convened by the state of california's department of water resources and the state department of california fish and wildlife. and through the governor's office. as supervisor peskin mentioned, governor brown appointed bruce babbitt to help facilitate and mediate those meetings and we have been meeting with him and the state representatives for quite some time. we think that -- negotiated settlement allows us to get the benefits we want and have the environmental certainty for the fish of the tuolumne and preserves the water supply reliability, even though we will go through jobs that are greater than the ones we have experience to date. one of the things that you should understand, if the waiver will be in structured, it is not a hard and fast thing. it will be a continuous improvement loop built into it. if things aren't working, we are trying to figure out how to come back and make things better. that is an important thing.

the alternative point we have has functional flows, signed bait -- science-based nonflow measures and we think that a negotiated settlement is superior to the solutions we propose because we don't want it to get to litigation over this. we are trying to avoid that. we continue to negotiate on a practically daily basis with the state. we will be negotiating with them this week as well. we have been pretty instrumental in getting other people to the table which is important. especially the irrigation districts. they look to us for leadership and trying to reach resolutions. you have to remember they have a lot more water than we do. as we go forward, i would be glad to keep you informed of the negotiated settlements and i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you for the presentation. >> i want to end it that we want to thank peskin's office because there was a gap between the

original resolution and so we worked with them and we feel that we are at a place where we feel comfortable with the resolution. i think what's really important is the governor really wants to do this before his time is up and we have been working with the stakeholders and i believe that we are very close. so that is why we felt that if it is acted upon and adopted, as long as we are able to finish our negotiations and put it in place, we are ok. this is a once-in-a-lifetime to make a big difference to help the fish and we are happy to be part of making that happen. >> thank you, very much. mr karlen, going back to page 11

of your presentation about development and the land use committee, we have a big item here. central soma coming up after you you did have a statement about affordable housing and other development that might stop before water supply is secured and you talked about this potential construction moratorium. is a benchmark for how much water supply we have on water? >> under neurite -- normal conditions we have sufficient water to meet the development requirements in the city. but we are engaged in a conversation with the planning department with the state water board. what does it mean when we do our assessments and what will we have to say in those documents? so we are concerned about it and trying to think ahead about how we craft this document in the future and we are still looking at alternative water supplies so when it does come online to address or fill the rest of the bucket up so we can keep going ahead with some of these developments and especially the affordable housing development in san francisco.

>> so it's mostly planning ahead is not that if we reach a certain level of our backup water supply that you would say we have to -- >> it all depends if the state board -- i'm sorry. i did not need to speak over you if the state where it goes forward and it is 40% unimpaired flow, we have to look at what that means to us as far as our water supply is concerned when he fully implements the statewide plan. when we have a couple of years to do that. >> ok. >> i wanted to have a follow-up question. i just wanted to make sure on the slide and what you have said is based on what the state currently has proposed. >> that is correct. >> ok. i also heard that there is continuing negotiations. it sounds like there will be different proposals, potentially agreed-upon. if that is the case, than this

particular slide will have less significance. >> that is correct. >> my follow-up question is, regardless of the negotiated settlements, it sounds like, going back to your slide, a and nine that talk about diversifying the water supply, regardless of the negotiated settlement with the state, and hopefully you are all able to get their, are you pursuing these plans? >> yes. >> these additional 28- 50 million gallons per day are currently under -- are they funded? >> some of these are the preliminary stages of stages with potential partners and others are in the really early planning stages. we have not allocated any money for capital projects. >> no money has been allocated and they are in the preliminary discussion phases. >> right. >> again, are you pursuing

additional sources to diversify the water supply? >> absolutely. that is what we need to do. >> it sounds like whatever negotiate a settlement you had to, it would go from planning to a requirement. it sounds like you guys will have to diversify the water supply to increase the amount of flow that we are able to release into the delta. >> it is not just that. it is climate change. as we lose -- sorry, it gets a little geeky. as we lose the snowpack and as it retreats over time, we will have more rain and less snow and we use the snowpack as an additional reservoir to melt ours slowly and we can control it. we have a the junior water rights holder. we have to release water to them we are looking at the long-term picture here of what additional water supplies we could bring on in the next 30 years. >> ok. supervisor peskin, i know you have a question.

>> isn't a will serve ledger a will serve ledger? what is the difference between market rate housing at affordable housing? >> there is no difference. it came out of a case with east bay mod of more than two decades ago for a development project where they said they didn't have any water to serve them and they change the legislation in the code says you have to have a water supply assessment. and what it entails is do you have enough water? if you don't, give us your plan to supply enough water to serve the development. >> i get that but what does it have to do with affordable housing? >> nothing. it does not make any distinction that is the only point i was making. >> ok. >> ok. any other questions or comments? ok. with that, we will go to public comment first on item ten. any members of the public who wish to speak, please come on up

>> you can start. >> thank you, very much for the opportunity to speak. i'm the executive director of -- we don't have the position on the state's planned but we've san francisco's water agency closely. the p.u.c. is led by good people >> sorry. we will pause the time because we see the number of people and we have a large item after us. we will have to limit -- limit public comment for everyone to one minute or else we may lose coram later for a big issue. >> not a little issue like this one. i'm the executive director. we have no position on this. we think that the p.u.c. provides indispensable services. they are full of good people. but if you look at the water agencies across the state, you

do not see them willingly giving up water. it is usually a policy decision made at a different level and fortunately,, most of the things i said, supervisor peskin said, agencies across the state have done all kinds of things to diversify their water supply, groundwater banking, transfer, local reservoirs, groundwater, recycling and so forth. san francisco can and should be encouraged to do those things as well. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i make commissioning secretary for the b.c. and i'm here to read a letter from vice president and king who regrets she could not be here today. as commissioners sitting in the finance chair of the p.u.c. commission, it is my responsibility to ensure they are making smart and responsible investments in our water, sewer and power infrastructure. i have been serving for more than 20 years and have advocated for policies that include via environmental stewardship got

reliable services for customers after -- while retaining rate fairness. we planned for the -- it would have detrimental impacts in our ability to keep rates affordable for all san franciscans. i agree that diversifying the water system is the right thing to do. it is why i have supported agency efforts to come up with projects. i have a little bit more to go but i'm running out of time so i will leave you copies. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm the general manager during 87 and 93. i want to speak briefly about why it is that we have a conservative planning posture to our drought planning. the problem is droughts keep getting worse. the worst drought of record used to be 1929-1934.

we did our planning accordingly. we have 76-77 and we had to do more conservative planning. we got surprised again at 48793 which is still worse and we had to change our water supply planning again. the big lesson that came out of that is this historical record is not a good basis for doing water supply planning. you know that there are better and worst water years that are not represented in the 100 or so years that we have on board. we also know -- >> thank you, for your comments. next speaker, please. >> before we get started, i want to make this clear. this is unfortunate that you gave a man who spent probably 40

-50 years with this water system one minute. this is not good, ok? i want to make that clear. [applause] >> we are making a decision and we are making a decision that is so important. i will take my one minute and respect its. i am here, first of all, i am a district town residents. i have worked for this city 35 years. i was a union representative for p.u.c. and i will make this quick. if this is going to impact -- and i know it will, if it will impact blue-collar workers, manufacturing, restaurant workers and construction jobs, i think that we need to make -- >> thank you.

>> thank you i wanted to tell you i have 40 years too. [laughter] >> supervisors, i'm here with the bay area council in data rich conversations, context is important. there are 340 a water suppliers in california. s.f. p.u.c. is the fifth lowest at 42 gallons per head. that has -- that is half the state average. san diego county has been mentioned as places we should try to emulate. anaheim use a hundred and 84 gallons per capita. the santa fe district of california uses 559 gallons per capita. the goal should not be to recycle the most but use the least. they should be more like san francisco. we should be less like them. thank you. >> by the way, that number is for san francisco and not necessarily all of the people that san francisco serves.

>> the user district is about 6s well below the state average of over 80. >> hi. i am in support of the state water board's plan for increased fresh water flows in the delta. i i'm a san francisco resident since 94. i enjoyed extensively as most people in the room have. hiking, kayaking, fishing, obviously the utmost importance. and what will we do when they're gone? san francisco needs to continue its support and leadership of positive environment of plans like this and strongly implement water reduction and greywater options. during drought years, there is will of the citizens. we can and we need to conserve water. thank you. >> good afternoon.

i am a conservation chairperson for the san francisco bay and west women fly fishers. you have received a letter dated october 25th asking the board of supervisors to adopt a resolution introduced by supervisor peskin. this letter is signed by 37 by mental fishing and tribal organizations and support of the resolution and regard the state water board's proposal to improve flow protections for the bay delta. there were actually several more groups which agreed to sign onto the b. did not make the short deadline. given the length and breath of the list of organizations and is obvious how critically important we believe an immediate water board action is needed. san francisco is considerably -- is considered an environmental protection leader. representatives from groups have signed on a letter and will be following me with more specific comments on why the board of supervisors needs to adopt the resolution. i thank you for your time.

>> good afternoon. i am president of the san francisco league of conservation voters. we represent san francisco voters who care deeply about the environmental impacts of our city policies. we believe the s.f. p.u.c. position is out of touch with the values of our city and our residents and i want to present survey votes -- results to back this up. the tuolumne river trust commission on social science research centre surveyed san francisco voters on their attitudes towards us conservation. ninety-three% conserve water during the recent drought and 94 % said benefiting the environment was a mitigating factor. ninety-two% use this to protect and restore the river and we want to protect the bay. i will end here. san francisco -- we also value a healthy bay of fisheries and we don't believe we need to choose between them. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a senior attorney with the natural resources defence council which has 18,000 members and activists within the city and county of san francisco. we support this resolution in the water board to act. the situation is dire for fish and for that health of the bay and for the human communities that depend on a healthy ecosystem. the board has not updated his standards and more than 20 years and the science is clear that increasing flows in the river which increase the production of salmon creating and sustaining thousands of fishing jobs. people -- i'm deeply disappointed but not surprised by the presentation by the utilities commission. they are misleading statistics on water use and the science around flows as part of their practice and pattern. i hope that we can continue to work together. the board to -- once it acts,

they will have continued negotiations. at least before the trump administration took over. thank you. >> well, done for a minute. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the san francisco bay keeper. and a supervisor peskin pointed out and as our members believe as well, of the bay is tremendously important to san franciscans. it is in crisis. the bay has been in a critical drought. it has been 400 years since salinity has been seen at these levels. increased flow will help with that and help with sediment. it will help with erosion and help with pollution. san francisco value speeches and i think this resolution is vital the political reality is san franciscans love san francisco bay and they don't want to see it harmed. the reality is san franciscans

are ready to sacrifice and conserve to put more water into the tuolumne river for fish and fishermen who make their living off of them and the political reality is san franciscans are ready to put their money with their mouths are when it comes to my mental thank you. >> madam chair, supervisors, on the executive director of the pacific coast federation of fishermen his associations representing 750 commercial fishermen on the california coast. fourteen port and marketing associations including two bays in san francisco. i am a resident in san francisco supervisor peskin, thank you for working with us and the p.u.c. on this resolution. it is incredibly necessary. it will bring about the survival of this industry which is weathering on the vine. it is without question a disaster for us. we have faced to federally declared fisheries disasters for the previous two years and this year was severely curtailed. if you want to see this industry

thrive we must support the state water board strong action in this regard. we will lose pier 45 if we do not act. thank you for your leadership. i appreciate it. >> hello. my name is. and i am president of the golden gate chapter of travel limited. i represents -- represent thousands of recreational anglers and conservationist friends in the bay area. we support the resolution. if supported, in supporting the state water board proposal, it is stepping up and acknowledging the importance of decades of scientific research that has been done. without enough flow, the water will get too warm and it will not have enough dissolved oxygen the floodplains will be insufficient and they will lose their sense of smell so they can't migrate back. it is important to know the state water board's current proposal is recommending 30-50%

is already a compromise. in 2010, they said 60% is necessary. in 2013, they recommended at least 50% of unimpaired flow. habitat restoration is great but without adequate flows, it will not get the job done. my own organization works every day on habitat. thank you, very much. >> good afternoon. i'm here with the california sportfishing protection alliance i told the full board a couple of weeks ago about a letter from the service that was sent to the federal energy commission october 1st. on that letter, they agreed that the. >> supervisor tang: flows proposed in the city and the irrigation districts. this was not the result of lobbying as usual of career agency staff. the career staff got rolled by the secretary of the interior. the s.f. p.u.c. was in meetings in which many of these -- this

took place. i am hopeful that whatever comes out of resolving the language for the resolution that as we go forward, we will have a better way of doing business with the city and recreational and environmental groups. please move the resolution forward as written. thank you. >> i am speaking today for the sierra club. i want to thank supervisor peskin and the other three supervisors that i haven't -- that have introduced this resolution. we strongly support the resolution. i want to say very briefly that i have heard amongst my friends and colleagues, but also in the press that s.f. p.u.c. and san francisco, they are siding with trump. they are doing trump hostess bidding here.

is that hyperbole equally yes. of course, it is hyperbole. but when we make decisions instead of stepping up with what has to be done to preserve this river that we are so dependent on and say, know, that would be inconvenient, that would cause some money, then we are thinking in the same way as donald trump. >> hello. i'm here with the tuolumne river trust. thank you supervisor peskin for taking the time to understand the issue and be up for being a leader. on that. >> supervisor tang: river, we had well over 100,000 salmon spawning every year. in the last few years it has been in the low thousands or hundreds. it is not just about salmon but a salmon based ecosystem. they bring nutrients to the ocean. they feed over 100 other species and they help fertilize. we modelled what would happen if the drought of record were to repeat with demand rebounding to

where it was before the drought. we found that the p.u.c. could ban just manage the drought of record with an average of ten% per year rationing. they have a lot of different figures. i encourage you to tune in on wednesday at 9:00 am. we will be discussing the issue and get into a lot more depth. we will move beyond the he said she said. they manipulate people right now with scare tactics. we hope you will further the resolution and bring it to the full board tomorrow. thank you, so much supervisor peskin. >> you will save a lot of time to be able to speak to the issues if you stop thinking me. [laughter] >> i can't help myself. thank you. >> it turns out it gives backbone in terms of negotiation this is a very complicated situation. and as we said earlier, the 40% is already a compromise number and i forgot to say i am from

the tuolumne advisory board. the 40%, it already compromised. if you go into this and it becomes 30 and becomes 25, it is just not going to work. it is too important. the board took a strong stand in 1984 when they supported the city for the tuolumne river. it is time for the board to stand strong again. thank you. >> thank you. i'm here with the golden gate salmon association to support the resolution and urge you to pass it on. you were -- you heard the p.u.c. talk about negotiations i would like to agree with that. there is an important context here. current standards were adopted 22 years ago. the state board has been actively working on the standards for nine years. there has been plenty of time for a negotiated solution. the problem is negotiations have stalled. the answer is for the state

board to adopt their current proposal. it will still give several years for those negotiations to continue before the standards are implemented. it is absolutely key. that is what this situation and this resolution allows. the final point is simply that environmental leadership means finding what is hard and possible and doing that. that is what we as a regent did to stop the bay fell and clean up sewage in the bay. we need to do it here with flows and we are here to move forward with the resolution. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a san francisco resident and taking some points from the sierra club. i will read them. the s.f. p.u.c. alternative focuses almost exclusively on nonflow measures such as habitat restoration and predator control this approach has been tried since 1995, but in the absence of adequate flows, it has failed

and conditions have become worse , not better. .2, the loss of inundated floodplain habitat for juvenile fish is a leading cause of population decline, higher temperatures favour non-native species over native his. both issues could be addressed by increasing flows, but are not included in the s.f. p.u.c. alternative. last, they s.f. p.u.c. alternative does not include adaptive management such as improving flow. in the case that nonflow measures fail to meet established goals and objectives in other words, if their proposal does not work, the river -- >> good afternoon. i am with the city of san jose. i'm a deputy director. a letter was mailed today to the board and is not in your packet but i brought copies to the

clerk. we have been a customer as affect -- of s.f. p.u.c. for over 50 years. as discussed already, we are negotiating a science-based alternative. we encourage this committee on the board to delay action on a resolution while negotiations of a voluntary settlement continue. thank you. >> members of the committee, and the director of water in santee -- in santa clara. while we support the goals of environmental stewardship including habitat and watershed protection, we joined the area agency and request the board of supervisors delay consideration of this resolution until negotiations currently underway are concluded next month with the hope that the settlement can be reached the balances these goals with the need of sustainable, long-term water supply for residents and businesses. a little bit about our system, we receive approximately 14% of our supply from s.f. p.u.c. but our portfolio includes 17% recycled water.

we continue to innovate and bring a lot of new projects online this year and we have a lot in the pipeline. thank you for having us here today. >> i'm a resident of district two. thank you for the opportunity to speak. we can restore the ecosystem and have a reliable water supply. to do that, i want to ask you to respect the values of your constituents and support supervisor peskin's resolution. people conserve water expecting their actions to benefit the environment, but during the recent drought, this didn't happen. the water we all conserved was held behind dams and had to be dumped during the storm last year. but if the bay delta plan had been in effect, the river and the ecosystem would have benefited and the p.u.c. would have been able to fill the root -- the reservoirs and so much more. people want to conserve capital for the environment. the bay delta plan is the win-win we are looking for for the environment and for the water supply. thank you.

>> thank you. i am a district 11 san francisco resident and a customer of the s.f. p.u.c. i have examined the materials that the p.u.c. is used to made their statements and i have found them to mislead the public they use flawed analysis and reasoning and they do not represent the views of the customers and his constituents. two examples. my handout provides several more the governor order the s.f. p.u.c. regional water supply to conserve a minimum of a%. the bay area was -- during the same. , economic growth was significant, very much in contrast to the s.f. p.u.c. predictions. secondly, the s.f. p.u.c. did not consider any mitigating actions which they might take to drought conditions and as an example, they have continually said that they cannot bite water from the districts because they

have not tried to. thank you, very much.

>> we urge the board to delay able on th --success in on goiny sentence negotiated supported by governor brown, state board chair and several other state legislatures. the state board's draft plan under consideration could worse reduction in the afternoon-per-person job water and community development in our agency. the voluntary settlement, however, can protect fish and the 1.8 million residents and 40,000 businesses and thousands of community agencies in our area who are depend on the water. we believe in negotiated settlement underway to meet the state board and your objectives and interest. i have a full copy of my statement here as well as a letter from the city of east palo alto who actually experienced the development. >> hell oh my name is chris

gilbert. i'm a volunteer with the see era club and co-chair of the water club. the bay chapter and california sent a letter to all supervisors and the mayor in support of this resolution. i'd like to bring a little institutional memory back here. i read today harlan, the general manager's letter to the editor saying that they will do alternative water supplies. only with the support and commitment of the san francisco people. i want to go back to 2007 and read fifth resolution by the board that says the board of supervisor urges it's sfpuc to explore and develop water supply option that's will not divert water from the walt river. they have the support and commitment of san francisco to develop alternate water

supplies. thank you. >> it was asked which things were important to you and you can see protect and restore the bay, protect and restore is above affordable housing. this is a call state fullerton survey of san francisco voters. it's remarkable to me. the second point is, if i get there, is just to point out, that this is a good popular subject that does well with voters. the l.a. mayor, in 2014, said l.a. will reduce its water imports to 50% of its supply. and then in 2017, not a causal

relationship but he won by 81%. the point here is he an astute politician who understand his con at thiconstituents and san o strong support the environment. thank you. >> good afternoon, jackie flynn of the institute san francisco. i'd like to ask all my community members to please stand up. i'm here because i like to express concern with the current bay-delta plan. we're here not in support of the current resolution. we have folks that have survived unemployment from small contractors that hire locally and hire from our work-force programs. these folks clean our streets, apply dust mitigation measures across the city. young people are here with hopes that construction trades are future careers. i'm all about bay protection but i don't want to forget about affordability and the challenges to our working families.

it would be great to see all this investment and those studies with the same effects on the black population and get our black folks to come back into the city. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is susan. i'm a former general manager of the sfpuc and a rate payer and life-long san franciscoan. the result of the city not being able to provide enough water to its customers in san francisco, or to the fish on reliable basis. this proposal of 40% unimpaired flow, especially a problem with the increasing effect of climate change. with climate change, you will need as much storage as possible. to protect the fish and those of us using this water.

finally as some of you remember, six years ago, there was a ballot measured to tear down ocean a see damn. dam. remember what the voters said about that proposal? 77% rejected it. this state proposal would have the same or more devastating impact because it would not allow the sfpuc the ability to adequately store enough water for the fish or the users. please keep this in mind. thank you for your listening. >> thank you, very much. welcome back to chamber. any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item? please come on up. >> good afternoon, my name is wanda and i'm a community activist. i also have a strong interest in workforce development and also leadership in the newer a. i just want to make a comment.

i would like for people to reconsider what the sfpuc is offering. i think it's important, not just for people, such as these young people who have come from district 10 and also construction workers, businesses, especially those that need water to deliver their services, goods and to remain in business during these droughts. i do want everyone to consider that california is in a very, very bad drought situation and it will increase. as we are listening to both groups, please come to some type of compromise that considers both the fish and the people. thank you. >> hi, i'm tammy. i'm the general manager for the mid peninsula water district. i'd like to thank the group. i would like to acknowledge all of my general manager colleagues from all the water districts here. please stand. stay standing while i make my

comments. come on. come on. i see you back there red wood city. look, this takes a team effort, including you. i made that comment in our letters from the mid peninsula water district. we thank you for your service. we all here are in service as well as all these other speakers. we want to work together to make sure that the best plan is moved forward. please, delay. let us work together with the state and with sfpuc and thank you all for coming today. >> thank you, very much. thank you y'all for being here. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 10? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. let me make a couple of three statements. one is that the road to compromise in the very carefully chosen words that are before this committee, if we can have

that level of negotiation and cooperation between the state water board, turlock, ma de ma e and the n.g.o.s at the table, your mission, mr. kelly, and mr. i want to thank you and your staff for negotiations that included yesterday, sunday and last night and this morning and i think that shows really good faith on your part. as was said by some of the speakers, this is a remarkably complex issue. i think just the spirit of negotiation around the world's that we got to yes on in here with give-and-take, i don't want to say both sides. i would say many sides, is a step in the right direction. this is a issue of our time.

i want to say to folks who have fears about construction and jobs and workforce opportunities, that to the extent that this resolution urges and that the p.u.c. is moving into the 21st century about alternatives, it is going to create plenty of job opportunities. these things, the notion of increased flows, and the kinds of other measures, whether it's measures about stopping or enhancing habitat, all of those will require investment and plenty of job opportunities in this and many other counties. having said those things, i want to, again, thank chair tang for scheduled this not once but twice. we were quite willing last week to create that time and space to have the discussions, productive discussions wet in the intervening week. i want to thank the three co

sponsors, supervisor kim, supervisor mandelman and supervisor brown. i would respectfully that one of you move to accept the consensual language that is before you that i previously described and just send this as a committee report to the full board with recommendation. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. of course, thank you to everyone who came out on this important issue. i've certainly learned a lot in the last week. there's still so much more to learn. i appreciate everyone shedding light on this issue. we share co common goals. maybe we disagree about how we'll get there. unfortunately, and again, i'm not an expert that can jump in and say i think this is the best way to do it. with that said i am glad that there has been some finessing of this language. it's important that the p.u.c. is able to remain as part of the these negotiations and you would

what is best for the city as well as all the people and our animals as well. and so, i'm glad there's change to the resolution to reflect on this complicated of this situation. colleagues, is there a motion on the amendments. >> i'll make a motion to adopt the amendments as articulated by supervisor peskin. >> we'll do that without objec objection. a committee report? >> so moved. >> ok. we will do that without objection. >> thank you, very much. >> all right colleagues. items 11-15 together, please. >> or ordinance with the general plan by adding central south of market area plan making conforming amendments and appropriate findings.

item number 12 the zoning map of the planning code to create the central south of market special use district and making appropriate findings. item number 13, is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations and planning codes to create the central south of market housing sustainability district to provide a streamline administerral approvalling projects within the district. and item 14 is an ordinance with the planning codes to give effect to the central south of market plan and making appropriate findings and item number 15 is an ordinance amending the add minute code special tax financing law of certain facilities and services related to the central soma plan. >> thank you, very much. i'll turn it over to supervisor kim now. >> thank you, chair tang. this is the last set of

amendments that we'll be introducing, although there will be one or two stragglers next week. when i said set, i mean more than two or three amendments that i'll be introducing for the central soma plan. there will be time to clean up any language if we do find any other necessary changes for it next week's land use committee on november 5th. i have also spoken now at several land use committees on this item. i don't know if chair tang, do you want me to go through my proposed amendments today or go to straight to public comment? >> i think it would be good to have a high level overview of the amendments you are proposing today. i think last week you had mentioned there would be four and i think there's more than that today. i just want to make sure we're all on the same page. >> yes. so i am introducing 11 amendments today at the land use committee. many of these have been

discussed previously. at other committee meetings. some have come through requests of community groups for the central soma plan. one we will be eliminating the incentive for privately-owned public open spaces to provide playgrounds, sports clubs and dog runs. this was an incentive that provided a 33% reduction in the space required that they provide one of the above. the community felt that the private developers should provide this without the incentive so we have removed the incentive. this does of course mean the community needs to work really hard with project sponsors so they provide it to families and dogs and such needs. there's qualifying language on how portable water is provided within the popos many of there's technical changes that the planning department has

requested in regarding to approvals of project driveway loading and operation plans. this plan will now prohibit single-room occupancy units except in units that consist of 100% affordable housing and we will prohibit group housing unless it's housing for persons with disabilities or transitional and buildings again providing 100% affordable housing. the community felt strongly we need to encourage larger units, three and three bedroom units to encourage families to stay here in the south of market. i'm also introducing amendments to hire key sites to provide on site childcare facilities in satisfaction of their fee requirements. it will specify that the planning commission shall review the proposed project for compliance. there was something that was included last week that mandated

that this on-site childcare be free of rent or rented to a non-profit facility. we're now making that something the planning commission can -- will not require as long as a certain percentage of the childcare provider is set aside for below market rates. for families that make between, i believe, under 110% of average median income. so, the planning commission may wave this exception, provided that a percentage of the slots are set aside for families at 110% of average median income and below. it was not my intent to require childcare facilities that would be rent free for the life of the building. so we want to clarify that in the amendment. i may secretary city attorney to just clarify that again, for members of the public, because that is not my intent.

>> just to clarify, it's just giving the planning commission the discretion to grant an exception based on those factors? >> yes. thank you, chair tang. there's another technical amendment for one of the key sites to allow an exception. the ground floor be open to the sky and this again was just an oversight by the planning commission staff and they noticed it and we're fixing that. we're also providing a waiver to allow for credit for a public park which will be deeded to the county of san francisco against their various fees. we're also making an amendment to lot 014 which is the address 816folsom street which was the original proposal by the planning department. we had then, i had then set the

zoning to m.u.r. because we want to build as much housing as possible, however, this site has worked very closely with our community and with our office to move forward with their proposal as they had submitted their p.p.a. to the planning department last year. next is an amendment to rezone a portion of the flower mart. it's 150 along sixth street as measured from the intersection of sixth and brandon. the remainder of the lot would remain cmuo and the final amendment was one that i had introduced last week. i had given a one-week continuance to allow supervisors to meet with the project sponsor and this would just allow the project to provide a minimum of 14 feet floor to floor p.d.r. ground floor height and reduce the mass reduction controls as long as the project dedicates

land for affordable housing. >> thank you, very much for the summary. going back to, i guess the fourth amendment, the s.r.o.1, i just wanted to understand the rational behind that one. i know you stated that community members wanted more family-size units and so fourth, it sounded like we had heard from a project sponsor who mentioned they were going to provide a large amount of affordable units and so i again i wanted to understand, i guess is the preference for family-size units versus affordability or is it mutual exclusive. >> that was a discussion last week. that particular project is not within the boundary lines of the central soma plants. it would not be impacted by this prohibition. >> i mean in general, moving forward within central soma. >> the community felt strongly even with a larger commitment to affordable housing and that one particular project is committing to 50% they felt this was a type of housing they did not want to

encourage in the central soma plan. >> ok. also, that is one that is missing from here and i know there had been some time that you were going to spend between or the community was going to spend between last week and now. regarding the mint site. the $5 million that had been taken from that pot. i was wondering if you could speak to that? if there's been any development since the last week? >> so, after discussing with the community last week, there's still not supportive of increasing the funding by $5 million, however, there was support for an amendment that we asked the city attorney to draft today but is not ready for today. it would provide an additional $5 million to the old mint but it would be dedicated to b.m.r. usage at the old mint site for community groups and cultural organizations. >> ok. and -- i mean, i would like to

discuss that a little bit more in a bit. i wanted to go through some of the amendments. this flower mart project site, can you talk more about what that will entail? >> so, this particular part of the parcel is a stand-alone building that does not contain any of the flower mart vendors. and so, in the spirit of requiring our key sites to provide some housing and this being the only key site with an actual proposal that is not providing any housing, it would be rezoning the site to ensure housing would be built along with the office. we know there is a tremendous jobs housing gap within the central soma plan and the city over all. in my effort to build as much housing as possible, i have rezoned all of the zones outside of the key sites to housing. i have asked all the key sites dedicate a portion of their parcel to housing.

affordable or market rate. there's seven key sites. six with plans before the commission and staff in our office. one that has not decided at all what they will do with their key site. this is the only site of the six that currently does not have housing included in their plan and every key site should be providing some housing to contribute. i think there's already a tremendous a lot of linkage and nextus that is discussed about the need to build more housing as we create more jobs within the city and county of san francisco. >> i understand the goal here. i'm just wondering, because we had heard about this project, i got briefed on it many years ago. and so, at this point in time, is that something that the project sponsors are going to be able to do? given that we're now just making this amendment and again, they've been planning for this for quite a while without housing? >> i just have to say to all of our developers and project

sponsors that there's no guarantee of a project until the zoning is first approved by the board of supervisors and the project is later approved by either the planning commission or the board of supervisors. no one should have any expectation that whatever design they have for their projects is the one that's going to be finally passed by the planning commission or by the board of supervisors that is the risk that you take when you embark on a project and i think that over the last couple of months, both members of the public and elected officials have made very clear that they are trying to address the jobs-housing gap within this plan and city wide, to the best of their abilities. that is why we have rezoned all the parcels outside of the key site to either m.u.g. or i believe m.u.o. south of bryant or south of the freeway. it's also why we're asking the key sites to contribute some housing to our over all city's need. this is a reasonable change.

again, we're not requiring housing along the buildings where the flower mart may relocate to. only to the stand-alone site that does not have any flower mart vendors on their site. >> supervisor safai. >> i'm going to hold my comments. i have a whole series on number of the things and i have questions. i'll just do it after public comment. >> ok. >> we have more discussion after public comment. any members of the public who wish to comment on items 11-15. please, come on up. hello supervisors, my name is leanne and i am a curator and organizer who works on art history, community planning and community engagement. as you have said in previous hearings, the city must update its jobs, housing fee and must immediately release the most recent jobs, housing linkage fee

study that has been completed. the last time the study was done was in 1997. this is completely outdated. please stand by.