extended it as the mayor had originally proposed, one additional month beyond the 7th. so only two projects. >> supervisor safai: might have been the magical month. yeah, so that's what i was trying to wiggle it down to. that's 55 units out of the entire universe, other than the four that are not yet entitled. to i want to ask you about those. are we assuming that 10 south van ness is off the table? >> 10 south van ness is pursuing an s.u.d. that will have them produce a higher rate. >> supervisor safai: that's the honda dealership. so then 111, 260 and 344 14th street -- i'm sorry. what i was going to say is, and this is what i brought up last time, and i think i heard you say this in your presentation, the application dates that they submitted are all pre-date -- i

mean they are three years or older. specific circumstances, i know you said historic. i know you said that each one was working through a series of amendments, and when i look at the math, and then the last one you gave, which was 344 14th street, you said that in the meantime they were applying for the state density bonus, which would increase them up to almost 16.5%. >> that's right. >> 111 turk and 262 7th street. the difference between the grandfathered rate and today would be three or four units. i'd be interested to hear from the project sponsors. >> i believe they are here. >> supervisor safai: as to how that factors into their overall pro forma and their ability to meet the requirement. maybe there's a different negotiated rate and that would allow them some more time. >> i also want to point out the

stevenson street project invoking density bonus, they need to preserve that rate, because that's the rate they are using to invoke density bonus. so if we take them out of the grandfathered bucket, they have to use the current rates to use density bonus. is that correct? yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. supervisor kim, i'm sorry. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i was going to answer any questions on that. >> supervisor safai: no, my only point was that the difference is three units on that project from today's rate to the rate that i see that was negotiated based on the previous, so i was interested to hear from the project sponsors, if that would -- how that would impact their pro forma, and if there was a different counterproposal. and same with 262 7th street. i understand why you would initially say or you would want

necessarily that they have had had -- they have not even received their planning commission hearing. it sounds like for 111 turk that they have been caught up in some historic preservation issues, which can add significant amount of time. that seems like a legitimate request, but then to then have the clock run out on them based on the planning and environmental review seems a little bit harsh. sounds like you know about that project. >> new owners of the site? >> so they are committing to 50%. >> 111 turk? >> no, that's a different project. >> sorry. >> there's a star city project -- >> i don't believe that project -- >> it's a different address. >> sorry, we cannot have this -- sorry about that. okay, so the project sponsors are here. we'll let them answer the questions. >> supervisor safai: i would be interested to hear about that, because if we're talking about

two projects, which is about 150 units, plus the last one, couple hundred units, maybe there's a compromise in there rather than just throwing the baby out with the bath water. i'm just curious to see what the response is from the -- because it could be a matter of zero or an additional 300 units, 250 units. >> supervisor tang: please state your name for the record and limit your comments. >> absolutely. >> supervisor safai: okay, go ahead. >> open up for public comment, is that okay? >> supervisor safai: i wanted to drill down on these two, and through the chair, if that's okay. >> thank you, supervisor safai. john kevlon on behalf of all three projects, we represent all three. i'm not going to sit here today and say i have a pro forma that this is the make or break between any of these projects. it's just fairness in terms of these projects were planned to go to commission over the next few months.

through no fault of their own, they've been diligent, working on this, in particular 262 7th, we've been ready to go about a year now and have been going in circles with design review with staff, not to throw anybody under the bus, but we've been really pushing that one forward and that one also is a smaller developer. again, i don't have a pro forma, i'm not going to pretend and tell you this is a make or break, but it is a significant impact. >> through the chair, if i could ask a follow-up question to the planning department. sounds like what you said is based on the timeline of these, there's been significant review or other reasons through the planning department and sounds like you just said that you're on the docket to go in front of the planning commission. maybe the planning department can answer that question. >> of the three projects that are unentitled, my impression of all three is that they are very close. one is actually scheduled for planning commission on november 15th, and that is the 344 14th

stevenson site. >> supervisor safai: that would be, just so i'm clear, that would be the date of entitlement and you'd have 18 months after that time? if we were to pass the amendment as proposed by supervisor kim? >> the amendment as it's written right now, and tanisha can correct me if i'm wrong, if the project receives entitlement before december 7th, you have the 18 months from the date of entitlement. if you are entitled after december 7th, you have until july 7, 2020. >> supervisor safai: say that last part again. so if you're before december 7th, you have 18 months from that time, and if you're not, then -- >> you have 18 months from december 7th, basically. >> what do you mean? >> let's take the stevenson project, for example. if they are entitled on november 15th, they'll have 18 months

from november 15th to seek a site permit and obtain a site permit. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> if the project is approved after december 7th, they have until july 20, 2020. >> that's in the language passed around to you right now. >> it was before we -- apologies, supervisors, it includes the 18-month extension for projects that are entitled, as we'd agreed upon, and has the draft of other language, so i highlighted the section we have agreed on. the other section was drafted, but has not been agreed on by supervisors. >> supervisor tang: so we have two versions here. am i just looking at this last one with the highlight then? >> with the highlight, yes. with our highlight. i don't know what supervisor kim passed out. >> supervisor kim: what i had passed out is what i believed we had agreed upon before the committee. >> i haven't seen that language. >> supervisor safai: i haven't seen anything. i wasn't privy to those conversations. i'm just asking questions as i receive information on the

floor. i'm trying to drill down to make a better informed decision. so it sounds like then the stevenson project is going to be entitled prior to december 7th. >> depends on the planning commission, hopefully. has the potential to be. >> supervisor safai: so we're left with turk and 7th street. do you have a timeline when those will be in front of the commission? >> hopefully in the next couple of months. 111 turk is admittedly my project, so i'd like to get it in front of planning commission as soon as possible, but i think within the next couple of months is the goal. >> supervisor safai: okay. is there a potential for that to get in there before december the 7th, knowing the deadline? i'm just curious. >> i don't think there's a potential to get to december 7th knowing the deadline. it is still in siceqa review. >> supervisor safai: okay. i will have more questions, but

i just wanted to kind of pinpoint down. >> supervisor tang: okay, supervisor peskin. >> can we just back up here? walking into this meeting i was under the impression that we had an agreement, and now it looks like you are adding things that were not in that agreement. can you please explain? >> absolutely, supervisor. we are in agreement on 18 months for projects that are entitled. that is the section i highlighted. unfortunately, that was the only language i had drafted from the city attorney, so i highlighted that section and passed it out to your colleagues on the committee. the other section i completely agree, we have no agreement on. i'm not asking for that amendment today, it's just the language that was drafted was all in one packet. >> you're not asking through the chair for that amendment today means what? >> means i understand that you and supervisor kim do not support that language. >> i'm kind of at a loss, because generally when an

administration by and through its liaison to the board of supervisors comes to an agreement with a member or members, one then does not tack on other things. >> i apologize, supervisor, we were not trying to tack anything on. i couldn't get clear language on what we agreed on in time for this meeting today, which is why i highlighted the section we have agreement on, as i understand it. >> supervisor tang: and the amendment, as supervisor peskin and i crafted it, is a little bit different from the way that yours was crafted. >> i see. >> supervisor tang: i would recommend we go to public comment while we marinate on both of the languages here in the two versions and then we can get back to this conversation. how's that? okay. so i'm going to open up item six to public comment. any members of the public, please, come on up..

>> again, i want to emphasize, this is unfortunate this has fallen through the cracks during this process. i've got an e-mail from 2017 from our planner that said we're in the final design comments of this project, as has been stated. we had affidavits on file in december of last year to get this project to the planning commission at the beginning of this year. we've literally gone around two or three more times and designed comments on this specific project. again, this is a smaller developer. we've been pushing this forward. it should be done at the planning commission within a couple of months, and we're going to push this immediately through the site permit process. so i really want to just

emphasize that, that one really stands out as a real fairness issue, but i think with respect to the rest of the compromise, the entitled project at 18 months, totally appropriate, we'll get them through if they actually want to get them through. one correction for the record, too, there was some discussion, 519 ellis, it's less than 25 units, and, therefore, is not impacted by this legislation. it's 21 units. i just want to make absolutely clear, 519 ellis, below 25. 12% currently. >> supervisor peskin: that's what i thought, but planning department's numbers are just terrible. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin, all right. >> supervisor peskin: said 28, but it's 21. >> supervisor tang: let's continue with public comment. >> hello, supervisors. david woo with the south of market community action network. this piece of legislation directly undermines prop "c" passed in 2016 and directly undermines the will of the voters.

and directly undermines people like me who voted yes on prop "c" in 2016. the voters of san francisco said loud and clear, development projects in the city must provide a higher percentage of affordable housing. prop "c" already contains a grandfathering provision of 30 months to obtain permits for developers that already had projects with the city, allowing additional time for grandfathering is a complete giveaway and further a snub to the voters of san francisco by city hall and by the mayor. rather than disregarding and working against the will of the voters, the mayor and city hall need to do what the voters said and uphold the existing piece of legislation as-is. san franciscans want affordability, not developer giveaways. thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm a resident of district 6,

and i also voted yes on proposition "c" in 2016, because i want more affordable housing in san francisco. we're in a housing crisis, and we need developers to build more affordable housing because of the lack of affordable housing that's being built, period, and grandfathering in these projects does nothing to address the issue of a lack of affordable housing. it is simply a giveaway to developers that directly undermines the will of the voters. i encourage you to not pass this legislation and to uphold the existing legislation passed by voters in 2016. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm victor quan. i have a project that is probably going to be affected by this proposed change, because we got approved i think in may of '17. there was a variance hearing at the time, and by the time all

the other agencies went through their approval process, we still don't have a site permit, and we're short maybe another month or so. so the 18-month extension wouldn't help us, because if i'm counting right, the date that the 18 months would start for me would be the may of '17 date. >> supervisor tang: what is your address again? >> 198 valencia. >> supervisor tang: the clock is still running. answer your questions after. >> okay, so we're currently -- the last thing that we need at this point is a -- an archaeological plan for some mitigation measures, and from my understanding, we have the plan -- actually, i don't have the plan in hand. we're supposed to get it today,

but still a 30-day review process, i'm told. so we would probably miss that december 7th deadline. >> supervisor tang: thank you. are you done with your public comment? >> yes. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim, did you have a question? >> supervisor kim: he answered my question. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm john goldman of goldman architects. i'm here to talk about 980 folsom street and tell you a little story kafka may have written, but it's nonfiction. i submitted for my environmental evaluation august 1st, 2014, my site permit december 29, 2014. no environmental planner was even assigned until february 2015, and a regular planner was first assigned in august 2015, but he didn't look at the drawings until early in 2016. then he slowly started looking at it, but then he was transferred to a different quadrant. a second planner was assigned in

2016. she quit the department. i had a third planner assigned at the end of 2016, who started looking at -- and she was very good, and she started looking at the drawings at the beginning of 2017, so once i had a planner looking at it, two and a half years after i submitted for my site permit, it went well. but, in fact, it was about a year. less than a year, in fact, from the time she started finally looking at it. i got my first notice of planning department requirements in february of '17, and i got planning commission approval october 5, 2017. so things actually went reasonably well in planning, but i lost almost two years. first environmental evaluation they didn't look at it, three planners in 2016, none of whom actually looked at it, i lost a whole year of 2016, i lost nine months at the beginning, two years in planning. this is why it makes sense the mayor's proposal to put some

kind of date from the point you get your planning commission approval, because we as architects and developers can't control what goes on in planning, but what goes on in d.b.i., that's fairly rational and you can kind of push it along. it's a reasonable process, but planning's unpredictable and we have no control on it, and there shouldn't be an arbitrary date. i agree there should be some time set for the time you get your planning commission approval. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> also presenting 980 folsom and some other projects. i'm working closely with a couple developers in the city, and, you know, we believe it's fair to provide more housing, but at the same time it's also, you know, good if, you know, we provide housing at first. you know, take into consideration a lot of the complications that happen through process of permitting and other delays that happens

unrationally for some reason. i think we should fix the grace period for 30 months from the date of, you know, december 7th, because most of these projects would not need it, and you have just written this big list, which probably has five or six projects, but from my understanding and my knowledge, i know there are almost ten other projects that are not going to make it, and they are not on that list. and they are -- for some reason, internal reasons or other reasons, financial or other things. i mean, i understand everybody wants to build in the city and we want to make more units and we want to build a higher amount of residential units, which is affordable, whatever, but i don't think this is the strategy of how we will be successful, by putting deadlines on developers and asking them to abide to it. it's almost like an ultimatum. from my understanding, i know one guy who is a developer here,

he's actually giving up on his project. he said if i'm going to put more affordable units, it's not part of my feasibility calculations. i'm out from this. so this is actually triggering an immense negative, you know, impact among developers in the city. and, you know, we urge you to extend the period for another 30 months extra on top of that. because, you know, there's a couple departments in the city, you know, they just delay things. it's the fact, everybody knows this. we need actually to understand that we are here today -- >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> -- because of one thing, which is we need to adhere and -- >> supervisor tang: thank you the. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition. happy to hear that at least the framework is moving towards an 18-month compromise.

appreciate you're kind of going project by project and figuring out what's going on. specifically for the unentitled projects, a speaker before mentioned there's a lot that happens in the planning process, simple staff turnover can delay it months and months and months, you know, and thinking about this, the affordability crisis is such a big deal in the city. and i think we all know it, and we all feel it, and there's a continued goal to get more housing built here in san francisco that we all agree is crucial. each of these projects we absolutely want to maximize the amount of subsidized affordable housing included. i think we're all in agreement on that. this could be the difference in a few percentage points in your pro forma that will make or break a project. so, i guess our fundamental ask to all of you is let's make sure we do what we can to get these units built, market units, affordability based units for a

range of incomes in san francisco, because we desperately need homes for people to live. it helps everybody across the city and across the region. thank you. >> hi, i'm here on behalf of my family, the developers of 2627 street. we have been, you know, going through this permitting process for over three years now, so adding any additional affordable housing units would create a hardship on our family and all of the time and effort and money we've spent thus far on this project. with that said, we are highly motivated and really want to build this development, you know, we're excited and ready to go. but i did want to point that out, that we've been in this process for over three years. and then this summer i actually contacted supervisor peskin's office, mentioning this.

unfortunately, i wouldn't able to speak with anyone directly, but with that said we are, you know, open to compromise and working with the committee. thank you. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is nick abbott. i'm a resident of district 10. i want to wish my support for extending the grace period up to 30 months or longer. a lot of these projects, i work in public service on the city and spent last weekend to recruit people to work in public service for the city of san francisco and the number one concern among all the recent college graduates i was talking to was lack of affordability in the city, as you know, being one of the biggest issues facing the city. these projects aren't built on the market-rate units, which help contribute to rent citywide and affordable units in the

proje projects as they currently are, and creating an unpredictable environment for developers in they can't trust voter initiatives already in the pipeline and further creating instability and creating to greater bureaucracy in the city undermines the ability to produce more housing of all types. i really encourage the board of supervisors to allow projects currently in the pipeline to make it through this process, given the difficulties they face either with bureaucracy or otherwise, given the pressing need for more housing in the city. thank you. >> hi, laura clark, m.b. action. the 18-month compromise makes a lot of sense. we also have to think about the projects that are still in the permitting process that are not yet entitled. the projects that legislation, you know, that will die without this legislation, are the kinds of projects that this body says that it wants. it is the smaller, not the

big-time developers, it's the people doing a 30-unit project for the first time. it's the people who are doing one project and maybe only one project. this is not going to negatively affect the megaprojects, but this is going to mean that mid rise, middle-income housing is not going to get built. and so please, make this process more predictable. planning department, we all know that this process is unpredictable. we all know that this has been historically ridiculous and unfair. we all know that these projects have had completely random delays thrown at them. and so it really makes sense to do everything you can to make this process more predictable and make sure that we don't kill the pipeline. we only have a few projects in that pipeline. the pipeline is going down, and you need to be thinking creatively about how to make sure that everything that's in there gets permitted. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohen with council of community housing organizations. however you land this grandfathering extension, one issue that was brought up last week, which we would highly encourage you to do, is bring to an end grandfathering projects access to state density bonus without paying, if you will, their fair share of additional affordability requirements, which all other developments now have to deal with. that, if you will gift of 26 or 30 months from the original inclusionary to be able to use state density bonus has resulted in projects that are coming in around 11% of affordable housing, when they already had a lowered rate of maybe 13 or 14. and to provide the extra 18 months or whatever it might be to get them to the pipeline sounds reasonable, but not then to be able to, again, dip into that added advantage with no public benefit in return. so that would be an amendment

that would make a lot of sense and, frankly, create the level playing field in this policy, even with this small extension. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 6, please come on up. >> todd davis on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. we'd like to remind everyone housing is a community benefit. people need places to live and if the state density bonus is a way that a project can become feasible, that is something we should be encouraging. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members? public comment is close the -- closed. all right, supervisors. now we have a time to look at the amendments. any supervisor want to jump in? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i did hand out copies of the amendment we had asked the city attorney to

draft, and so i ask this committee to adopt those amendments. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. colleagues, i just want to remind everybody of the context, and i absolutely agree that predictability and stability is very important in this business, which is precisely why we crafted collectively a piece of legislation actually even before proposition "c" was passed in june of 2016. and i don't think anybody's disagreeing about what we all want, which is the maximum feasible amount of affordable housing, and to that end, we had a technical advisory committee process, and we ended up landing on the inclusionary numbers that we have today in san francisco, and we also negotiated the

environmental evaluation application date relative to grandfathering, and we also, i think, very correctly put a use it or lose it time frame in there, which everybody has known for the last two and a half years, that this date was coming. having said that and having looked at the universe of projects, i think supervisor kim and i were willing to, for entitled projects, to have a year extension from the date of entitlement. and ultimately compromised with the mayor's administration to elongate that to 18 months, which i'm glad many people are embracing. again, it is our desire to build the housing, and it was actually my preference, and i think i voiced this at our last meeting on this issue, to stress test each and every one of these. the council for three of these projects said, look, i don't have pro formas, i don't want to

put words in your mouth that the project can't sustain higher levels of affordability, but we actually know, because we went through a technical advisory process and everybody came to agreement, and it's my belief that for those folks who lose it, they are going to continue to do these projects at today's slightly higher inclusionary rates. if you look at the couple of projects that we're now talking about, and with all due respect to the planning department, 1515 shouldn't be on the list, 519 ellis shouldn't be on the list, but as to those couple of remaining projects, yeah, you're talking about a total of eight more units of affordable housing. i suspect those projects will be built. i mean, the 95-unit project on 7th street, if it's family owned, their basis in the property is probably pretty low, but, you know, i'm happy to do it -- take a totally different

approach to this, which is we can stress test each and every one of these things. having said that, i think we came up with a pretty good compromise, and then with all respect to the representative of the mayor's office, generally the way this works is when the supervisors say last week, hey, city attorney, we want you to craft some amendments, generally we work collaboratively in the intervening week, and you don't go and dump your own amendments on this committee, particularly amendments that were not in any way discussed with the supervisors who were indicating that we wanted to work together, compromise, and that we were drafting some amendments. that's just the way it works here, and that's the way it's worked here for the almost 20 years that i've been on and off the board of supervisors. i just want to send that message so that we don't have these misunderstandings going forward, but it's not cool to dump new

language that no one has seen before or agreed to. we came to this in good faith and a deal is a deal, and we're actually -- this is a deal that then-supervisor breed, supervisor safai, and these two supervisors, kim and myself, agreed to and enacted unanimously. this is the second bite of apple, we're trying to be reasonable, but our fundamental thrust is to build as much affordable housing as possible, and i think we're doing that here. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i'd like to agree with a lot of what supervisor peskin said. we put a lot of work into coming up with these inclusionary numbers. there was a lot of thought, i know that supervisor kim, a lot of these projects are in her district, so the idea there would be an extended period of time to allow for entitlement, and that was a date that was chosen. there was a lot of conversation

about this over a long period of time, so as supervisor peskin said, a lot of us have known about this. i understand because these are -- i think almost every single one except for two or three, maybe four or five, are less than 100 units. the vast majority of these projects were smaller units, which means they are not necessarily always folks that are doing development all the time. i think as we've gone through the list, and that's why i asked for each specific one, almost every one of them has been taken off the list that would not be able to deal with 18 months. i think 18 months is a good compromise, so i appreciate the mayor's office and supervisor kim and peskin coming to a deal. it seems as though there's just these one or two projects that we're left with. i know the attorney couldn't speak on behalf of the family in terms of the pro forma. i know if we were to pass this

today, there's still additional time to have conversations. i just wanted to ask the project sponsor from 262 7th street. you said supervisor peskin's office. did you mean supervisor peskin, or supervisor kim's office? and it sounded as though you were interested in continuing the conversation, and if it's only two projects here, i wonder if those projects could be put to the stress test in the amount of time that we have to pass a final resolution? i'm interested to hear if supervisor peskin or kim would be interested in digging down on the numbers of those last two projects that are not entitled yet. through the chair. so if we could put those two projects to the stress test and ask the project sponsors to reach out to supervisor kim's office, i think they are both in supervisor kim's office. that seems to me to be at least -- it's not allowing them 100% that they are going to be included into the final mix, but it would allow them the opportunity to have the planning

department put stress tests on those two projects to see if they could actually withstand additional inclusionary. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i'll just say this is my first time hearing from 111 turk or 262 7th street. i did hear from a number of other projects who are concerned back in the spring and summer that they would not make their december 7th deadline. i think you knew the deadline was coming, you had time to come to the supervisor, i did not hear from you. if john kevlon is your attorney, then you're clearly resourced. i'm happy to continue the conversation, but won't be including unentitled projects in this ordinance as-is, but again, i encourage you to reach out. i need to be convinced you can't do the current obligation as required by section 415. >> supervisor tang: okay. so, colleagues, now we had kind of, i guess, two versions in

front of us. do we have a motion to make amendment? >> supervisor kim: i'll motion to amend and can read that into the record to make it clear. this was the amendment we asked the city attorney to draft last monday. on page 64-a, in the event the project has not been approved, which shall mean approval following administrative board, the project shall comply with affordable housing requirements set forth in section 414.5.6.6 as applicable in the event of litigation seeking to invalidate the city approval for such process for the duration of litigation. for example, if there is litigation, of course, we would extend your date. b, in the event the project has been approved on or before december 7th, the sponsor does not secure a building permit or

site permit for construction of the affordable housing units within 18 months of the project's approval or by december 7, 2018, whichever is later, the development project shall comply with the inclusionary requirements set forth as applicable, the deadline should be extended for such project for the duration of the litigation for the purposes of the subsection b, the date of approval shall be the date of any administrative appeal to the relevant board. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, supervisor kim. so you have a motion to that effect, and we can do that without objection then. we'll do that without objection. all right, colleagues. and as amended, do we have a motion on the item? the underlying item? >> supervisor kim: i'll make a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation to the board. >> supervisor tang: okay, as amended, we'll do that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, item 7, please. >> clerk: item number 7 is an ordinance amending the planning

code and zoning map to establish 430 29th avenue special use district and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: okay, and do we have someone from supervisor fewer's office here? okay, great, sorry. >> good afternoon, supervisors, chair tang. so we just have an issue that supervisor and planning department and the city attorney are trying to work out, just a small issue on this. we ask for this to be continued for a week. >> supervisor tang: okay. so on item 7, we'll make a motion to continue the item for one week to november 5th. we'll do that without objection. sorry, public comment on this item. okay, seeing no public comment, public comment's closed. all right. now if we can have that motion to continue this item for one week. without objection. all right, madam clerk, item 8, please. >> clerk: item number 8 is an ordinance amending the planning

code to allow square footage of baseline office space that is converted to non-office uses to be available for allocation under the office development limit program and requiring zoning administrator written determination for such space and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: okay, thank you very much, and i believe that there has been a request to continue this item, as well, so i'm going to open up item 8 first to public comment, unless supervisor peskin would like to make some comments first. item 8, continuance. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. okay, as supervisor peskin stated, continue this item to november -- sorry. >> supervisor peskin: no, it's the following item. >> supervisor tang: oh, following item. >> supervisor peskin: yes, item 8, if you could make a motion to continue that to the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: to the call

of the chair. madam clerk, did you need this to be a date certain because of noticing issues? >> clerk: there's no noticing issue. >> supervisor tang: okay. and the house has changed, so we are now just with supervisor safai continuing to call the chair. all right. without objection. thank you very much. item 9, please. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the planning code to change zoning controls for non-retail sales and service uses in the c-3-r downtown zoning district, amending the planning and administrative codes to create union square spark, recreation, and open space fund and fee, and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and turn it over to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: subject to public comment, i'd like to continue this to december 3rd. >> supervisor tang: okay, item

9, public comment? public comment is closed. item 9 continued to the december 3rd land use meeting. we can do that without objection. okay. all right, item 10, please. >> clerk: item number 10 is a resolution urging support for water board proposed updates to the 2006 bay-delta plan. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor tang: thank you, madam chair, and thank you for scheduling this both for last week's land use committee meeting and as well as for today's. i want to start this discussion in some stark and real terms, and that is that san francisco bay is being starved of water flows needed to keep the bay alive and healthy, and it's a problem that has grown worse over time.

at the same time, san francisco has and should continue to be a regional, if not national and world leader on environmental issues. the tension between the forces that would further diminish flows and the very feasible environmental goals is why we find ourselves here today. by way of background, the current bay-delta water quality standards were set by the state board, the state water board, in 1995, over two decades ago. those standards have proven to be disastrously inadequate. they did not stop a half a dozen fish species from being put on the endangered species list, making san francisco bay a natural hot spot for extinction risk. they did not stop the collapse of salmon runs in the decision to ban commercial and recreational fishing in 2008 and 2009. unless reversed, it could end salmon fishing on san francisco's fisherman's wharf. that's a legacy no one wants,

nor do the current flow standards stop outbreaks of toxic algae that threaten the health and lives of children and pets. the legislature, the state legislature, recognized this problem in 2009, when it told the state board to look at the science and determine what flows are needed to protect and restore the bay. and it's why the entire bay area environmental and fishing community has united around this resolution. three dozen groups wrote to support the resolution last week, including support from native-american tribes for whom salmon and healthy rivers are an essential part of their livelihood. we also know our climate is warming, meaning our water supply is at risk of longer and deeper droughts than in the past. we need to focus on this, i think we all agree. instead, i think the p.u.c. has found itself in the unfortunate position of not being in a position to advocate for the highest standards for bay protection.

and, frankly, this has put san francisco behind much of the rest of the state in investing in water supply alternatives, though i believe the p.u.c. and the san francisco chronicle for that matter recognize the need to innovate in this regard. but as it stands, while we dither, other cities have recognized the need for stronger environmental protections. east bay mud has built their freeport project, giving them a new water supply if a disastrous drought hits. orange county is now the world leader in water recycling. contra costa built an offstream reservoir for water during droughts. now they are planning to expand that reservoir in a way that can help the environment and cities. santa monica's cleaning up the groundwater and storm water and is planning to be completely independent, eliminating their use of water from the bay-delta. san francisco, i think, should be leaders in this area, but,

frankly, we have not been, and this resolution, pun intended, endeavors to turn the tide. the resolution before you reflects conversations and negotiations with the p.u.c. over the past couple of weeks for which i would like to thank general manager harlin kelly and his staff michael carlin and juliet ellis, as well as my staff, to resolve these outstanding issues. over the past week i've had an opportunity to discuss these issues with former secretary of the interior bruce babette, who has been mediating this matter between many of the parties, as well as i understand that governor brown has also weighed in with his desire to ensure the state water board takes decisive action at their november 7th meeting. to that end, the critical changes in the version now before you, colleagues, are reflected in the first resolved clause at page 3, line 16, which

i'll read into the record. and i've given you all redline copies, as well as clean copies, but this is the meat of the matter. and that is resolved that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the state water board to act at its november 7, 2018, meeting to adopt the current proposed update to the 2006 water quality control plan and further urges the state water board to allow sfpuc, other water agencies, and environmental and fishing groups to enter into voluntary agreements in a timely manner for consideration by the state water board prior to implementation of the proposed plan update. this language affects the desire for the state water board to act to adopt its plan update on wednesday, november 7th, while acknowledging that negotiations between the p.u.c. and other water agencies are ongoing. in the interest of ensuring san francisco takes a seat at the

front of these issues, both as a water innovator and environmental leader, the new resolved clause recognizes the importance of having the n.g.o. community, including environmental and fishing groups, party to any resulting voluntary agreements. one other thought, which i say at risk of sounding a little n cynical about this matter, is at the end of the day, as much as we love harlin and carlin, as i fondly call them, the p.u.c., like our airport, is a business enterprise. it is a business. and like any business, among its primary driving motives is profitability and ensuring it makes enough money to continually invest in the city's infrastructure. it's not a bad use of those funds, and money makes the world go round, but none of this can come at the expense of the region's environment. it's a very real dichotomy between profit and habitat conservation and one that the federal government has,

unfortunatelily, leveraged in this instance, and i want to point out that broader context, as relevant to the situation that we find ourselves in, where san francisco is being called upon to be at the forefront of environmental restoration and water innovation, and that, with that, colleagues, i ask for your support for these amendments and to send this resolution to the full board as amended, as a committee report for hearing tomorrow, because that is the last board meeting that we have prior to the november 7th action by the state water board. i have a number of speaker cards, but i will turn it over to my colleagues. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i see p.u.c. staff here, so would you like to also speak on this item? >> yeah, what we would like to do is kind of go over where we are today, and i'll have michael kind of give you some of the

details of what we're facing. first of all, i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to update you all on the critical work that the p.u.c. is doing to plan for the future of san francisco's drinking water supply. [ please stand by ]

>> i understand the fish population is not doing well and we need to do some changes so that they can do better. which includes providing more water. we are willing to do our part. but we need to do it in a smart and thoughtful way. no, i want to go over what the state water resources control board wants us to give up more of the water that we store during dry years. the state plan would require us to release 100 million gallons of water per day during dry years. that equals about half the amount of water we deliver for our customers every day systemwide. so if you think about it for a moment to, the state wants us to require san francisco to give up

half of the drinking water that we all depend on during the drought with no certain amount of new sources of water. for us to go with that blindly, it would be incredibly irresponsible and would put our customers at risk. that is why we wanted to make sure that was included in the resolution that we still feel a voluntary settlement is the way to go. so, with that, if it does act and we are not able to come to some compromise, what that would mean is that we would immediately start working on large-scale and costly alternative water supply projects. and our customers would be on the hook for paying for these new alternative water supply projects. so additionally, the work we are currently working on as well,

which means the utility bill would be much higher. in addition, one of the challenges would be that we couldn't provide certainty to developers that they would be enough adequate supply during a prolonged drought. make no mistake, this is a complicated issue and there's a lot of misinformation out there about san francisco's posters role in this process. so i want to make sure that i am clear that we have been engaged and we will continue to engage on local, state and federal agencies, primarily career employees on river issues under both democratic and republican administration. that is our job. it is insulting that anyone would insinuate that we are pushing a partisan political agenda. at the state level, this falls

-- the governor brown administration contained stakeholders to participate in a volunteer settlement negotiation in earnest. these negotiations are happening now. we were invited to participate. we don't decide who gets to participate. we are one of many stakeholders at the table, which include state agencies, water, utilities and irrigation districts. we have also engaged several groups who aren't at the negotiating table but have a strong interest in the outcome. these groups include environmental groups, bay area community organizations, our wholesale customers and third-party experts. we have had public hearings at our commission meeting and had multiple one-on-one meetings with environmental organizations based on many conversations and third-party research, we are pushing for a responsible and

sustainable path forward to help the fish and the people. san francisco is already setting aside water in dry use for fish and we are prepared to put more aside. but we feel that it must be done in a thoughtful way based on community understanding on the best available science. we spent $25 million studying the rivers, specifically to understand how best to increase fish population in the river. we have developed a robust plan on actual studies on the river. the delta plan is based on, nor does it rely on site specific science studies on the river. so i just want to let folks know here in san francisco what is at stake right now.

we must all come to the consensus on this issue or people and the fish will suffer. i would like to turn it over to michael to give an overview of the plan and how that affects the p.u.c. water supply. >> thank you. you just made a comment towards the end about how the study, i am guessing with the state, it is not based on the river. can you expand on that a bit more. >> i can let michael with his presentation. >> sure. just answer your question, the state -- the population of the science not only california but from the pacific northwest and other places in the information that we have submitted to the state water board for consideration is site specific studies on the river. we participated in their studies with the modesto irrigation districts who are the senior water rights holders on the river to the tune of about

$25 million. that is what we are basing our plan on. >> what is the state basing his information on? >> it is from other places in the state of california. it is not just on the river, but the pacific northwest and other places where they have done work on salmon and trout. >> ok. thank you. you can go on with your presentation. >> that's fine. as supervisor peskin said, i am the carlin in carlin, carlin and carlin. i want to orient you. we deliver drinking water to 2.7 million customers every day. all the san francisco residences and businesses and we have 27 wholesale customers throughout the bay area. it is not just about san francisco. it is the entire service area that we serve. one of the things that comes up is how much water do our customers use. this is a graphic showing what s.f. customers currently use

which is about 42 gallons per person per day. that is the lowest in the state. compared to our service area it is about $59 million per day. the average is 84. and the southern california average is 89 and those numbers are averages. there are higher and lower places in southern california. under the plan, if we have to go to receipt -- extreme rationing to 64%, our customers would be limited to 15 gallons per person per day. i am just trying to put this in perspective as we go through this. to orient you to the bay delta, it includes the sacramento river his and what we are talking about is tributaries to the san joaquin river and there are three tributaries that are being addressed in the state board's plan. as you can see on the map, one is located on the upper end of the river. the bay delta has drinking water

for 27 million people in california. that includes the bay area. one of the things that he mentioned was the 200 million gallons per day. when we translate that into how much water we actually divert, we divert less than one% of inflow going into the bay delta. yet we serve seven% of the population of california and all the businesses back such as those in silicon valley and other parts of the bay area. again to orient you, the tributary of san joaquin, we divert water so it does not go down the river. is diverted at the reservoir. this represents about 85% of our water supply. amount of our water supply today. what you will be hearing about is the river in respect to the bay delta plan what is the plastically while we agree with

the plan, we don't agree with the means of the plan and that is an important distinction we want to make. what we are trying to do is balance between the fish and wildlife uses and water supply or reliability. the means that were proposed by the state water board is 40% unprepared flow february through june. even during times of drought. there is no relief. every year it is 40% of unimpaired flow. when he think about the system which is an acr based system with a snowpack, one just a snowmelt? i don't know if any of you are scarce but it melts in the february, march, april, may timeframe and we get inflow into our reservoirs. we are very dependent on that at this point in time. we want to improve flow conditions on the river and we are proposing more flow on the

river and we want to pay that with -- prepare that was science -based measures to improve conditions on the river for the fish and we will talk about that in a little bit. what are the impacts of unimpaired flow? in this graphic, we have what we call our a and a half year drought planning scenario. it is a drought planning scenario. it is not how we operate with this is what we plan for the future in developing new water supplies. so the solid blue line represents what we would say is over an a and a half year period where we would have a policy of trying not to have any more than 20% rationing in any given year during a drought. as you can see, we go to 25% later in the drought planning sequence. we are trying to develop projects to make that a 20% number as well. the green --dash line on the other hand represents what would happen with 40% unimpaired flow under the state water board plan as you can see in your five -- in yeaiv