we're fashion at about this historical landmark of the city. we've endowed it with $23,000 in grants over the years. most recently in 2014, we were able to repaint the two historic receiving rooms, cashier's room and receiving room. we had some pushback from the office of economic work force development about this because they were taken over stewardship, but we persisted and the rooms are glorious today and the city and their events contractor, nonplus ultra, has benefited greatly from these

rooms. the alliance has held many meetings at the old mint, because we have no headquarters of our own. we participate with the history days with 80 partners and our officers have participated in the california historical society focus groups on the revitalization of the mint. so we strongly support full funding of the project funds awarded for the revitilization of this. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. mike buehler, san francisco heritage. i, too, am here today to advocate for maintaining the city's pre-existing commitment of $20 million to the old mint project. in 2015, san francisco heritage successfully nominated the mint

to the trust most endangered pleases, making it one of few to be listed twice. we've long been advocates for the cultural heritage district and sustaining the filipino community amid the transformation that will result from adoption of the plan. to be sure that it's a citywide priority, but the future depends on coming up with the needs and desires of the surrounding south market community. far from becoming just a museum, the city and the california historical society seeks to transform the mint to a community cultural commons for the neighborhood and city as a whole, which can range from cultural programming, to providing office space for nonprofit organizations. c.h.s. will have a process to further define the comments

concept, building on workshops held last year in partnership with shaping san francisco. indeed, the blockbuster success of events at the mint including night market and history day, unscores the potential for the central soma and commitment to that vision. central soma has enormous potential to generate benefits, it will result in a loss of heritage resources. we see this as a way to improve and interpret the neighborhood and sustain the existing cultural communities. we hope in the months ahead, that we'll be able to work with the board to maintain the funding commitment and explore uses that are relevant to the neighborhood. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the rules committee. andrew wolfram, president of the historic preservation commission and speaking on behalf of the historic preservation cosi