>> good afternoon. welcome to land use.

i'm katy tang. to my right, jane kim. and ahsha safai. from sfgov, we'd like to thank them. madam clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: yes. make sure to silence all cell phones and devices. any documents should be submitted to the clerk. actions acted upon today will be on the january 8 board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor tang: i know that supervisor cohen wanted to be here for item 1 but is a little behind, so we're going to go to item 2. >> clerk: item 2 planning code zoning map district 11 large residence special use district, requiring conditional use for large residential developments and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. i will be brief.

we're continuing our conversations with the planning department and we will ask for this item to be continued to the call of the chair so that planning and our office can continue to work with one another and we'll -- we haven't even had a hearing at the planning department yet or their commission, i mean. so we'll ask this to be continued to call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: any members of the public wish to comment on item 2, please come on up. seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll do that without objection. all right. madam clerk, there wasn't any noticing associated with that, where we can continue to call of the chair? >> clerk: there was a 10-day publishing zoning map notice. if it's continued, it will have to go through renoticing. >> supervisor safai: that's fine. >> supervisor tang: okay. madam clerk, can we please call item 3? >> clerk: ordinance amending the

planning code to require findings for home-sf and affirm appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. this is an item that i have sponsored in partnership with the planning department having to do with home-sf. as projects are moving through the permitting process, they've noticed things that we will change to avoid duplication of processes, including double hearings. i would like to bring up planning to go over some recommendations, but in a nutshell, the high level is that we want to avoid the duplication of some of the hearings and approval processes as well as correct for one of the new suggested amendments around a deadline for when this home-sf

legislation, the second version, was going to expire, but we want to make sure that the legislation is re-evaluated after the economic feasibility analysis is completed, whether or not it's december 30, 2019, or not. >> thank you. and good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. so the planning commission considered this item last thursday at the december 6 hearing and recommended approval with the following proposed amendments. the first recommendation was to add request for parking in excess of what is permitted to the types of conditional use authorization triggers that the commission would continue to review as part of the section 328 home-sf project. the second proposed amendment was to remove the sunset date of december 31, 2019, for the

tiered program of home-sf. and instead have the tiers in place until the inclusionary tac meets again and makes further recommendations. so the recommendation is that the tiers are in place until the board of supervisors acts on the tax recommendation. that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor tang: i don't know if you want to elaborate more on the issue and why it came about, especially as it had to do with parking that was, you know, principally permitted and what triggered the first set of amendments. >> sure. the impetus was the planning code requires certain -- has certain triggers for conditional use authorization and the original intent of home-sf is that the majority of those conditional use requirements be

superseded by this home-sf project authorization. if a project required a c.u. for extra height, that project, if it was doing home-sf, wouldn't need that c.u. because home-sf has its own approval process. there were certain things that -- two specific ones are c.u.s for specific use types and sizes of use that we thought should continue to be considered. so planning code in home-sf states that those two things should be considered as part of the planning commission but home-sf project operation. we went through a trigger and one that we thought the commission should continue to weigh in on were requests for parking above what is the maximum permitted in a district. so home-sf would still have the

flexibility to project more parking than is permitted, but the commission would have an opportunity to review and weigh in on it and the projects would have to comply by the criteria in that conditional use, but they would still only require that one entitlement. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments on this item? no? okay. seeing none, so i will ask for a motion after public comment. any members of the comment that wish to comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment's closed. colleagues, you have a copy of the amendments in front of you and explanation given by planning staff. to adopt the amendment, without objection. due to at least one of the amendments, we'll have to continue this to the next meeting, which is january 7, 2019. at this time, i would also like to ask -- i think i heard

someone else would like to co-sponsor this item. >> supervisor safai: i thought i was a co-sponsor in perpetuity. i absolutely would like to co-sponsor this moving forward so i can continue to work on hammering out any kinks. >> supervisor tang: we'll add supervisor safai and anyone else that would like to. with that said, we will continue the item 3 as amended to the january 7, 2019, meeting. we'll do that without objection. we're joined by supervisor cohen and norman yee, so we'll go back to item 1 now. >> clerk: item 1 amending the planning code henry adams

street, article 10 and appropriate findings. >> president cohen: thank you very much. thank you, chair tang, and supervisors kim and safai. this matter first came before this body back in october, october, 2013, when owners of the san francisco design center submitted an application to designate the building as a landmark. at that time, a landmark designation would have allowed conversion of the entire building from p.d.r. uses to office uses. there was a lot of consternation and a lot of concern given, which i shared. i did not want to see our coveted p.d.r. space cannibalized for office space. so given the amazing p.d.r. tenants that we have that are centered in the san francisco design center, this situation

concerned me. and i think it's important to note that it's an important consideration for district 10 and for the entire fabric of san francisco. i don't know if any of you have been to the design center, but it's a gem. and we deserve -- we have a responsibility to maintain and to preserve it in san francisco. so what we did in order to maintain the p.d.r. and design space, in february, 2015, we passed legislation that imposed vertical control. supervisor kim, you and i did something similarly. i did it in 10 and you did it in 6. where we had vertical controls and conditional use requirements on the conversion of landmark buildings to office use in the p.d.r. 1d districts, an example

in showplace square. that legislation required -- that legislation requires the following considerations of approval for office conversion at 2 henry adams. first, a second floor conversion maximum, historic structure support, proof of economic need and landmarking improvements, ensure that the office tenants be physically compatible with the existing p.d.r. tenants. also, it included a relocation strategy for any and every displaced p.d.r. tenant and also an impact study of the proposed change on the surrounding community. so it was with great consideration with these restrictions that after much discussion with the tenants at 2 henry adams that we decided to move forward with the historic preservation recommendation to designate this building as a city landmark.

i believe this is an elegant solution for us to consider today. this solution maintains protection for existing tenants. it assures compatibility with new potential uses, and i'm convinced that this landmarking will benefit the tenants and city and county of san francisco. what i'm doing today is, i'm asking for your support to follow the recommendation of the historic preservation commission and designate 2 henry adams street as a landmark and i would like to recognize tim fry from the planning department at this time. tim, are you here? is there any representative from the planning department here? all right. tim fry is fired. [laughter] we have aaron starr here. would i have a fry when you can have a starr? thanks, aaron. >> historic preservation commission heard this item on

november 7 and unanimously recommended approval. i'm here for any questions. >> president cohen: thank you for the thoughtful, although brief presentation i'm grateful. madam chair, we can go ahead and go to public comment. >> supervisor tang: i have a couple of cards here. please come on up or anyone else. >> hi, good morning. joshua leonard here. i represent owners of san francisco design center. i wanted to say thank you to supervisor cohen and board and land use as well for the support in the education process over the years. we agree that this asset is a gem and very historically significant. i brought some pretty pictures, but i don't know how to work it -- >> supervisor tang: if you place it on the overhead -- >> it's that easy.

it was built in 1917 for the dunham company. they were instrumental in the gold rush, in the rebuilding efforts after the san francisco earthquake and this was their headquarters 1915 to the late '60s. after that time, henry adams reinvented this fantastic center as the preeminent design center. it houses designers of all walks, all environments. the center today is home to over 85 different showrooms -- >> supervisor tang: may have to flip it a little. >> thank you. there it is. 85 different showrooms catering across the design community and residents. we believe that the landmarking progress will give us one more tool to preserve the building and to have the resources to

make upgrades going forward. we have planned some broad scaled renovations. compliance with a.d.a. and our mission is unchanged. we preserve and maintain the center status of one of the leading design centers. i'm joined by showroom tenants and i have as well signatures of support of our showrooms and tenants as well and we thank you for your support today in maintaining this building an historic landmark. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for hearing public comment today. i'm eric hughes. i'm the managing principal of a showroom at the design center. i'm here today to support the landmarking proposal, but before i say more, i want to express my

thanks to supervisor cohen, who was engaged on the issue and has been working with the design community for many years now. supervisor cohen's involvement has brought us to the point of protecting showroom for the future stability. my showroom desuesa hughes has been part of the design center for over 20 years. i personally have been working in the building for over 30 years. the center and the showrooms have been through a lot in this time. previously, the landmarking regulations would have allowed the conversion of the entire 2 henry adams building, but thankfully, supervisor cohen stepped in and i think today's proposal is a great middle ground. it allows the top two floors of the 2 henry adams treat to be converted and while protecting

showrooms on every other floor and i think it makes sense. the top floors that i think are now deserted, would be a fair compromise. as businesses change, the design center has to change, too, and be successful. design center has worked hard for the last two years in trying to lease the space to compatible tenants that won't disrupt the showrooms. at the age of the building and finding the right match has been difficult. the center's vitality, whatever the mix, is the first priority. design center being clear and transparent -- >> supervisor tang: sorry. we have 2 minutes per speaker. if you have anything you want to submit to us. [inaudible]

thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kirk whalen. i've been a tenant in showplace square for 35 years. and i want to thank you for bringing the subject up. i was one, like many of the tenants going back four to five years ago, was against what was being proposed. the compromises made have worked in my favor. i've been relocated and over to the galleria building, per ms. cohen and baywest as my landlord. the main point i want to make, this compromise idea allows people like myself to stay in a building like the galleria and the showplace building way below market rates. our businesses are primarily commission-driven. there is no way we could pay san

francisco market rate and keep our businesses cohesive. this is a way to allow the resources to go into the building and improve the entire square and allow our square footage rates to be where they are today and i really appreciate it. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. president cohen? >> president cohen: i want to say thank you to the -- people that represent different showrooms testifying. this was a contentious issue several years ago, so it's nice to stand before you in consideration for a nice, elegant compromise for the showroom owners and building owners. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. with that said, i know that there is a desire to have it as a committee report for the december 11 board meeting.

so, collegues, can we get a motion to that effect? >> supervisor safai: make a motion to sent this to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we'll do that without objection. item 4, please. >> clerk: item 4 ordinance amending the planning code to permit affordable dwelling unit with state licensed family childcare home on the ground floor of certain commercial streets, excluding certain childcare units from maximum density on the site and making appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we're joined by supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, chair tang. i'm excited to have this legislation before you today. if you remember, we've gone through several evolutions and i'm proud of the work we've done to create an extension of this program. this legislation aims to address

not one issue but three. one, the need for childcare options. two, affordable housing for childcare providers. three, to help alleviate the building in filling storefronts with active ground floor use. family childcare homes are licensed by the state of california and allow providers to operate in their own homes. family childcare is one of the more affordable options for families in san francisco. additionally, they are high-quality and reflect the diversity of languages and cultures of our communities. however, as we know with a volatile housing market, providers are feeling market pressure if they don't own their own homes. we heard heartbreaking stories of people evicted from their

homes. not only were they uprooted from their communities, they lost their livelihood. the -- and also, the families they serve were scrambling to find childcare for their babies. over the past two years, we met with providers and city departments to find ways to create more permanently affordable housing options. however, we also wanted to ensure that we were not impact being the long waiting list of individuals and families waiting for affordable units. i believe we have been able to strike a balance in this legislation. commercial vacancies have been the bane of many of our developments. our commercial districts are hurting from the blight and property owners are burdened with the empty spaces that bring in really no rent. we also hear that while

childcare is an amenity that developers would like to see, but it's often unfeasible for a childcare center to go into commercial space because of the high cost of build-out and space requirements. in order to address the childcare crisis we're in, we have to be innovative and forward-35ing in all fronts. we must increase investment and provide subsidies for families and boosting stagnant wages of our providers. we must invest in creating new childcare centers in the city and especially in neighborhoods with a scarcity of slots. lastly, we must stabilize this work force, who are often at the fore front of sustained livability for our families. this would allow developers and property owners to build residential units on the ground

floor if it's designated for family childcare. this is a voluntary program. i will let the planning department go into more details in a second, but before that, i really want to thank the planning staff, mayor's office of housing and office of early care and education and especially want to thank my chief of staff, jen lowe, who worked tirelessly with developers and different departments. want to thank my co-sponsors in the legislation, supervisors ronen and kim. chair tang, i would like to invite sheila nikolopolis from the planning department to present. >> hello. san francisco planning department. i have a presentation here. so the proposed legislation that we'll talk about today was introduced by the board of supervisors by supervisor yee and heard at the planning

commission november 29. it would change the planning code, dccus. we worked closely with various departments for this legislation. to provide some context, the planning department's work in support of family friendly city focuses on five broad areas. the suggested changes to the dccu program will support family friendly housing and quality childcare. childcare is important for parents who want to pursue educational improvements. and it's important for young children who learn valuable social and emotional skills in childcare. i want to give you an introduction to different kinds of childcare. it refers to care for children 0-5, prior to kindergarten.

it is up to 14 children although usually 8 and it's in a home. it can also include centers, which can have more than 14 children. both facilities are licensed by the state. it -- the childcare homes are operated by the state, not the city. landlords and h.o.a.s cannot limit small childcare homes. the state do not require small family childcare homes to have outdoor space. so a snapshot of childcare in san francisco. as you can see, there are 23,000 children ages 0-2 in san francisco but 3,400 childcare spots for them.

that means, there are spots for 15% of our youngest population. we're doing better for providing childcare for preschoolers, but there's a gap of 1,000 spots and our population of children is growing. what the numbers don't show is the numerous factors impacting childcare considerations. parents have to look at the cost, the hours. parents may have to step out of the work force. so in january, 2016, legislation was passed to define and regulate designated childcare units. under the existing program, a developer can designate a dccu. in doing so, fees would be reduced. the tenant would have to operate a small childcare home. most market rate units would be

unaffordable to childcare providers. developers are still able to create market rate dccus, but the legislation before you today would add a number of opportunities to the program. bmr dccu at 80% of ami could be on the ground floor where active use is required. the planning code currently defines childcare facilities as active use but not childcare homes. based on a city survey, 80% of ami is median income. this would be in addition to inclusionary units, rental units, affordable. a list of eligibility tenants would be generated by the office of early care and education to be sure that tenants had prior experience operating childcare. a tenant who does not begin family childcare within 9 months

or ceases within the first 10 years, would have to vacate within 180 days. if they provided childcare for 10 years, they could remain in the unit. there must be a licensed childcare home and 1/3 of the children from low- to moderate-income families. proposed changes would allow these units where they're currently prohibited. one would define it as an active use. and the other, exempt from existing buildings, purple area. >> supervisor tang: can you go over that map again? i can't read the font. what does the dark navy and violet color mean? >> the violet is n.c.d.s in

chinatown. it would be exempt. there are restrictions where you cannot have a.d.u.s on the ground floor and it would say that that rule applies except in the case of a dccu. the other area is where active uses are required. so we'll categorize it as an active use. >> supervisor tang: these are new corridors where now a family -- >> now you could have these, yes. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> to highlight the importance of family childcare homes, it's really important for our communities. it provides working parents with licensed care. they can care for infants, which most larger institutions can't do. there are only infant spots for 15%. so it's crucial.

it would provide a important service for the community. family childcare homes are being impacted. in the mission, there were 53 family childcare homes in 2007. 10 years later, 27. since 92% of childcare is operated by women and particularly women of color, these units would help to employ women and provide families with stable housing. the planning commission recommends the proposed legislation without modification. thank you for your time. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. i want to thank you for your work on this. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor. i've enjoyed working with you, supervisor yee, to make sure we're increasing dollars and footprint. i just wanted to ask a little

bit with the egress and open space requirements. is that required of family childcare centers? no. they don't have the same requirements? >> no. facilities have rigorous standards. there are two categories, small and large. in this, we specifically targeted for small because they don't have open space and egress requirements. they can have up to six or seven, so they tend to be fairly small. >> supervisor kim: what are we hoping the main incentive will be? the current dccu program didn't net or yield new childcare facilities. what are we hoping that developers will find? >> the big incentive is that it provides additional childcare, which is community amenities,

which could be a selling point for development. it would be an alternative tow doing something else on the ground floor, especially in neighborhoods where they are having a hard time filling retail space. >> supervisor yee: this particular concept came from developers who said they were having a hard time in certain places where they are required to put retail space or ground floor space and they have spaces that haven't been able to lease at all for years. in many ways, they have no income for it right now. it's an alternative that we're hoping that they will utilize. >> supervisor kim: i have one comment to make. and by the way, this is just in replace in lieu childcare fee, not part of their inclusionary

housing obligation, correct? >> supervisor yee: correct. >> supervisor kim: i think we should look at that and see how this goes and see if we have to create more incentives for childcare facilities. my only comment would be, this is on page 9 of the ordinance, line 18. i'm -- we did ask in advance why it was stated that no more than one designated childcare unit should be permitted in each building. i have questions about that. i know we still want to see active retail, but if it's really difficult and we have such an immense need for childcare, i wanted to ask if we could delete that line. i think most project sponsors and developers won't build in more than one anyway, so i don't feel like that limit is needed. but if the building could fit two, i feel like it would be such a bonus for the community and neighborhood. i think it's a rare case that

that would happen but i didn't see the need for that requirement to be in the ordinance. i would ask the sponsor of the ordinance and -- >> supervisor yee: sure. my response is, as you know, i've been in this -- or i was in this field for decades. one of the issues that we try to be careful about is not to put a business next to a business and killing both businesses. you don't want to open two coffee shops next door to each other. and maybe when one is established and there's a bigger need, you do that. my reaction is, i don't want to, as you said, it is probably very limited chances that one would

build a bunch in a row, but i didn't want it to happen. and find out that whoever was trying to run the businesses will not be successful. and -- because when you start this and you are trying to live off of this, and there's only, let's say, two side by side and there's only four families around that need it right away, you are splitting it between the two businesses and you are probably going to run out of business. and forced to go back to work and do something else. >> supervisor kim: i will defer to the sponsor. i was looking at the 23,000 need and 3,000 spots offered. it doesn't feel like childcare centers would be in competition with each other, but i will defer to the sponsor. thank you. >> supervisor yee: thanks. and certainly if we see that the

demand is there, we can always change it. >> supervisor tang: thank you. public comment? >> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor tang: anyone wish to comment on item 4, please come up. >> hi. i'm representing a community organization in san francisco. and i'm here to represent parents and we always advocate for the need of childcare. we know we have a waiting list and many parents, many children waiting for affordable childcare. that is something that we have to take into consideration, affordability. not all parents can afford childcare. it's very expensive. i know families that have two or three children and it would be very convenient to have more

childcare places nearby where we can drop off our children and make sure that they are well cared for and receiving quality childcare. i don't think you will ever go wrong providing more space for children to be. right now, it's rainy season and we're indoors. so thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. corey smith, behalf of san francisco action coalition proud to be in support of the legislation here today. the supervisor and his office worked continuously with our member in the process and did have a lot of consultation. one of the interesting ideas that was brought up during the planning commission meeting was this concept of defining success

and evaluating whether or not it's achieving what we're intending to achieve, 18 months, 3 years down the line, whatever it is, because we know that we need a lot more childcare here in san francisco. and so we really appreciate the supervisors' leadership in going head-on to the problem and happy to continue to work with the department or the supervisors' office going forward however we can be helpful. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor yee: thank you. first of all, i know that in the presentation sheila mentioned that some -- it's regulated by the state in determines of childcare. however, about 200 family childcare providers are part of our office system, where they get contracts for service right

now low-income families. in order to get into that program and receive a contract, they have to pass a quality test. in many ways, the standard of quality that families receive or kids receive from these families is relatively high. so i just wanted to add that in there, not wanting the public to think it's unregulated and no quality. so there are a few minor amendments before you today. and i just want to go ahead and speak of it. the first is that we extended the designated for childcare units to 15 years, if it's provided below market rate. this was a tradeoff for after 15 years of designation, the unit

could return to market rate. the legislation will protect the last eligible tenant to stay there if they like and not get evicted even beyond the 15-year mark. i want to note that a few years ago, we created a definition of designated childcare units. developers can create designated childcare units. and that was for 10 years. this market rate version -- the only different is this new entry is for 15 years. the second is that we needed to set a set of findings to help frame the context of this program and the great need for the childcare in san francisco.

so we did include that. and if -- what i'd like to have is support from the committee to pass this on to committee as a committee report to the full board. >> supervisor tang: thank you. before we go to the amendments, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. it's related to that. thank you, supervisor yee, it's extremely important. we commissioned a report talking about the children living in poverty in my district in particular, equal to the mission, 19% 0-5 children living in poverty and strong correlation for that between accessible, affordable childcare is really important, beginning with the readiness gap as we talk about, which is not just preschoolers. it's really about the early years. and i think this provides for many different opportunities.

so i want to appreciate that and appreciate how one of the ways in which we've talked in the last couple of years on this body is trying to expand the number of family childcare centers that create opportunities for getting children off the waitlist. that's one of the best wades to -- ways to do this. so i appreciate you pushing the envelope on this. i have a question on if it's 10 or 15 years. just for clarity. he said it was inadvertently changed from 10 to 15 years, so it's supposed to be 15 or 10? >> supervisor yee: i have existing legislations that were passed a child back and it was a 10-year mark. when we started writing, putting this together, the -- originally the thought was that it should

be forever. and so the developer said, that's a little difficult for them to commit to, so we compromised and 15 years was the number of years we came up with that we could live with and it's only for these particular units built on the ground floor. what we had before was building units -- designated units within the building like apartment house. so that would be for 10 years. >> supervisor safai: so the ones not on the commercial floors, 10 years. the ones on the commercial -- >> supervisor yee: yeah. existing law is 10 years. >> supervisor safai: in commercial space, you want it to be 15. >> supervisor yee: yeah. >> supervisor safai: got it. i was looking at page 8 and it said 10 years and that's existing legislation and then later talks about 15 years. okay. that was it. that was my only question. that makes sense. >> supervisor tang: thank you,

colleagues. any other questions or comments? thanks again for working on this. he had some amendments to make. any motion to that affect? >> supervisor safai: motion to accept the amendments as proposed. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. on the underlying item, i believe there's a committee report for december 11. send forth the item as amended as a committee report with positive recommendation. without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, item 5, please. >> clerk: item 5 is an ordinance amending the planning code to prohibit employee cafeterias within the health code and affirm appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. wanted to give an update. there's been a lot of discussion about this item. i think it created and engend

engendered a lot of debate within the community of businesses and industries that certainly have used, benefited from or intend to expand and explore the expansion and use of employee cafeterias. the origination of this conversation was intended to think about where we are as a city, reflect back on the mid-market tax break. and what it's meant to san francisco, but also as we've come across in the last number of months, this large planning designation and conversation regarding larger expansion of office space in the soma area over the last number of years, to supervisor kim's leadership, which we just approved. are we taking a second vote or did we? central soma area. there are 6 million more square

feet of office space. so all of that started a conversati conversation. for someone like me, with a planner, thinking that planners are taught to be reflective and thinking about all the things that i've mentioned and how as a city we would move forward in this larger conversation. it's my belief that san francisco is unique and special because of the network of small businesses that we have in many ways. there are so many reasons why san francisco is unique and special. and one things that draws people from all over the world is the opportunity, the desire, and rather the overall pull of our network of small businesses, whether it be restaurants, specialty stores, whether it be individu individual, miscellaneous stores, whatever it may be. people come from everywhere to

experience that. i represent a district that is a -- certainly a reflect of that. many of the small business owners hail from our part of town and have created life-long businesses they've handed on and become part of san francisco's fabric. so what we tried to do in this c conversation is when you have employees working for businesses, 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, 7,000 employees sitting inside office buildings, not going out to eat, not spending their money in san francisco whether it be on food or other things. our desire was to think about how we can change that dynamic and culture in a positive way. many people after we introduced the legislation, myself and supervisor peskin, wrote back

and said, why aren't you focusing on the homeless crisis? our response was, in effect, if you put more people on the street, if you have them outside of their building, interacting as part of san francisco's culture and fabric, the more eyes on the street, the more people that care and responding to and are part of the larger community. so we spent a number of months talking to potentially affected businesses and would benefit also from the continuation of the cafeterias, small vendors that frequent or service these businesses and employees and representative parties talking about the quality of life versus regular small business. admittedly, it's a 9:00 to 5:00 job or 10:00 to 6:00 job or 12:00 to 8:00 job is different

than a normal job in the restaurant industry or small business industry. no question about that. today before you, colleagues, i'm introducing an amended version of the prohibition on employee cafeterias, also with a clarification of specifically the type of cafeterias we're referring to. we're going to move to a conditional use authorization. we felt that was the fairest compromise. if a particular location proposed and surrounding areas feel it's appropriate with conditions, that conversation can be had at the planning department. so we feel like when we think about local vendors and small businesses, and we toured many of these, there is an opportunity to have vendors either cater through a network of intermediaries and/or have

opportunity for small businesses to move inside of the larger facilities. when we visited sales force, sales force has a couple of locations where they have limited cafe or limited-use restaurant type of activities, a cafe, for example, serving coffee, pastries, and to have a small business and have that opportunity to work in partnership, that's exactly what sales force is doing. they have ground floor retail and they will be working with a partner vendor. other opportunities is when they have internal spots for pop-ups and/or catering that can work with a network of small businesses. when they're sourcing their food, anything that has to do with the employees, working in small businesses and surrounding local farmers.

that was a healthy conversation. and i think the amendments that we're proposing is the right way to go. with this amended version today, it will require referral back to planning. planning will have the opportunity to look at the proposed legislation and give us their thoughts and we'll have a hearing at the planning commission and then come back to this body once that happens. so we'll be asking for this item to be continued to call of the chair until the hearing happens within the next 90 days. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor safai. does your amendment apply to any type of cafeteria or is it full-service restaurant situation or a lighter-scale kitchen? >> supervisor safai: did you hand out the copies? they're coming around now. on page 3, it refers specifically to the type, where the employees provide food on a

regular basis and talks about a full-service kitchen with exhausted ventilation. there are two types, h85 and h84. 84, i believe, would not be impacted by this. that would be a break room stocked with coffee, tea, snacks. that's not impacted by that. so we wanted to clarify that with the department of public health. we had their team look at this along with planning. it would only be the places where they're cooking food with ventilation and so on. >> supervisor tang: so for a full-service kitchen essentially. >> supervisor safai: correct. >> supervisor tang: okay. i think i understand the premise behind or intent behind the legislation overall and i'm glad to see this amendment come forth. i think we do have to consider, and i'm sure it will come up in the conditional use authorization hearings as well,

where there are companies that are located where there are food deserts and employees cannot get food nearby from a restaurant easily. or, for example, companies located in the embarcadero. in those cases, i understand why there might need to be an employee cafeteria there. i can think of a handful of businesses where it's not that easy. i've had residents come district 4 come to our office who have expressed concerns about the legislation as originally drafted. they are people that work in the employee cafeterias and have found their jobs to be stable. they like their wages and so forth and they were concerned as well about the legislation and what it would mean for them. so what you are proposing is

better, but i would hope that during the hearings, some of the findings that would come out would take into consideration the surrounding areas and i don't know if we're able to take into consideration the employees. >> supervisor safai: those are good points and i did reference those. that was some of the most compelling, but those are -- all those things would be considered during the c.u. process, if you are in a food desert or creating a business in a place far away from any opportunity. depending on where embarcadero, like away from the center, yes. the point is, we will allow the conversation to proceed, all the factors taken into consideration and, yes, in fact, many of the folks that were representing the employees of the cafeterias talking about the quality of life and/or i received emails

from my district that talked about how it impacted their decision to work for the company, that they benefited from, saved them time, if they were working parents. what it meant to have the ability to not think about creating their own lunch, for example, versus some facilitation, additional time, many and time those things are factored in. that's why reflecting back on the mid-market tax break. i was working for one of the unions that was a proponent of it. i still believe it was the right thing to do for san francisco. i think if we were having this conversation back then, maybe we would have a different approach. and i also highlighted in a lot of the conversations that we're not the first, although i would have liked to had thought we had a novel idea. mountain view beat us to the punch by a few years. the day we introduced our legislation, theirs went live the day before.

and it was for many of the same reasons. facebook was moving into downtown mountain view. so they disallowed employee cafeteria in that location. in our conversation, i think all your points are well taken, depending on the location, the quality of life for existing employees, department ending on the relationship that the businesses might have with existing catering companies and so on. and so there's a lot of factors that will go in, so i think that's why -- not to mention the fact that it needs to because it's a substantive amendment, but it will go back to planning and have a continued conversation on that. all great points. >> supervisor tang: and it's only because i'm looking at the list of factors here on page 3, but i don't know how you will be able to capture things like, maybe there are restaurants nearby but they're really expensive. i used an extreme example of

embarcade embarcadero, but if it's really expensive, i would not buy lunch there every day. or to eat at two restaurants all the time. i don't know how it will play out in the hearings, but i really hope it's part of the conversation, but i do see on your list of factors that planning commission would consider whether an employer would subsidize or pay for meals outside of the cafeteria. >> supervisor safai: that was a suggestion that came up. a lot of people talked about that there were -- there was a conversation about employees that were existing in working for companies that had these and said, if we had the opportunity to have a card system, we would spend that money. some of the surrounding companies do that, where they give employees and a relationship with them and surrounding businesses to say, you get a discount or -- so that was the purpose of that.

kind of incorporating some of the feedback that we've gotten as this story went wildly national. >> supervisor tang: i think it's a great idea for employers to think about. also, i think -- let's see here. sorry. reading through the amendments quickly. >> supervisor safai: and i think you will like this one. on page 4, bullet five. >> supervisor tang: yes. reasonable food ware packing onsite and takeaway. >> supervisor safai: that was the suggestion of my co-sponsor. >> supervisor tang: okay. >> supervisor safai: there's time and opportunity to make changes. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor safai: thank you for the feedback. it's right on point. >> supervisor kim: so i missed the land use committee last

monday when one of the other amendments went in. >> supervisor safai: there wasn't any. today is the first day. they were under lock and key until this morning. because of the sensitive nature of this conversation, we wanted to make sure we had it done properly. >> supervisor kim: i read through the planning commission and staff's report and thought it was very thoughtful. i think it's important to put in an incentive program, too. i did like the idea of providing ground floor incentive. we're having trouble activating our ground floor for many of our buildings and our district and i like the idea of having the cafeteria ground floor and opening it up to members of the public. what are the issues with the cafeteria, beyond the fact that after we pass mid-market tax exclusion, that revitalized the