>> thank you, very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor brown, do you have any other remarks? >> i want to thank everyone for coming out today and i am sorry we have meetings in the middle of the day. i am sorry. i know. i know it is easier to come out after work. but i feel this is really important and i appreciate everyone that has been working on this. everyone that has been putting volunteer hours in coming to the meetings. a mean so much to me. i cannot do this alone. i need the community to guide me through what is best for the community. also with these developments, we get to use neighborhood preference which is huge. people from the neighborhood will be able to apply for this and 40% of affordable housing will go to people from the

neighborhood. that makes it much more special for me. i want to say thank you and thank you to my colleagues for considering this. >> thank you, supervisor, supervisor brown. supervisor kim? >> i just want to thank supervisor brown. it is clear that you did a lot of work in the community to bring this forward to us and i know that this ordinance has been pending for quite a period of time at the board of supervisors. it is great that it is finally coming to completion. i want to commend you for the high level of affordability that are included in this plan. i understand that while there may be a little less low income, that often supervisors will press for a little bit more middle income housing. i am supportive of that. i want to note that you vastly increase -- increase the site fees and off site units and even her projects of ten and above. that is a significant increase that is currently in 415. i hope you will continue to work

on the fillmore and i echo some of the concerns that were made here today. i think we should talk about increased density along the fillmore so we can build not just more housing but more affordable housing as well. >> thank you. >> i want to thank supervisor brown. i know she has put a lot of work into this. i think that sometimes there is a false narrative. that false narrative is people get a number in their head and they believe that number is the number that should be applied everywhere across the city. the reality is some projects are at different phases in their life in terms of development process and if you have done tremendous scrutiny, you have pushed the numbers to the point where you can push them and you have asked everyone to show their books. i know you have. at the end of the day, the question becomes do you fundamentally want to see development? do you want to see more affordable housing? or do you want to zero?

i think that, it is not always that clear. at some point, projects can't move forward if you ask them to do too much. this body has, in the past, worked on and extracted community benefits and/or higher levels of inclusionary housing from developments that we know will never get built this is just increased dramatically over the last five years. they are continuing to go up. at some point, we will not see any development and i know that some people would prefer that i know that this housing crisis in this city is real and the choice between a significant amount of affordable housing at different levels, which i think, i'm fundamentally in support of and we worked long and hard to increase that. and also, let's not forget that these projects were grandfathered and. by right they had much lower

levels of affordability. you push that to a higher level. i commend you for that and i am in support of this today. >> thank you, very much. do we have a motion on item two? >> i will make the motion to move this forward recommendation to the full board. >> ok. item three, please. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code and the zoning map to establish the special use district and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. i don't know if someone is here from supervisor fewer's office at the moment. >> he was just in the well. >> are you going to come and speak? >> i thought may be he thought -- >> i can speak. sorry. my apologies.

i will make supervisor fewer's points today. supervisor fewer introduces legislation to create the special use district at the request of st. peter's episcopal church who wanted to renovate the building and the rear yard of their lot and lease the space to the community survey nonprofits. supervisor fewer felt it would be much better for the structure to be revitalized and used to serve the community rather than allow a derelict building to fall into disrepair. she also agreed to a proposal on the condition that they would do outreach to the neighbors in regards to the plan and mitigate any concerns that they may have. supervisor fewer is sensitive to concerns that this could potentially have parking and trapping dust traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods which is why she wants to ensure that it is a special use district and would be exclusively for administrative offset -- office use with no direct services provided on site limiting this project will prevent the influx of traffic that would result if people were visiting the site throughout the

day to receive services. as such, supervisor fewer asked me to introduce an amendment to make it clear that no on site services will be allowed and the amendment is on page 3, line five stating that the use of permitted by subsection d. one shall not provide services or sales directly to the general public in the 43029. colleagues, she asked for your consideration and support and at this time, if we can open up for public comment on this item. >> we also have aaron start here from the planning department. >> thank you. the planning commission heard this item on october 11th. there were two auto members who spoke in favor of the ordinance at the hearing. the commission voted unanimously to approve with modifications the proposed ordinance and it is our understanding that supervisor fewer supported one of those modifications which is to clarify that no direct services may be provided on site

we would like to thank the supervisor for making this recommended modification and i am available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. we will open up item three to public comment. any members of the public who would wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we get a motion on the amendment? >> motion to accept the amendment as proposed. >> we will do that without objection. on the other underlying item -- >> motion two-cent to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> we will do that also without objection. can we move up to item four, please. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code to create new use of allowing flexible multiuse retail permitting temporary pop-up retail uses and commercial spaces and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you, colleagues. this is a legislation that i introduced to address, as one of several tools, the number of

vacancies that we have throughout the city. i originally started with this legislation only in district four but since then, a couple of different districts have joined in that includes district one, five, ten and 11. basically what we are doing is creating a new use under the planning code called flexible retail. it involves six different uses. arts activities, limited restaurants, general retail sales and services, personal service, retail professional service and trade shops. the concept behind this new use under the planning code is that you can, at any time switch between any of those six uses without having to obtain additional change of use permits to the planning department, as long as, at any given time, you have two of those six uses. we have made many amendments since the introduction of the legislation which are included as part of the packet today. i had introduced substitute

legislation on october 30th. that includes adding in districts one, five, ten, and 11 we are also requiring those six uses within the flexible retail use category be permitted in the underlying zoning district. we want to make sure that people do not take advantage of the new flexible retail use to get around the underlining -- underlying zoning. we are clarifying that all the other city departments approval will apply. we are also requiring that to establish and maintain the flexible retail use, they must operate at least two of the uses at any given time. there will be a grace period to allow for businesses to search for other business tenants if one goes away. i believe that the version in front of you actually has extended to 90 days instead of 60. we do know it might be difficult for people to find other tenants to share space with. we are also adding a new section under the planning code, section

205 to create a new 60 day pop up temporary use permit. i am sure that a lot of us in the corridor see different pop-ups in the retail corridors however there hasn't really been an actual code section defining that spelling apps that use. we are simply codifying a practice that has been in existence. we are also including or allowing flexible retail use in n.c.t. neighborhood commercial transit districts and neighborhood commercial shopping centre districts. the reason why we are doing that is, originally, this legislation only applied to district four. lastly, we are also permitting arts activities uses in all the n.c.t. in district one, five, ten and 11. we did this in district four.

previously, prior to article seven code reorganization, arts activities was not a defining use. after the code reorganization, any use that was previously undefined in article seven was listed as not permitted. so all of those districts have agreed and i am encouraged to see that we want to permit more arts activities in our neighborhoods. in summary, we do have several tools in existence for uses in our commercial spaces. you are also allowed to obtain the appropriate permits to establish multiple use on one site. what is different about this flexible retail use category as you can interchange between these six uses without obtaining additional change of use permits to allow more flexibility in the use of your space. those six activities are arts activities, limited restaurant, general retail sales and

services, personal service, retail professional service and trade shops. i want to thank the planning department, especially audrey worked on this as well as our staff at oewd. again, as the retail -- retailers are really struggling, not just in san francisco but nationwide with e-commerce and other competing services. we need to make sure that we are giving as much flexibility for businesses to be able to operate their space. i hope this tool will help and perhaps other district supervisors will want to join in in the future. with that, supervisors. >> thank you. i know we worked with your office to support this. thank you for your leadership. thank you for the planning department. this is something that has happened in my district, unpermitted. i think because of the starship -- the environment to start

businesses and start endeavours is often -- it has a steep hill to climb. we see this happening. one of the things i just thought of was we did not include -- i may come back and i probably will. is the institutional uses. often times under that category, they don't have a lot of money to pay for full-time rent and some of them only operate one day a week. i am probably going -- i literally just thought about it right now. on sunday i saw that happening when i was walking down the street and i saw a shop that is normally one use and then there was an institutional use going on while that was happening. that is not something that was discussed as part of the menu of options. is that right? from planning? that was not discussed. we can come back and look at it. other than that, the idea of having -- and there are other parts of the city that this is also operating and i wonder how

they have been doing it without this legislation. it is really good to codify this it allows small businesses and startups to work together and share the cost of doing business and may be even the start startup cost were opening a business. i think this is a pretty wonderful piece of legislation. it will also help my district, in particular because we have a high rate of vacancies and empty storefronts. we hope this will encourage businesses to co- locate and work together. thank you for everything that you did on this. this will be very helpful and another tool to add to the menu of options to help with neighborhood revitalization. >> thank you. i don't see audrey here so i will call up aaron start from the planning department. >> thank you. i am the manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. the commission heard this sentiment on october 18th and

voted unanimously to improve the ordinance with modifications. those modifications were just presented as amendments. they have been included in the version that are before you today. we would like to thank supervisor tank for her work on this and making us a partner. we appreciate this and while this is a very new type of use for the planning department, we are going forward with cautious optimism on its implementation. >> thank you. another way to say this is very complicated for implementation. thank you for your partnership on this. all right. if there are no other comments and questions, i will open it up for public comments. any members of the public who would wish to speak? see an uncapped public comment is closed. can we get a motion on item four >> i would like to make a motion -- first we need to adopt the amendments. >> know it was substitute legislation. >> there this -- his in this item to the full board. >> we will do that without objection. all right. can we move onto the next item, please?

>> item five is an ordinance amending the planning code modifying better street plan requirements and curb cut restrictions. >> thank you. i will turn it over to the sponsor. >> thank you. this is a duplicated file that we hurried at land use committee a few weeks ago. in which the first file has passed at first reading with the full board. cleaning up our better street legislation and how -- and the requirements of the planning department to impose on new developments or on developments that are a large-scale change of use. during our hearing several weeks ago, the planning commission stated that we should completely eliminate minimum parking requirements throughout san francisco and suggested that as an amendment for this ordinance. i duplicated the file at the land use committee and asked the city attorney to draft an

amendment that would eliminate minimum parking requirements throughout the city. numerous policies approved by the board support removing minimum parking requirements including allowing construction of housing to be more affordable , achieving vision zero, getting to zero fatalities within the next seven years at the city and county of san francisco. implementing a transit first policy, better street as well as place making. the city has been moving in this direction for quite a bit of time and have created many pathways in the planning code for projects to reduce or eliminate their offstreet parking requirements. there is no policy rationale for keeping minimum parking requirements and any zoning district in the city. section 161 provides numerous exemptions from offstreet parking requirements. we also allow projects to swap in bike parking instead of vehicular parking. we exempt 100% affordable

housing projects for minimum parking requirements and we also allow many projects to reduce their parking requirements through the t.d.m. ordinance, home s.f., a.d.u. ordinance and the zoning administrator may also exempt projects in the n.c. or n.c.t. districts administratively. each zoning district will still maintain their existing parking maximum. we remove the floor and not the ceiling. developers can continue to build parking as allowed by the planning code. we just delete to the requirement that they must build minimum parking controls. removing the minimum parking controls will also simplify our development process and provide certainty to developers and small property owners. it will not change the physical outcome of the project much from the current practice that will result in increased efficiencies moving projects more quickly through the planning process, which i know all of us here on the board of supervisors supports. we already allow this as a

standard practice. we should own it. this is not a bad on offstreet parking. developers often have a financial incentive to provide parking and will continue to do so as the market demands. the department will no longer required to developments to add parking and we typically encourage developers to reduce parking and certainly in the projects in the district that i represent, we have significantly reduced parking in new developments and new construction. if we pass this amendment to, san francisco will be the first major city in the country to remove parking minimum citywide. the only other city in north america to have done so it's connecticut and i think we have gone beyond national and we are talking about north america. i think that includes canada. we do have paul who is here today to present on this item. our senior urban planner that has been working with the office for the last 20 years on the ordinance and we also have erin starr and jos available to answer any questions but i did not -- i did want to bring him up first.

>> thank you. i have a short presentation if you are interested in hearing it we are here to talk about this amendment to remove minimum project requirements from the planning code. before i start to, i want to give shout outs to our planning commission. when this came up at the commission they were using terms like common sense. this is long overdue. i think when the commission changes the staff recommendation , it by default becomes the department's position. we are proactive proud of our commission and we supports their amendment. i want to thank supervisor kim. during your tenure on the board, you have been a tireless champion for vision zero and you have back to it up with rhetoric and my planning colleagues,

especially erin starr who has been a great mentor. as supervisor kim -- there may be redundancy between what i'm about to tell you but we have numerous policies that support this around safety, around affordability, around mode shift , place making design and i would add to include fairness and equity. basic principle of fairness and how we treat our applicants and how we manage our developing process. briefly, what we are doing today , all zoning districts in san francisco have a maximum parking that they can build. maybe it is 1.5 parking spaces for every unit. some zoning districts have minimums. we have been systematically, over the past couple decades, removing those minimums from the code. today, we are not changing any of the maximums. as of right now, any of these

districts will be able to build up to the maximum if they choose to. we are removing the minimums where they exist and we are not touching any of the loading requirements. the difference between offstreet parking for private vehicles versus the ability for people to deliver goods and services, and that is something that we are keeping very separate. there are numerous past white dress pathways for projects to remove parking that required parking amendments. to the point where we don't actually have requirements anymore. they aren't in any zoning district or any development. they can remove parking minimums these pathways are redundant so they can choose multiple ways to do it. any parking space required could be replaced by a bike parking space. one hundred% affordable housing projects are exempted.

the a.d.u. ordinance is foundational to the success of the a.d.u. program in the zoning administrator may exempt projects in any district where administratively to reduce parking. there is a whole litany of other special conditions that we have come up with and then of course, just last week, you and your colleagues from the board voted unanimously to remove parking minimums for any project whose sole frontage is on a street where the city is there and we do not want curb cuts. we always say that we will make things more efficient and more legible but we are definitely making it more legible. this will be a substantial improvement to the code and there is a lot of places where the minimum parking requirements shows up in the code and this really creates confusion, mainly for the smallest applicants. small property owners are small business owners who may not have

the resources to hire an armada of land use attorneys or permit expediters to help them navigate our process. so this will make it very clear to people that they can have the right to remove parking and we would also support them doing this. and once again, this is not a bad on offstreet parking. developers will still be able to build parking. we expect, in most cases, they will want to. we were sitting around talking about this as a group and no one in the team could remember a time where we had requested a developer to build more parking. when a developer comes to us and says they don't need all the parking and they don't wanted to , the department will find a way to support them. but they operate under their own financial constraints and there are times when funders require them to build parking. they will continue to be able to build parking if it is allowed. when staff is talking about this , we could not come up a policy rationale for keeping

this in the code. as supervisor kim said, we don't support it. we have a litany of policies in place and we have a clear policy and direction from the board. from the voters and we should be reducing parking minimums. this department has worked closely with the board over the years to make it easier to get around to these rules and we should be transparent in our codes. that concludes my presentation. i am also joined by my colleagues and this gets pretty technical but we are happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions or comments, colleagues? >> i do but after public comment >> we will go to public comments any members of the public who wish to speak on item five please come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i live in district five. i recently have been picking up a book by a professor of urban planning at ucla. he describes parking minimum requirements in a way that i cannot. i will instead read to you if you choice excerpts. the belief that minimum parking requirements are based on rational city and planning resembles the belief that the earth is flat and balanced on the back of a giant turtle. parking requirements assume that everyone is parked at home and everyone is parked at work and everyone is parked at school and everyone is shopping on the day after thanksgiving and so on for every land-use simultaneously. if parking requirements do not meet the peak demand for free parking everywhere, there may be some shortage of parking somewhere, sometime which is intolerable. with that in mind, i thank you very much for introducing this legislation. this will be a huge step.

even if san francisco has taken a number of steps over the years to cut down on minimum parking requirements, it is great to finally kill it entirely. this will make housing more affordable. this will make the city more equitable. i couldn't be happier. i know a number of people are ecstatic to see this finally happening. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am the senior community organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition. over the past few years, we worked closely with supervisor kim on institutionalizing best practices for street design so we can bring our streets up to the standards. we will continue to fight for projects for better bicycle and pedestrian safety. one of the biggest opportunities that we have to advance street safety is through new development. that is why we are excited to

support the amendments to the planning code and modified the better streets plan legislation. we appreciate the majority of these amendments were accepted recently however there is still one amendment we are seeking today. the removal of parking minimums citywide. when heard of the planning commission on october 18th, the commissioners went above and beyond recommendations because they recognize that the antiquated land use policies in san francisco have a real and negative impact on our city's ability to live out our transit first policy. as a city, we should provide ourselves -- pride ourselves, excuse me, on upholding the highest and best standards when it comes to urban planning principles. this means development, especially housing, is much more expensive. it induces the demand for driving and with san francisco, they have the third worst traffic and the nation. is irresponsible to say no to best practices for land use and transportation.

for the sake of future generations, we strongly encourage you to move forward with a recommendation today. thank you. >> good afternoon. and the planning director of the sfmta. i am here to say that the m.t.a. very much appreciates the actions taken by the planning commission and by supervisor kim and the planning department on this front. parking minimums have no place in a transit first city. they have no place in a vision zero city. and good transportation policy happens on both sides of the property line. i also want to add that in my 13 years working for this city in the planning department and at sfmta, i have never once had to echo being part of a discussion about a development project where there was any desire on the part of the city to see more parking added. there have been many discussions involving looking to have less

parking added. our next step is to look at some parking maximums as well and stronger ones. most of all, i want to say, thank you. sfmta is fully supportive. >> hello, supervisors. i am here to support eliminating minimum parking requirements. i am offering comments here is as a san francisco resident but also i am a proud renter but also as a parking professional. i work for a small software company in san francisco that helps cities use data to improve parking management. i work with cities to analyse occupancy patterns across on street lots and garages. through my work, one thing has become clear. parking is massively oversupplied. very rarely do parking facilities reach capacity, and if they do, there is often available parking within one or two blocks. one of our clients, the city of santa monica, took this to heart

and eliminated their requirements in the summer of 2017. the data behind this policy makes the decision obvious. santa monica, similar to san francisco owns 13 garages. six of which operate within the downtown core and contain just over 3400 parking spaces. in 2018, the average peak occupancy across the structures was only 62% meaning there were more than 1,200 species available at peak times. during the busiest day of the year in santa monica during the marathon, the structures reached a peak of 85% leaving 535 spaces available. minimum parking requirements raise to the cost of development which increases housing costs and increases car use. all contrary to the environmental equity and sustainability goals. santa monica understands there is plenty of parking inventory to begin with and that instead of building new parking they are focused on doing more with the supply they already have. i am not privy to the specific

occupancy patterns in san francisco, i can assure you there's no shellfish of parking. we have more than force hundred 60,000 parking spaces in our city. we should be focused on making sure the existing inventory is properly used and not adding inventory to an already oversupplied market. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the deputy director for planning at the sfmta. i would like to add to the voices of support for sponsoring this amendment. thank you to supervisor kim for sponsoring it and to all of you for working on it. eliminating offstreet parking requirements is kind of a no-brainer. our interest and it comes from our role as the congestion management agency. and we strongly support it.

particularly for that congestion management reason. eliminating the parking minimums will help us manage congestion better and further our transit first policies because we already know that providing parking, a several of your previous speakers have mentioned has historically been one of the biggest drivers of demands for private vehicle trips and thus of congestion in san francisco and in other cities around the country. changing that requirement is one of the most important things that cities can do. it will also help us by doing -- having those same impacts to reach our climate change and vision zero goals. because having fewer of those spaces will lead to having fewer vehicles and less driving. as others have mentioned to, it will help us address our housing affordability issues because minimum parking requirements, if they ever do get put into effect , drive up cost. it will also be in line with our

existing policy. adding to the list that paul described as far back as 20 -- 2004 in the san francisco transportation plan, this board, in his other role as a t.a. board, adopted a plan that recommended removing parking minimums and setting maximums instead. so following through on this will be a way of completing this recommendations that were set 14 years ago. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. i am speaking on behalf of the neighbors for density which is a urban group. i will not repeat all the other comments that folks have made but one thing i wanted to emphasize, we are not locking anything in stone. we are allowing for flexibility in future projects as possible. we understand and are aware of the fears about parking and congestion that exist in a lot of the city.

it does not change the rules on any of those projects. it just means we can continue to have conversations. it reduces the amount of congestion within a neighborhood and not add to it. will be able to talk to community members around the city and explain this is something that will make straits -- make streets less congested. we look forward to trying to continue to spread that message and that information. we want to thank supervisor kim for leadership on this legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of livable city. we wanted to thank supervisor kim for bringing this forward. it is long overdue. parking requirements were imposed in the city in 1955 and based on a piece of junk science can't predict and provide which said parking is inevitable and if you provide enough parking to meet a demand, you will meet a pre-existing demand.

demand is fixed. if you do not provide parking, people will drive around in circles all day. we know and understand a lot more about transportation. we understand induced demand. we understand that if you build more parking and require everyone to build more parking, you get more cars and you get more traffic. it also does a lot of other awful things, as you have heard over the years. parking tribes of the cost of housing and makes it impossible to build certain types of housing like a.d.u. a lot of you have voted. thank you to relax parking requirements in the interest of making housing more affordable in this city. parking destroys our streetscapes and replaces front gardens and replaces storefronts with garages and driveways. it really erodes the walk ability and the character of our city. if someone was inventing parking requirements today and if one of you had proposed this, we would take all the information that we know and say this is a disaster. it will increase greenhouse gas emissions and increase pollution and congestion.

it will make housing more expensive and make housing less affordable and available. it is going to endanger pedestrians and cyclists and slow down transit use. why would we do this? the only reason we have this is because we had it for a long time. so we hope that you will act today in supporting this legislation and let's get rid of minimum parking requirements. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am alice rogers and i'm here as an individual strongly supports the better streets legislation but also for walk san francisco. i am a director there and walk san francisco, not only participated in developing this legislation, but very strongly supports it. you have heard a litany of all the reasons why you should support this and i second and third and fourth all of those. walk san francisco has just completed or is completing a strategic plan process and along

with our very strong and focused focus on safety, equity is right there as well. so this is an important move towards that. there are no losers to this recommendation. the inverse is true. should you keep the minimum parking requirements, you have just heard that there will be losers so we encourage you, like the previous legislation, that you are considering on changing the flexible retail. this legislation recommends trends that are already happening. people have already shifted to share mobility options. let's do away with a minimum parking. thank you. >> good afternoon. we want to add our voice to the

litany of people who think that it is time to do away with minimum parking requirements. i want to say that when this came up, i called a bunch of our members to ask them what is going on in multifamily housing with parking garages? every single person i spoke to said that there garages are about less than 70% full. that this parking -- private parking with housing is something that is an old policy that no longer needs to be done. i also want to acknowledge that we are mostly talking about multifamily housing. that the outer supervisorial districts, perhaps it is much more geared toward single-family homes and i'm not sure that this legislation would strongly affect what is going on in the districts. we are talking about places that are building much of the multifamily housing and that

there is rich transit in those areas. there really is no need to have a minimum requirement. there are needs for parking and it is available. on parking, they need better public transit but that could be a conversation for another day. so thank you for bringing this forward. we are very happy to be supportive. it is about time we see this legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from spur. i'm also here to echo the supportive remarks or supervisor kim's proposal to eliminate parking requirements. it is all in the right spirit of changing the way we use our streets and allocate our space both on the streets and within the block and this will help to provide more housing for people as opposed to cars and be in the right spirit of the things we have already been doing and plans in terms of getting rid of

parking minimums and expanding parking maximums. thank you, very much. >> any other members of the public who wish to speak on item five? public comment is closed. supervisor? >> i don't necessarily disagree with some of the things that were talked about today. i just think, for something like this, it may be a no-brainer for the pot just all the planners in the room and the people that are concerned about being transit first and being able to walk the city and a healthy way. i don't know if the public has had time to weigh in on this. i don't know if there has been a conversation where people really understand what that means. whether it is development of community, community groups, whether it is the transit corridor. i will not get into any philosophical difference. i get it. people want to remove parking. i will tell you, in practice, what ends up happening consistently when you have

conversations with the planning department and the planning department says they have never seen a situation where they don't -- where they ever ask for more, that might be in the last decade and a half. i can show you, being in multiple conversations over the last decade and a half, when you start talking to them about reaching a maximum threshold, if that is what the developer wants or the community wants in a particular area, there is significant pushback. i understand that sometimes these minimums are there to provide a little bit of balance in the conversation. i understand in certain parts of the city and i see your point. in your district and other districts that might make more sense. i represent a very residential part of san francisco. i also represent a part of the city that has the highest concentration of children under the age of 18. there's probably a very strong correlation with that. doesn't mean that you can't bite your children across the city or take take -- or take public

transportation across the city. the families that i work with and represent have cars because they have to have cars. not because they want to cars. but to be able to get from the presidio at 11:00 am and then turn right around and get to the sunset at 1:00 pm, given soccer game schedules, whatever activities you are doing with your children, that is on a saturday. there is absolutely no way i could get to my children's soccer game without a car. that is just the truth. because of the proximity of the way the schedules work. that is the absolute truth. i wish there were a way i could do that. that doesn't mean that minimum parking requirements have anything to do with that. i understand you would say that having less cars would provide for less traffic and then you could -- but the point is, the people i represented my part of town have cars. you're having a parking summit this thursday because we are

going to forward the conversation about limiting the number of -- we want to have residential permits and have a real open conversation about that and we want to talk about limiting the number of cars per household. because people can't park and people want to have at least one or two spots for their households. they don't even have that option there is a lot built into this conversation. i just personally don't feel like it has been vetted enough. it doesn't mean we wouldn't end up where we still are right now, but i don't feel comfortable voting on this today without having more community process and a conversation about it so people can be informed about what it really means and how it would impact their community. >> supervisor kim? >> the one thing that i would note about the legislation is again, it does not stand -- band cars and new developments. my guess that developers in the outlying districts will continue to build parking as allowed to the maximum or under.

because the market demands for it. i do think that the issue should come up in individual projects. as it goes through the planning commission process or if they come to the board of supervisors this ordinance merely provides additional flexibility to developers who want to build less than minimum or who feel that they don't need to build parking at all in their new projects and then they are able to build housing more quickly and more affordably because they don't have this requirement before them. i do think that there will still be a great deal of conversation about parking and its need as each individual project moves through without this entire ordinance having to have a citywide discussion. again, we are not banning parking. we are not prohibiting parking or cars. that conversation will still continue as we continue to plan for our neighborhoods. i do hope that this committee will consider forwarding this out to the full board with recommendations.

i do want to quickly thank all of the planners that did come today. i don't remember the last time i have seen so many city staff members come out to speak at public comment. i do appreciate the planning nerds coming from sfmta to speak on support of this ordinance. i did forget to thank alice rogers and others who did work on the underlying ordinance to improve and clean up our better streets ordinance and for their support of this amendment that is before us today. i also want to thank members of the audience that voted today. i see you with your stickers. i don't think this ends the discussion. each individual project will still continue to do a ton of neighborhood outreach around the amount of parking that is appropriate for that development and that conversation will continue. this ordinance merely removes the mandate for minimum parking to be included in projects. >> thank you. this is one of those issues

where is very challenging for me on a professional basis and also a personal. on a personal level, i have no problem with what you are doing today. i think, especially in neighborhoods and districts like yours, it makes absolute sense. i hear you well and clear it is not a ban on removal -- it is not removing all parking. there will still be those conversations per specific developments. that is -- on a personal level, i absolutely am someone who wants to create more affordable housing. i am wearing my professional hat is a supervisor representing a district with a lot of families and children. with the highest number of seniors is in our district, one of the top districts for children as well. a lot of our families do need cars, unfortunately. there is not a day that goes by where i don't get massive numbers of e-mails or complaints about munimobile services, unfortunately.

i wish it were better. we even have a project being developed great by judas street. accord or that is transit. and the number 1 issue there is around parking. and even though we are trying to develop housing for educators, it is being overshadowed by the fact that people don't feel that there is enough parking there which is unfortunate. i think that, again, we would love to really change the conversation and that tone. but perhaps we do need to have more of that dialogue with the community. the other note i would make is that i know that alarm corridors like taraval and others, that planning would most likely not allow for one for one parking. the effect of this ordinance, i see is it probably won't be as

scary as most residents think but perhaps we need to have conversation with them. a lot of our merchants, residents have already struggled with a lot of the parking removals that have happened as a result of the transit improvements that have been coming. so they are very wary of whenever there are changes to these kinds of things. even having that dialogue with some of these resident groups or merchant associations will help a little bit. on a personal and professional level, i understand what you are doing and how it will not actually ban the ability for a project sponsor to grant parking with new developments. with that said, i would be ok, especially with the parking summit, that perhaps you can float the idea with them first and may be we can continue this conversation. >> the other thing i would say, and i think this feeds into one

of the biggest criticisms that we get about the sfmta. i know this is not an sfmta proposal. but it is a parking issue related to land use. i believe that one of the shortcomings of this is it is a community process. that is one of the biggest criticisms would get about the sfmta when decisions are made. the planning department, i think does a better job. i think for there to be a larger conversation about this, we shouldn't shy away from it. this is as easy as a no-brainer and we should have that conversation in the community and get feedback and have people understand. the worst thing i would want people to do is to say that this was decided and rushed and it was expedited and there wasn't input and there wasn't a full vetting. there is a whole host of neighborhood organizations that we have that we can access and have conversations with that will allow for input.

at the end of the date we end on the same results. great. but at least we have had that opportunity to have a full vetting with the community it citywide. i don't think that this is a conversation that should be rushed. >> thank you. i think we were just discussing perhaps reaching out to the planning staff in terms of some of the community groups that we would love for you to have a discussion with. may be understanding what it actually means will help alleviate some of the concerns around this. certainly i think i, and other supervisors are getting flooded with e-mails. both in support but also showing concerns. may be we can share that with you and continue that conversation on another date at land use. if that's ok. so while i would love to pass this out at committee today, i will respect my colleagues in asking for more outreach to be

done in their districts. i do wants the committee members to be as specific as possible about what the outreach that needs to be done would look like i would hate for us to come back on november 26th. we don't have a land use committee on the 19th. and then have done some outreach and then hear from community members that they still didn't feel comfortable with moving forward with the ordinance because this particular outreach had not been done or something else. so if the committee could provide a specific directive to our office and to the planning department on what we can do to make sure that there was an appropriate conversation that occurred in the neighborhood, than i would feel comfortable with the continuance. >> thank you. i would be happy to provide that information to planning and your office. >> ok. we will also? what some of the other offices to see what outreach or notification they would like to see happen within their neighborhood.

again, i hope the committee will eventually feel comfortable with moving this forward. we have largely done away with a minimum parking requirements throughout the city. i actually thought we had eliminated minimum parking requirements until the planning commission recommended that we do so a couple weeks ago because they don't exist in the district that i represent because of a number of ways that we have cut at the parking requirements through section 161 and t.d.m. and home s.f. and a.d.u. i do think that this is important for us to do. and may be in some way symbolic. i think as a major city it is important for us to lead on this issue and talk about what it means to plan without minimum parking requirements. i think that that should come with deep investment into the public transit system and our bike network so that alternative to driving,. i do want to say it is possible

for families to live without cars. i grew up as a child in a family without a car. families do get around in urban cities without cars. it is possible. i also understand the calls for increased public transit and of course, the safer protected bike lanes so families feel comfortable with other modes of transportation as well. i want to thank all the members of the public that came out today. i hope we can pass this out on the 26 to the full board. our office will work with the planning department as well as the two offices here to ensure the outreach that is being requested is done before monday, november 25th. >> thank you for understanding. i think this conversation goes hand-in-hand with the need for improved public transportation. that is number 1 thing that comes up when we talk about proposed development in our district.

even if it is few and far in between compared to other districts. that is the number 1 thing. so if we can couple these changes together, which i know is hard, but other wise, i think we will continue to feel that resistance from families. i totally get it. in any case. >> yes. a point of clarification. i wasn't saying you couldn't live in the city has a family. i grew up in the city on the east coast like you did that had a world-class transportation system and i rode transportation from the time i could walk. i am 100% respecting and acknowledging that you can live. my point is that there are certain neighborhoods that are far more isolated than the downtown core that you represent and are much more isolated when it comes to public transportation and the service that is provided. we can have that debate at a later time. all the different modes of transportation that are offered in certain parts of the city and are not operated in other parts

of the city. myself and supervisor cohen are in the process of reaching out to the sfmta as it pertains to the scooter permitting process. it was extremely isolating and overlooking for parts of the city where an area of concentration is. it is concentrated in your part of town and isolated and neglecting our part of town. we will continue to push that conversation and yes, you can live in the city without a car. in certain parts of the city where public transportation is a wanting and needing to be improved, we need to acknowledge that and acknowledge that we need to respect that in a different way. thank you. >> all right. i guess we will have a motion to continue this item to november 26 pending further outreach. >> just, the amendment the supervisor kim was proposing today are substantive and if the

committee on the 26th were to adopt those amendments, they would be substantial if then. if you want to come up to committee on the 26th, you should make it committee then and continue it. >> actually thought i did that motion. i would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments today and again, this is one of the challenges of the brown act is that land use committee members cannot discuss these policies prior to the committee hearing. is great to hear from my colleagues about what they would like to say. i went make the motion to adopt the amendments as i articulated. >> thank you. can we do that without objection >> can you restate the amendments, please? >> the amendment is to eliminate the minimum parking requirements citywide. >> that is the amendments? >> that is the amendment. the reason why i will not read all of it into the record is because we had to rework huge

swaths of the planning code to eliminate the minimum parking requirements throughout the planning code. but what the amendment does will illuminate minimum parking requirements. if you would like a member -- >> that's fine. oh, gosh. supervisor tang. >> i'm sorry. we are confirming when the thanksgiving schedule is. there is supposedly a meeting on the 19th. >> no. that is the week of thanksgiving i will not be here. >> ok. we are having a meeting on the 26th and the clerk will notice to not have a meeting on the 19 th. the week of thanksgiving. >> once again, the schools are

shut down. at least public schools are shut down in san francisco for the entire week so i will be with my children that week. >> so, are you ok with adopting the amendments? >> yes. >> we will do that. >> we will do that without objection and we will continue the item until november 26th. all right. ok. moving onto the next item. item six. >> item number 6 is an ordinance amending the division one of the transportation corps to establish a procedure for board of supervisors review of certain municipal transportation agency divisions related to the rapid transit projects and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have heard from supervisor peskin's office. thank you for hearing this item. by way of background, in 2007,

the voters of the city and county of san francisco opposite -- adopted proposition a which consolidated m.t.a. in the department of parking and traffic. within the text of that, was a provision that allowed the board of supervisors to enact an ordinance that would give it review over sfmta decisions regarding various curb space decisions, bicycle lanes, traffic mitigation measures, et cetera. earlier this year over a decade after the past prop eight, they cosponsored an ordinance to enact that review provision. in doing so, they expressly exempted certain projects from review that were determined to be unequivocally in the public interest. under that existing law, the board of supervisors can review a variety of curved management decisions but it would not be allowed to review the implementation of it really public projects like bike lanes