best practices define key components of the 1550 evans campus, which include a new community center, featuring cafe and computer lab, child care center, second floor with multipurpose rooms for events and third floor co working spaces for non-profits. education building that will provide academic and workforce programs to support training for living wage jobs in our industry and other industries. and the third feature is activated open space which is a critically important feature desired by this community experiencing disproportionately less active green space than the rest of the city. each ensures it continues to honor the legacy of the community leaders who fought for the construction of the southeast center. moreover, the components allow us to deliver on the promise,

provide residents with meaningful economic and workforce development opportunities in an inclusive manner. so after more than six years of engaging residents and stakeholders in multirounds of engagement, i'm proud to stand before you and share this is the site plan which is supported by the s.f. p.u.c. and southeast community commission. this project received civic design review approval in february and phase 2 approval last month. this is a view of the entrance to what we hope will be the new southeast community center from the intersection of third and evans. you will notice some of the actively used outdoor space in the foreground and community center toward the rear of the site. this is a view of the entrance from the evans avenue with the workforce building peeking out from the right and picnic area on the left.

this is a view of the community center from the garden and the picnic area. in addition to providing active outdoor space, this area also serves as a demonstration for complying with our city's own storm water management ordinance. this is a view of the community center from the meadows and the lawn with the community center directly in front of us and alex pitcher pavilion peeking out from the trees on the right. this is a view of the community center from what we are calling boulder hill, the outdoor playground for the children. it will incorporate natural play spaces. and here is a depiction of some of those natural play spaces for the children, unlike standard cookie cutter metal and plastic play structures that make up the bulk of today's playgrounds our site will be sure to incorporate the surrounding landscape and

vegetation to bring nature to children's daily outdoor play and learning environments. that concludes our presentation for the southeast community center at 1550 evans. myself and my colleagues are more than happy to answer any questions you might have about this project. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you very much. i'm just wondering where you are all at in terms of the site plan. is that pretty set in stone? or is that still to be discussed? i know it says it was reveald in december 2017. >> yes, ma'am. the site plan received approvals phase one and phase two. at this point this is the site plan we are proceeding with for 1550 evans. >> supervisor k. tang: okay. and the reason why i asked is just because of the item in front of us today. i know this is a very large site. is this one component of it, or all of it? >> i'm sorry? >> supervisor k. tang: i guess what you showed here on slide 9? >> what we showed on slide 9 is

the site plan we intend to deliver to the community with the southeast community facility constructed by 2021 as well as the outdoor space and workforce building being completed shortly thereafter. >> supervisor k. tang: all right. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions, comments? no? supervisor cohen? okay. so why don't we go to public comment for item 2, then? any members of the public, please come on up. >> hi my name is dorothy kelly. i'm a resident of the bayview hunters view community. compared to the rest of the city bayview residents have less access to quality outdoor space. that means our families and kids have fewer opportunities to enjoy the benefits of being

and experiencing nature. the plans for 1550 evans fills this gap. it gives our kids a safe place to play outside and provides families for opportunities to have picnics and play outside. the city recently approved plans to spend $25 million to transform a former s.f.p.u.c. reservoir in russian hill into a new $4.5 acre park. the new park will have a multiuse lawn, children playground, dog park and community garden. since the city approved this for russian hill residents we should also move forward with s.f.p.u.c.'s plans for the new southeast community facility. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. we support the s.f.p.u.c.'s plans for the new southeast community center at 1550 evans. we have been involved with the planning process for this new center since 2011, as you heard before. and we are extremely excited to know that a new center will open in 2021. our community needs this workforce and education opportunity, as well as solutions to the environmental justice issues that continue to impact our community and our neighborhood. our past leaders, dr. jackson, harold madison, eloise westbrook, ethel gailing ton and shirley jones including mr. alex pitcher would be very proud of the s.f.p.u.c.'s plans to fulfill the city's historic promise to bayview.

and we look forward to all the benefits that future generations will receive when the new center is built. thank you for considering the community. thank you for understanding how important this is to the community. and let's move forward with it, thairnlg you. -- thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for allowing me to share my concerns and opinion. i just want to reiterate what you probably already heard. but bayview residents are clear, we want the s.f.p.u.c. to build a new community center at 1550 evans. you have already heard the statistics. 70% of bayview residents want the city to build a new community facility at 1550 evans avenue. the process for engauging residents was very transparent. san francisco p.u.c. partnered

with 16 bayview community organizations. knocked on 2,400 doors and attended 20 community events and 13 focus groups as well. they engaged with our community on social media, online. we want and we request and want in our heart to make sure we have this community center, the new one at 1550 evans. i appreciate your time. and we just want to move forward. and we really appreciate you listening to us and taking us into consideration. >> good afternoon, we welcome the new facility at 1550 evans. time and time ago we have seen family picnics and lifting voices together in praise are

subject to noise complaints and policy. the new center will be a place we can safely and publicly have our cultural celebrations while also honoring historic mitigation between bayview and the city. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i happen to be one of the ones who sat on a couple commissioner or p.u.c. meetings when they came into the bayview district. i myself am a resident of the city. i've been here all my life. but ten years i've been a bayview resident. some concerns they had before were promising the city just through life itself, they didn't receive. this time i'm pleased to see what the p.u.c. has recommended took into consideration what the bayview residents actually sat down and discussed. it's pleasing to see that you have taken the time to actually ask and will they come through

with what they propose. i was pleased to see what that gentleman showed on the slide screen as well as what the residents need. with our new housing we need, we have restrictions on how things are and it's not your problem but it's how we have to live with some restrictions we didn't have before. as stated we are trying to learn how to be more of a community. we can't have barbecues now, that's restricted. that's something we used to have. hopefully this type of environment, as we go through with the process of redeveloping new parts of the bayview will have this, that we used to, our culture is not the same, but it's what we do. we enjoy, sometimes a little loud, sometimes a little boisterous, our barbecues, it's what we do as a community. we need this for cohesiveness, and we intend to pass down. thank you very much. i appreciate the time.

>> hello, my name is patricia lun. hunter point residents have made it clear. more than 85% of the residential community asked the city to build a community center for them. thanks to s.f.p.c.u. this will be built by 2021. on evans street. this will help the new hunters point generation to reach unremarkable heights in life because of this center. on behalf of hunter point and residents they would like to thank each and everyone of you for the support. they also have a message that they would like to see that you get it done. thank you.

>> good afternoon to supervisors, how are you doing? my name is glenda jackson fagan, i'm the daughter of espinola jackson. when you opened up supervisor cohen, my heart was made glad. you already agreed to do these things, plus i'm glad for that. but a lot of people say a lot of things, but i just want to say we are the people here in bayview hunters point inherited this given to us and promised to us back in the day and we aren't going nowhere, we just want you to keep your promise and let the new community center, the education and training, because my mother fought so hard for education and that was her heart, even when she was in the hospital

was her last words to mr. harlan kelly, what are you doing with my -- she always called it my center. we thank you. so a lot of things have already been said, but you said enough. i just wanted to say thank you for speaking up for our community and we hope to see you soon. >> good afternoon, supervisors, good afternoon supervisor cohen. how are you today? i'm usually nervous at things like this but i'm bayview, we are all bayview here, as you could tell by the shirts. i've been to many community meetings and numerous things about this. i even took the day off work. i just wanted you to know how important this was for me today. i didn't have a great holiday. my husband was in a car

accident. and i'm in the hospital as we speak but this is so important for me to be here because this is bayview, this is our future. he is my future. this is my grandson. this child care facility, this outdoors, everything that this speaks of, 1550 for dr. espinola jackson is dear to my heart and that's why i'm here today with my daughter and my family to show you guys how important this is to me. so thank you, please let it move forward. we have been coming here for six years now. thank you so much for taking it into consideration. and please, please, please, pass this along. thank you. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is mr. hampton, i'm a

resident of bayview hunters point. i would like to keep this short. everyone stand up. on behalf of bayview hunters point we would like to say thank you, san francisco public utilities commission, thank you, supervisors and we are looking forward to seeing 2021 a brand new community center and an educational facility. thank you, once again. [ applause ] >> supervisor k. tang: thank you, everyone for coming out. anyone else like to comment on item 2? seeing no other, public comment closed. supervisor cohen? >> thank you. it's good to see so many of you come to the chamber and i love the shirts you are living, i love the fact dr. espinola jackson's memory lives on, even in the little one. we are going to deliver this.

[ applause ] >> supervisor k. tang: all right, colleagues. with that, i don't see any other questions or comments. do we want to get a motion on this item? >> supervisor j. kim: i'll make a motion to move forward with recommendation. >> supervisor k. tang: all right, we will do that without objection. [ applause ] thank you. madam clerk, please call item 3. >> ordinance amending the building code to modify the penalty for constructing an impervious surface in the front yard setback without improvement and making appropriate findings. >> supervisor k. tang: and if you want to chat with paul, he is right there. thank you. i'm just going to wait for the room to clear a little bit and then i will turn it over to supervisor safai. >> supervisor a. safai: thank you.

thank you, chair. this is a pretty straight forward piece of legislation. but we wanted to essentially respond in our district, i will let bill come up and speak in a comphinity -- minute if i have a question or two, but i want him to say a few words. there's a lot of impervious surfaces but they are being paved over. the office of building inspection are often in the field responding to notice of complaints. so we wanted to add the ability when they were out there to also respond to complaints and individuals that were paving over their service past the allowed amount. i know it's 50% in the front yard. we have requirements for trees and setbacks. we wanted to stay true to that

and add an additional level of eyes that could help us in the implementation of this. obviously with storm water run off, we have a lot of flooding in our district in certain areas. all of this adds to that problem. we understand that there's people that might need space and they can go through the permitting process for parking if allowable. but we want to also protect the green space in people's backyards. that's what this is about. adding an additional set of eyes through the department of building inspection, we work ed with bill stron and i want to thank him for his help, and i think it's a pretty straight forward piece of legislation and i ask for your support. through the chair, bill, do you want to add a few words? and this has full support from the department of building commission. >> yes, thank you. bill straun, with d.b.i. the commission voted unanimously in support of this. our deputy director ed sweeney

in particular worked closely with supervisor safai's office and the city attorney on the ordinance. we do have inspectors as supervisor safai just referred in the field all the time. and of course, we do try to respond to these complaints within 48-72 hours. i think the most recent strategic review of our plan shows that we do that about 98% of the time. we are quite enthusiastically looking forward to being responsive for this. >> supervisor a. safai: thank you. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you. and thank you supervisor safai for bringing this forth. can you elaborate a little more how it's different from what's being done currently. it looked like, i'm guessing this is a new civil penalty of $500 per day and criminal penalties per the building code, so that's new? >> yes, what's really new here is the penalties have been

increased for people who aren't being responsive to the notices of violation. >> supervisor a. safai: madam chair, just to add onto that, we also allow for corrective action, if someone is noticed, they have the ability to correct the violation. and right now, really, the inspectors in the department weren't really responding to or paying attention to this so this was really about putting this on the radar. >> supervisor k. tang: so the follow-up would require additional inspections from d.b.i. or planning. also, i remember working on this way back when i was a legislative aide trying to deal with front yard paving. i believe it was an administrative change perhaps through the planning department there would be a daily fine for each day someone didn't take corrective action. before what we noticed someone would pay this one-time penalty and leave the front yard with

concrete, right? so is that any different or still in place? again, maybe this is a question for mr. starr from the planning department. >> i believe the planning code remains in effect. i don't believe that was withdrawn by the city attorney. >> supervisor k. tang: okay, so daily fine from planning but also civil penalty from d.b.i. now. a lot of fines so people should definitely follow the rules. all right. corrective action still require -- okay, i'm just trying to see what is different from what is currently done. then the d.b.i. inspector under this would have to verify complaints if there had been a violation and someone took corrective action. >> right. there would be a follow-up inspection to see that the corrective action was carried out. >> supervisor k. tang: okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor a. safai: one of the things we added, if you look on page 3 of the ordinance.

it says the n.o.v. shall require the owner or owner's authorized representative have to apply for a permit to bring the existing service back into the area of compliance with the code. so not only do they have to, administrative fine, they actually as part of n.o.v. have to apply for, we added that language, they actually have to go through the process of applying for a permit. they can't just pay the fine and make it go away. that's another tool that both planning and building can work together on this issue. that was one of the major changes we added. >> supervisor k. tang: okay, and then also however, the regular trigger still apply. if paving over 200 square feet or new construction for expansion? >> yes. those are the same triggers, yes. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions, comments? any other staff reports on this?

no? okay. public comment on item 3, then? any members of the public who wish to speak come on up. seeing none, public comment closed. colleagues any action on item 3? >> supervisor j. kim: to make the motion to move this forward with recommendation. and i just want to thank supervisor safai, this is important to move forward. >> supervisor a. safai: thank you. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you. and we will do that without objection. madam clerk, item 5. >> item 5 ordinance amending the planning code to eliminate minimum off street parking requirements and making appropriate findings. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you, supervisor kim first. >> supervisor j. kim: thank you so much. thank you so much, chair tang. we actually heard this at land use committee. it began as a re-do of our better streets ordinance clean up language around curb cuts and also what we may require,

or ask developers to include as part of either a change of use or new development throughout our city. through that process when we went to the planning commission with this ordinance, the planning commission, to actually, to my support suggested we eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide. just to clarify what this amendment would do, it would not prohibit parking in any new development. it would merely remove the requirement that developer would have to build a minimal number of parking spaces. currently, many of the policies and programs that this board of supervisors has already passed has basically allowed us to waive the minimum parking requirements whether through t.d.m. policy or a.d.u.'s, we

allow developers to build bicycle parking instead. this feels pro forma but still is a very important policy step and if passed we will be the first major city to eliminate minimum parking requirements in north america. a pretty big accomplishment for our city. but we will be the second city in the u.s. to do it after another small city and i forget the name of that. we have mr. chathan here to provide a presentation. >> thank you, i imagine this is part of your presentation but just to let you know from the last land use meeting to now, what kind of community outreach you have done and what feedback. >> yes, thank you, supervisors, for having me. my name is paul khasen. to your point, supervisor tang, a summary how we got here, this grew out of another piece of

legislation that went through the board process and amendment. at the last hearing at the land use committee, there was -- the conversation, much of the public comment were about parking removal amendments. the last time we came to the committee were specifically with these amendments, ten comments in support and against. and the committee felt we needed a broader community conversation. we reached out specifically to your staff, supervisor safai and tang, for specific community contacts. we decided, we did that, but on top of that, we reached out to all the supervisors and invited, asked them to extend invitation to three community workshops at city hall. a workshop at lunch time, a morning workshop and an evening workshop. maximizing time so people could come, and offered translation services.

the first and last workshop had a fairly good turn out, the lunch time had about four people. at each workshop about 75% of the participants were in support of the legislation and about 25% were against. there were representatives from multiple neighborhood groups. these are the ones that came out in support of the legislation. i would say there was a little skepticism from traditional coalition neighborhoods, bernal heights. but that was basically the majority groups support. we received a couple more since this presentation around 49-50 letters of support. that was the outreach we had done. the presentation kind of mirrors roughly the presentation we gave at those workshops. i'm not going to get back in the process. i think this grew out of another piece of legislation. we came back to land use. you asked us to conduct

outreach, which we did and we are here to hopefully move it out of committee and have you vote on it. a quick summary of what's in this legislation. all zoning districts have a maximum parking requirement, a ceiling, if you will. we aren't touching the ceiling or changing the maximums. there's not that many zoning districts but they cover a large geographic area. we are taking away minimums, we aren't making changes to off street loading requirements. a developer can still build from 0 parking spaces all the way to the maximum under the code. we have a broad policy framework that this board and committee have voted on over the years to support this sort of in principle and this supports all these goals on housing and affordability and place making and safety. and as supervisor kim made in her opening remarks there are

many pathways in the code, the city effectively has no minimum parking requirements. there's no zoning district or special use district where the department enforces minimum parking requirements. for example, anyone can replace required car parking with bike parking, anywhere in any zoning district in the city. that's been in place for about five years. this isn't really going to change much in terms of outcomes. but it will improve our process and in doing so will support our smallest applicants, our most vulnerable applicants, small homeowners, property owners, business owners. because the code is so complex today, those are the groups who have the hardest times navigating it. we had at one of our workshops a gentleman from visitation said my brother wanted to put an a.d.u., he thought he wouldn't be able to because he thought he had to put car

parking, but he could have. but smaller applicants suffer under our system. so things will basically continue on as they will before. developers will still build parking, financially incented to and neighbors will probably pressure them to build parking. the last slide under the single family zoning districts, most who are building a new single family house can afford, they are multimillion dollar projects and they are the demographic. they can afford and will want parking. if someone is an environmentalist they can do that. [ please stand by... ] .requirement would mean to

them. they must also contribute to public transit for the new residents and we are a transit-first city. so you have heard this comment before. this must be included.

low-cost housing, must always be included in any consideration of policy for new buildings. because otherwise you are going to get sprawl. so, thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition, also in support. i won't really repeat my comments from the last time we gave comments on this but just one added component of the development economics, as you all know it's incredibly expensive to build housing -- or sorry, parking spots, it's expensive to build housing too, but that's a different conversation. we are talking about $75,000 per underground stall. this is a huge, huge cost for home builders to include it. often times we always try to encourage to do bike parking

and as many transit options as possible. no-brainer, i think is the word i used last time and reiterating that today. please support it and move it forward. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, my name is scott feeney. i am mission resident, i'm with -- mobility, also in support of the legislation. i want to thank supervisor kim for writing this and paul chasan for running the meeting, i think it's great work. this accomplishes two great goals for climate action. one by lowering the cost. also enabling us to move away from cars as the default mode of transportation as we grow, we will always have cars but it doesn't need to be the main thing we assume people use most

of the time, this is an important incremental step. i hope you will vote yes. >> we ran an online petition in support of this ordinance where we got 47 people to support, so we would like to thank supervisor kim for providing this important change. i live in a 33-unit building that has zero parking spaces and the reason it is that way, it was built in 1928 when there were no parking minimums. buildings like mine, you could probably technically build them now because the planning code is full of holes, you could say i will put in bike parking racks. or they will force me to have no parking, though they are also requiring me to have parking. this isn't how our planning

code should work. it incentivizes. meanwhile people who just have a house where they want to convert their garage to an a.d.u. say, wait i have to have a parking space, where am i going to put that? they don't know there's a loophole to put in a bike parking space and you don't have to have a parking space. i applaud this of the planning code and this effort to make our cities less car-centric. that's another reason the building was able to be built the way it was in 1928 because cars weren't the thing that they could build at the time. and honestly cities are better for it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i hope supervisor safai comes back soon because i want him to hear this. i was actually on the phone with one of his legislative

aide's recently and she was telling me how she wants her kids to be able to live in san francisco, and i know a hurdle for myself and others are housing costs and one of the biggest drivers of housing costs happens to be parking, that's incredibly expensive to build. this is a moment where i feel we need to be politically expedient, we need to be brave and climate leaders by removing these parking requirements from the planning code, of course, this doesn't require developers to not build parking if they so choose. i want to thank supervisor kim for being a leader and bringing this to the board of supervisors and hopefully you will let it get out of committee. so thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is ariel fleischer and i'm a senior transportation --

at s.p.u.r., we promote good planning and government in the bay area through education, research and add vo kay sy. -- advocacy. i'm here to ask you to support. we recommend the elimination of requirements that mandate a minimum number of parking spaces for new development. there is no good reason for the city to force the private market to produce parking spaces for every housing unit built. eliminating will reduce the cost of producing new housing and allow us to use our land more efficiently by replacing spaces for cars for spaces for people. requiring parking to be unbundled from homes in the city's area plab. -- plan. this should be pursued citywide. we urge you to support the legislation to eliminate minimum parking requirements. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. tom, executive director of livable city. we are here to urge you to support this legislation. as the case was made by paul and the folks from planning, this is an incremental step. not a big radical step. it's an incremental step, a journey that started in 1973, with the opening of b.a.r.t. where the city began to roll back the parking requirements that had been imposed in the 19 50's. the reason we have been rolling them back is a lot of the reasons you heard. they destroy streetscapes and neighborhoods. if you are concerned about green front yards, getting rid of minimum parking requirements is a great way to keep our front yards green, to keep neighborhoods urbane and walkable. process outlines a lot of different ways you could get exceptions for minimum parking requirements but also mentioned by the city attorney, everyone of those as is appealable.

so to say you have to seek an exception to do the thing we actually don't want you to do in the first place, we are going to require you to go through this exception process. it puts you in jeopardy, you could get dragged before the board of appeals by a neighbor or somebody who doesn't like what you are doing. this is much cleaner, much better to say these don't apply. that the parking requirement does not exist. i have never heard any real good arguments for minimum parking requirements. you hear people say it's hard to get around in my neighborhood. my other options aren't that robust. i'm sympathetic with that, i have walked, bicycled, took transit around the city for 30 years. those need to get better. we need to do better as a city. minimum parking requirements aren't the way to do that. if they were going to do that they would have done it

sometime in the last 60 years. we need to invest in sustainable -- >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is john paul, i'm with livable city and a resident of district 5. i'm here to voice my support in eliminating minimum parking requirements. i believe, as paul mentioned, over the weekend with the climate report released by the white house, we can't stress enough this city has to do everything it can to curb emissions and i believe this policy helps us pave the way to do that. i was very fortunate my employer allowed, or provided the masks when we had the terrible davis smoke here in the city. i don't think everyone had that option. but my point there is that transportation emissions in california is not decreasing

and i believe with taking away minimum parking requirements we would take a step towards getting to a point where we don't need to be relying on our cars. it really allows us to focus on our other transportation modes that we should be focusing on and not ignoring any more. again, i voice to support this motion. thank you. >> greetings, supervisors. great to be here. i'm tamika shinya. with livable cities. grateful for livable cities for educating not only the world but our staff in terms of having a livable city and coming to meetings like this to represent that importance and

also echoing with my colleague and the gentleman in terms of the last few weeks of the weather and how it basically took effect and the reality [ please stand by... ]

it became so ever present we need to do something proactive about climate change. we have an easy opportunity to start a conversation about the use of single-car ownership and how much that actually creates enormous amounts of emission for our state and the majority of our emissions are coming from vehicles. i do urge all of our leaders to take up this conversation and be the first major city here in the united states to remove the minimum parking requirements and start a dialogue how each community can make a sacrifice. towards the greater good and a climate we can all continue to live in. and i want to end on a note that i am from district 10,

specifically the baby. so i very much appreciate how vital driving a car can be to maintaining a job and life with children and i appreciate this is going to propel us to have those -- [bell ringing] >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm ellis rodgers a quarter century resident of district 6 and i'm the board president of walk san francisco. walk san francisco strongly supports this legislation and hopes it will unanimously pass out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. this is a triple win for people from san francisco and you can

use the land for specific basis if parking is not needed the sponsor can opt for more favorable public-serving amenities and also as has been said dramatically lowers development cost for projects that are not parking dependent and lower price which is is critically needed. finally, when parking is not fundamental to the project use, it encouraging project users to use habits more sustainable and walking and taking advantage of transit which we already invest in heavily and use shareable options. stim to the legislation would have a net effect of conflicts improving the likelihood it will

achieve our vision and goals. and as a greater percentage of people opt for getting around via other than single-family vehicles, we will reverse the unhealthy air quality now pervasive in too many neighborhoods. as others have said, now, every san franciscan knows what it's like to live in particle-laden air. some of us live adjacent to freeways and major arterials. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm karen allen a 24-year resident of noe valley and have children and two cannot afford to live in sfrans -- san francisco and the board president of livable city and support removing parking

minimums and not only should you eliminate parking minimums, but you should think ahead to the future when autonomous cabs, autonomous private electric cabs will make a lot of car use not necessarily anymore and there'll be a lot of parking we don't need. any parking built in my opinion, should be designed with a view to be able to be repurposed for housing or some other useful use in the future. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jeff and i'm a d9 resident and here in support for removing minimum parking requirement. i want to reiterate the points brought up by other commenters as well as the planning commission this is a small step that makes a huge impact in the united states as the major city of san francisco it's sort of a beacon of hope for the rest of

the city and the rest of country looks to us in terms of moving forward and being proactive against climate change and the health of the world, the global climate and everything like that so san francisco can make a huge impact by having a small policy change here and i support it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jody maderis of walk san francisco. we're the 20-year-old pedestrian advocacy organization. i am here to strongly support this important amendment to amend parking minimums in san francisco and would like to express my thanks to supervisor kim and all the work she's done to bring this to this committee and i'm hopeful we can get this out of committee and bring it to the board soon to continue her legacy. and i also want to second that with supervisor kim to say,

yes, i want to be the first major city in the united states and lead the way for the environmental smart policy. it's important as you heard from what we ed -- experienced last week. it's a transit-first city and transit love first policy are and resonates with walk san francisco. i feel as an organization we do need to support this because we do need to start putting our chips in with the transit, walking and biking for us to be a real transit-first city and a vision zero city to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024. we heard from you all at the last committee meeting you wanted us to do further outreach so walk san francisco with our allies and community partners, some you've seen here today, did additional outreach through our constituents and you should have [record scratch]

received 50 support signatures and sure you received more from other advocacy groups. in closing i hope you support this and pass this out of committee today. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. howard stressan for the sierra club. i'm happy to be here to urge you to correct the mistake that is over 50 years old. in the '50s we passed minimum parking requirement and they say we need more parking and then there's too much congestion and now we're finally waking up. none of my neighbors are not here to say it's too early. no one is here to say they need their parking spaces and that's great you go forward and correct and we can remind them throughout the country, every place with mum -- minimum

parking and it was endless. you don't have to be a don shoop to know this stuff. >> i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i'm here to express our strong support for the planning code amendments to eliminate minimum park requirements citywide. there were concerns brought up by supervisors tang and safai including the need for additional outreach and want to thank the staff for leading the way to host additional meetings to do just that and the legislation is not eliminating cars or making it more difficult to drive in san francisco. the reality is that it's already difficult to drive here.

we have some of the worse congestion in the country and really the choices we make as a city lead by you, our decision makers have already made it prohibitively expensive and difficult to drive in san francisco. given it's irresponsible that further induced demand for driving in our streets when there's congestion and parking already difficult in many neighborhood and transportation costs continue to rise with the region's cost of living. we want to thank supervisor kim for introducing the legislation to bring the parking code to modern day best practices and thanks commissioners peskin and brown for co-authorizing and urge you to move this forward on recommendation from the committee. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm robert i live in district 5. i live at paige and fillmore in what used to be a single-family home. it was built 120 years ago back when there were no parking minimums. as a result instead of a garage there's a one-bedroom flat. if the building were built today we'd be crazy to require a parking space instead of housing. and it's something that we -- parking is something we concurrently allow but not something we should require. i want to read a quote from urban planning professor shoop from luke -- ucla comment. the buildings are the only indicators much park demand and fail to consider a building's location as an equally significant factor.

some cities offer reductions in denser urban zones or near frequent transit but they still do not account n for the ways they effect transportation choice. we heard from people from almost every district in san francisco. we need to eliminate parking requirements or minimum parking requirements. thank you. >> eileen brogan here from what's known as the outside lanes. i'm here with dino. she's a wanna-be dinosaur. she lives in south basin and is here today on her way to the capital planning committee meeting to speak on option 12.

unfortunately, the p.u.c. wasn't able to stay at this meeting. regarding this legislation, the majority of the committee is in the twilight of it's tenure on the board therefore i urge the committee to table the item so the new committee and new board in the new year would have the opportunity to weigh in on this. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment? public comment is closed. supervisor safai. >> thank you, chair. i want to put some things on the record. the dates that were chosen for the community meetings, i got a letter from the district 11 council which comprises groups and nonprofits in district 11. the dates chosen were at the height of the air quality as noted in the presentation though that's a good example of the issues we're having with global

warning and kept people from coming out. my biggest problem with the conversation is though i fundamentally agree with many points made. we're talking about parking minimums, this is an important opportunity for those that are not as much on board as the people here today to be involved in the conversation. i spoke with president cohen. she had said her district was not involved in the conversation. i think it presents an opportunity for the planning department and sfmta to have get out and have a real conversation on what the impacts means for our city and what it means for development. i understand and the presentation was well laid out this is not taking away the opportunity for parking though in places like vernal heights that do have parking minimums i know they fought hard to have the parking minimums. it's one of the way they