>> all right. welcome, everyone, to our and use and transportation committee, i'm jane kim, we have katy tang and ahsha safai. madam clerk, are there any

notifications? >> yes. [ reading ] >> supervisor k. tang: thank you. if it's all right with colleagues i will call number 4. madam clerk, if we could please call item 4. >> ordinance amending the public works code to create a temporary mobile catering who cannot operate due to retrofits. >> thank you, chair tang and supervisors kim and safai and thank you for hearing this item today. after hearing from concerned restaurant owners, supervisor mandelman has introduced the ordinance that will allow for a permit and operate food trucks if they are forced to close during mandatory seismic retrofits of their wood frame buildings.

restaurants heard concerns that closure would not only lead to a loss in business revenue but could also require business owners to lay off employees during an extended period of closure. at a time when san francisco is more unaffordable than ever we must protect jobs and businesses that are the backbone of our thriving economy. some have encountered permitting restrictions, ban from operating win a certain distance from elementary, junior or high schools or within certain square feet of restaurants and only able to operate certain days a week. the office of small business we have solved for a number of these permitting restrictions. this ordinance will amend the public works code to create a

caterer permit for restaurants that can't operate during a seismic retrofit. they may operate a food truck during any ongoing construction related to seismic retrofit. the temporary mobile caterer would not be subject to restrictions with respect to locations relative to schools, would not be restricted from operating within 75 feet of another restaurant entrance and would still be able to operate the same hours and days as its affiliated restaurant. public works permitting decisions would be subject to appeal to the board of appeals, temporary mobile caterers could also obtain a street space permit under section 724. additionally, the temporary mobile caterer must use the same name and brand as its affiliated restaurant and must operate within 50 feet of that

restaurant, since all retrofit work must be completed by september 15, 2020, this will sunset 2021 which gives a small window of flexibility in case there's delay in completing seismic work, or if law extends the deadline for soft story retrofits which case this will expire one day following that extended deadline. supervisor mandelman does hope you will move it forward to the full board with recommendation. some restaurants are facing mandatory closures in this coming year. he would also like to extend his gratitude to the staff of the department of public works, the staff at the office of small business and director regina and staff at department of public health for all their work and consultation on this ordinance. and jeremy spitz is here from the department of public works

to answer questions and would like to invite the director of the office of small business regina to share a few words. >> thank you very much for your presentation. and again, this actually applies citywide though, correct? yes. i did read that these mobile caterers cannot operate a permit for longer than six consecutive months unless they get some sort of termination from d.b.i. that extension is necessary because of seismic work, correct? >> that is correct. >> supervisor k. tang: great. okay, wonderful. i think it's a great idea. do you have any sort of sense of how many restaurants, maybe regina knows this too. but citywide have been impacted by the seismic retrofit work? >> we haven't done an official inventory of the number of restaurants that have been impacted. there are a total of 1,007 properties that are tier 4

properties, which consist of the ground floor commercial properties that are required to do the mandatory soft story. and to date, 285 of those properties have completed their soft story retrofit so that has included some restaurants. what we have heard from restaurants is because some of the soft story work for non restaurant businesses can be done while the business is open, they just work in sections but for restaurants because of health code requirements really need to close their business. i really appreciate supervisor mandelman and department of public works and public health finding it's not a solution for all restaurants but it is a solution for restaurants that either currently have a mobile food truck or plan to have a mobile food truck, you know, not just for the closure of the

soft story retrofit, but due to the investment of starting a new mobile food truck they will want to use it beyond the time of the closure of the business. so we anticipate probably, you know, 10-15 businesses that might be able to utilize this. >> supervisor k. tang: okay, thank you. supervisor safai, do you have a question before -- >> supervisor a. safai: before what? >> supervisor k. tang: i think before she had a presentation. >> i just wanted to, again, just reiterate for supervisor mandelman, the need, as we hear from businesses looking for creative solutions and again for our restaurants because they do have to close. one of the greatest needs is retaining their staff due to the shortages. and the period for the soft story is september 15th, 2018-september 15th, 2020. so it is a very specific limited time and a very

reasonable, i think, sort of, modification to our mobile food -- our mobile food permits. and just really make it clear this is not intended to sort of get around our regular mobile food permitting requirements. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor a. safai: thank you. i think this is a very thoughtful piece of legislation. my only questions are about timing. i tried to read through the ordinance. i understand that you would have to have a permit for mandatory seismic retrofit but i know there's usually noticing and processes to actually get the permit. i guess my question is, i just want to make sure people can actually get the permit in a timely manner because it says it lasts for six months. it says then it could be extended at the discretion of the director. all that makes sense, maybe you could pinpoint to me, i just

want to make sure they could access the temporary mobile food permit in a timely manner. you do a 10-day noticing to the neighboring restaurants, you have to remain 50 feet within your existing restaurant. you have all these exemptions, right? can someone talk about -- is someone here from d.p.w. i think i saw jeremy. if you could talk us through, i want to make sure these businesses will be able to get this permit in a timely fashion. >> thank you. jeremy spitz with san francisco public works. we tried to streamline this process as much as possible. we removed the posting requirement.

the one requirement for notification we kept in was the permitee or permit applicant would have to mail a notice to restaurants within 75 feet and just provide our office an affidavit they provided notice to those restaurants. and when that is received then we would be able to issue the permit. >> supervisor a. safai: so why still the appeal to the board of appeals? i guess what i'm trying to get at is, if this is something, in many ways it should be pro forma, you are giving it a temporary nature. you want to notify the owners surrounding restaurants out of courtesy. but the idea someone could appeal this and slow it down so it wouldn't even be in effect. i don't understand the appeal. when we did the notification

streamlining we essentially came in and said if it's a permitted use, you get the permit. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i think there was a desire to keep some recourse since we are eliminating so many of the other notification requirement that's are in place. >> supervisor a. safai: i understand the theory behind that. but let's say you have two businesses that don't want each other to be successful, hypothetically. i know this person has seismic work. and i say, you know what, i'm just going to appeal it, so by the time the appeal process is done with the board of appeals, this might be ineffective. so i would probably prefer there not to be an appeal process. i like the noticing because you want to do it out of courtesy but this is simply about seismic work so these businesses can stay in business, right? >> yes, supervisor. i think it was our understanding from the deputy

city attorney that because all permits are appealable that this process is required. >> yes, city attorney jon givner. they can deny appeals from interested parties. so the ordinance cannot remove that appeal authority from the board of appeals. >> and then to also answer your question, supervisor safai. from the businesses that our office has been talking to, the property owner and business are in close conversation, generally, around when they need to vacate the property. and so, for the contractor to get in and do the work. so i feel pretty confident that from those conversations the timing element will work

because as we know with a couple of the restaurants, they are knowing six months ahead of time when they have to vacate due to the property owners planning and scheduling with the contractor. >> supervisor a. safai: i guess what i would say through the chair, i guess what i would say, is i want to make sure they aren't waiting. you can't issue the temporary mobile catering permit until they have their seismic retrofit permit in hand, right? so i guess just from a timing perspective, they should be allowed to go through the entire process up until the permit being issued and maybe we can issue them simultaneously. is there a way we could write that in? i'm just worried they will wait and you will come back and say we tried, but six of these couldn't get done because -- and it's not a criticism of any department. it's just a matter of where we're at. >> sure. through the chair to supervisor

safai. we could accept the application before having the d.b.i. permit. we could go through the site selection, the noticing, all that, all those procedures before they receive their d.b.i. permit. >> supervisor a. safai: maybe through the chair, could i ask deputy city attorney? mr. givner, do we need to make that an amendment or could that be done through the process of d.p.w. >> i think you do not need to make that amendment in the ordinance itself. >> supervisor a. safai: okay, thank you. that's it. >> supervisor k. tang: all right, thank you very much. so with that, seeing no other questions, comments from colleagues, we will go to public comment on item 4. any members of the public wish to speak, come on up? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues could we get a motion on item 4? >> supervisor j. kim: i would like to make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor k. tang: i would

like to note president malia cohen has joined us today. but first we will jump back to agenda item 1, please. 1.180282 [dedication for public use - brewster street extension project]ordinance dedicating the brewster street extension consisting of improvements on portions of brewster street and martin avenue in the bernal heights neighborhood to public >> good afternoon, supervisors. nice to see you all. hope you had a nice thanksgiving. in march 1998 public works completed a project in the bernal heights neighborhood that realigned brewster street, constructed martin avenue. this was known as brewster street extension. new streets were built over city-owned parcels. on march 11th, 1998 the city engineer and public works director certified the brewster

street extension was completed in accordance with plans. november 30th, 2006 planning department determined it was unbalanced with the general plan. submit today land use committee officially first declares improvements to be open public rights of way. secondly, establishes the official sidewalk width, public right of way width and street grades. and thirdly, accepts extension for city maintenance and liability. any questions? >> supervisor k. tang: all right, thank you. i don't have any questions. colleagues? no questions. all right, any members of the public who wish to speak on item one come on up? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion? > supervisor n. yee: i will make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor k. tang: thank

you, and without objection. item 2, please. >> [reading item 2] >> supervisor k. tang: thank you, i will turn it over to president cohen. >> thank you, hope everyone had a nice thanksgiving. madam chair, colleagues thank you for hearing this item. this creates a special use district at 1550 evans which allows the san francisco public utilities commission to build a new and improved southeast community facility. 1550 evans is a 5-acre site along the third street corridor in the bayview, owned by the p.u.c. commission. first and foremost i want to acknowledge and express my undivided support for the community plan. i'm excited and want to see it move forward as quickly as possible. this facility which sup plants

the existing facility on oak dale will fulfill the p.u.c.'s long standing promise to the bayview community bringing benefits like child care space, public art, conference room space, meeting room space, cafe and of course the highly coveted and much needed parking. i'm excited to note that this s.u.d. also allows for affordable housing in the future, while nothing is currently planned, no current future housing plans are on the books but should it be led by future supervisor it must ensure it's built to reflect the support of the existing bayview hunters point community. one thing i want to notice is the bayview hunters point is notably the backbone of the city. and it is bearing a disproportionate share of our industrial and freeway transit

infrastructure. i think we need projects like the community facility for the place making and community building that has been neglected for too long in the bayview community. i want to thank the general manager of the p.u.c. mr. harlan kelly for his vision, for his leadership and most importantly for his unwavering commitment to make sure the community facility is built. i also want to recognize the members of the southeast advisory community some are here and some are not here in the chamber today. i also want to thank the p.u.c. commission and recognize the bayview community for their entire community and continued community advocacy and attention to ensuring that promises given to the community are promises that are kept for the community. i want to also note that the planning commission heard this item last week and they supported it, almost unanimously.

there was one person who did not. i would like to offer my support for this project that it moves forward. i hope, colleagues, you will be able to join me. and i hope you will join me in supporting this visionary and quite frankly essential zoning and community center development to continue the upliftment of the vibrancy and growth of the bayview community. madam chair, thank you. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you very much. and we have also aaron starr here to present from planning department. >> thank you, supervisor tang. aaron starr, legislative affairs. as president cohen mentioned they heard this november 8th and recommended approval. >> supervisor k. tang: thank you. anyone from p.u.c. want to speak? i think we have david gray here.

>> good morning, madam chair, members of the commission, or good afternoon, rather. we have a short presentation we would like to share with you and members of the public today, if i could please have sfgovtv pull up the powerpoint. my name is david gray. from the p.u.c. i'm joined by my colleagues and government affairs team, shelby campbell, project manager and yolanda manzoni, director of the community benefits division. just to provide context, the southeast treatment plant is our largest and oldest plant responsible for processing 80% of rain water and sewage flow. located one block west of the third street corridor between oakdale avenue and evans avenue. the current 40-acre plant will expand to 50 acres following

upgrades to our program. our plant was expanded to its current footprint following passage of the federal clean water act in 1972. at that time community members self organized to ensure the city addressed the social, economic and environmental impacts of the plant expansion. led by the big six, dr. jackson, harold madison, westbrook, garlington, jones and pitcher, the community successfully secured a mitigation agreement with the city in 1982. the agreement noted the construction of a commercial greenhouse and skills training center is a reasonableness and appropriate means for mitigation of social and economic impacts associated with the proposed plant expansion. the state water resources control board adopted the legal mitigation in 1982 and the city finished building the current

southeast community facility at 1800 oakdale avenue in 1984. the goal of the mitigation is the same today as it was in the 1980's which is to provide residents of the community with meaningful economic workforce and learning opportunities in an inclusive manner. at the request of community members and building tenants our community initiated a process in 2011 to assess the conditions and potential improvements to the southeast community facility and adjacent greenhouses. the community assessment concluded the now 35-year-old building needed substantial improvements and improved programming. the s.f. p.u.c., commission and community decided to complete renovations in two phases. after completing phase one renovations we determined a second round of renovations would have limited impact due to the building's dysfunctional

layout, lack of natural light and key insufficient buildings. in light we embarked on stakeholder engagement process to ask bayview residents whether they preferred the agency to invest in renovating 1800 oakdale or construct a new southeast community facility. what you see before you is the overview of the outreach we conductd in three stages. the first was grassroots outreach where we knocked on 2400 doors, attended 20 community events and hosted 10 community presentations. we also engaged in community partnerships partnering with 16 bayview based organizations to host focus groups. and leveraged the internet and social media where we generated 26,000 social media impressions and launched a new website to keep residents updated about our progress. overwhelming majority of the residents we reached lived in the 94124 zip code and nearly

half of them lived in the area for as long as the community center has been opened. residents were very clear that they wanted our agency to build a new center that honors the legacy and historic mitigation by addressing social, economic and environmental challenges in the community. the commission, s.f.p.u.c. citizen advisory committee and our own s.f.p.u.c. commission all adopted resolutions validating the survey findings and directing staff to build a new southeast community facility. it was determined that the optimal site for this new facility was a parcel of land owned by the p.u.c. at 1550 evans avenue. our agency acquired this site in 2012 to consolidate staff that currently operate from multiple satellite operations across the city. residents prefer this site to the new facility because of its location along the third street corridor, accessibility via

public transit and prominent as a gateway to the bayview community. to honor the community's preferences our city made a commitment to deliver by 2021. 2017 we began a design process where we asked residents what features they desired at the campus. the key priorities identified are listed on the slide before you. affordable space for community-based organizations, job training and career development, a hub where residents can connect and network. green open space for events, expanded child care center as well as playgrounds. they would like it to be a place of destination and they would like for us to deliver on air quality and energy efficiency concerns. the multiple rounds of community meetings as well as site visits we conducted to other centers to learn their 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... ] .