>> the meeting will come to order. this is january 4th, 2019, special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commissioner. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by commissioner shan'ti singh and i would like to thank the staff at sfgovtv and michael and jason for recording today's meetings. madam clerk, do you have an announcement. >> clerk: yes, silence all cellphones and electronic devices. complete your cards if documents

are submitted to the clerk. >> thank you, very much. could i please have a motion to excuse commissioner pollock from the meeting today? >> thank you. seconded by commissioner ronen. and madam clerk, can you call item number 2. >> clerk: item number 2 is consideration and approval of a contract with richards watson for lafco legal services. >> i believe we have a presentation from our executive officer mr. bryan goebel. >> good morning, happy new year. thank you for being here today. i'm here today to ask your approval of a contract for lafco legal services. the commission, as you know, authorized me back in june to issue an r.f.p. for legal services. seeing how the contract had not been updated in more than 20 years since lafco was formed. the r.f.p. was issued on august 17th. we extended the deadline to

october 26th. i did a considerable amount of outreach and we received four very strong proposals from some of the leading law firms representing lafco's and other public agencies in california. and remy public law group. all four of those firms qualified to proceed to the interview process and then i selected an r.f.p. panel to evaluate the proposals. on the panel were angela calvillo, clerk of the board, beth rubensteen and rachel jones, the executive officer of lafco. the firm that scored the highest was richards, watson and gershan. they left it would be best for lafco. particularly, they have specialized knowledge of some of the issues this lafco is working

on. they were instrumental in getting marin clean energy off the ground. they have a lot of experience with c.c.a.s. they have experience and municipal finance, open meeting law, ceqa and land use planning as well. today, i'm asking you to approve a resolution and contract with richards, watson and gershan for a term of four years with general council and ms. callsa is in the audience today along with her partner greg stepanovich. this is my first r.f.p. so it was a learning experience. i would like to thank john gibner for his assistance and serving as legal council for this. wilson ink and the clerk of the boards office, i called him many times and i would like to thank our evaluation panel.

also, i'd like to thank teresa stricker and remy public law to their service to lass co. i'm excited to work with ms. culsa and her firm and i'm happy to ask any questions. >> do we have any questions or comments? >> please. >> i just want to thank you. it looks like you ran a very great process for your first r.f.p. so thank you for all that work. just to welcome you to lafco and thank the firthank the firm. the fact your firm has so much experience and the meaty subject areas that this body is very excited to take on is a real asset. i feel like we're going to start a newer a of lafco in 2019, and do some incredible work. >> thank you. >> i think we echo that

sentiment also. thank you, commissioner ronen. so, seeing no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 2. public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the legal services contract with rich -- >> clerk: there are amendments made to the resolution. most are conforming and clarifying changes but the most noted change is the addition the contract will commence upon approval by the commission. >> ok. that's great. is there any comment around these amendments? can we have a motion to set these amendments. great. and seconded by commissioner. great, you can take that without objection. thank you, very much, madam clerk. let's open up for public comment. seeing none. public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approval the legal services contract as

amended? >> so moved. >> great. i think we can take that. great. seconded by commissioner ronen this contract is approved without objection. madam collect, call item number 3. >> clerk: item number 3 is public comment. >> are there any members of the public who would like to speak on matters within our jurisdiction but not on today's agenda? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call item number 4. >> clerk: future agenda item. >> colleagues, any future agenda ideas you would like to put on? >> not at the moment, no. >> seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 4? seeing none. public comment is now closed. madam clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much.

welcome. >> my name is randy shaw and i'm a director of the tenderloin housing clinic appeared eight years ago, in january of 2011, i realized there was something really wrong with the tenderloin , that we don't have enough lights period people say they don't feel safe in the tenderloin at night, and it is because we don't have streetlights. just coincidentally with that, see pmc was planning on building a new hospital -- cpmc was

planning on building a new hospital. and i thought the biggest impact would be all the cars driving up the street to get to the new hospital so that it was really important for the pedestrian safety of the tenderloin to have more streetlights, so i asked mark aronson, who happens to be here today, a professor at hastings, if his class would do a study analysing the existing streetlights, and here on february 6th, 2011, they did this beautiful ten page study, which became the basis for our request. i also asked a member of the p.u.c., an engineer, for the per light cost, so i could -- took those numbers, and asked the then mayor, ed lee, if you could get us the money from cpmc. we figure the cost of adding lights would be $3 million.

so i asked the mayor to ask for $3.5 million figuring there would be some bargaining. they would bargain with us, and i thought well, we asked for $3.5 million, we are pretty safe to get $3 million. if you know ed lee and how much he loved the tenderloin, he met with cpmc, and he got us $4 million. a million more dollars than it we needed. he said randy, i want to make sure we have enough money. he was smart. so what happened was a board of supervisors approved at all in 2012, but then cpmc had to downsize the project, and it started again in 2014. in 2014, we had a little bit of a conflict with city officials.

you see these beautiful teardrop lights qantas everyone like those lights while we are a historic district. we had engineers who said we are not putting in those lights. we are putting in the modern lights because they work better for lu d. we are having an argument on taylor street of august 2014. and i said to him, let me put it to you this way. mayor lee wants teardrop lights. do you want me to tell the mayor you are not agreeing to what he wants? he did the same thing to mayor breach. you get mayors who really care about the tenderloin like them, in the city bureaucracy starts listening to the neighborhood. that is what happened. it took a very long time. i used to joke about harland kelley at the p.u.c. that whenever he saw me across the street, he knew i would harangue him about the delays. i have e-mails from the staff saying, randy, we are really sorry, but worse case scenario, it is finally going to open in the end of 2015.

we finally thought it was going to open earlier in 2018, twice the wrong hardware was delivered , and barbara hale who is the assistant, since i don't know how this could happen. it is never happened before. twice they sent to the wrong fixtures, were finally, on december 21st, they were installed, and they're all in all the north-south streets, and eddy street, and i think it is all really fitting in perfectly with mayor breed overall strategy for the tenderloin. from the first week she came into her job, she was here on a friday in the tenderloin. in the last 12 months, we have seen more police activity in the tenderloin then we have seen in years. we know it is a mayor who is paying attention. and the police are working hard to, but the mayor, as a team, i

want to thank mayor breed for joining us today and for her support for the tenderloin. >> thank you randy. i am really excited to be here today. i know i have only been mayor for a short period of time. i think throughout the time, i have been in the tenderloin almost every single day. i came out here because first of all, a lot of the folks that i grew up with live out here and spend a lot of time here, and they want their community to be safe too. we have to make sure that the resources that this community needs, so kids can get to school safely, so that folks who live here and especially our senior community, so they feel safe in their community, i want to see him clean streets in the tenderloin, i want to see safe streets and the tenderloin, and i want the people who live here, who spent time here to take care of the tenderloin too.

this is an effort that is so critical to the success of this community, and i say yes, community, because there are so many people from so many parts of san francisco that live here, that enjoy this community. some amazing park space, and part of what our responsibility is is to make sure that the resources that this community needs, they get. that is why this opportunity for lighting, and i know people are thinking, well what is the big deal about lighting? it is a big deal. every community in this city, they want pedestrian lighting. they want teardrop lighting. lighting fixtures that look this beautiful. the tenderloin, we have made it a priority so that this community knows it is a priority , that we are going to continue to make sure that the resources are brought to this community on a regular basis. i want to thank cpmc for their

community benefit package that includes funding for not only pedestrian safety like these lights, buffer housing opportunity, for job opportunities, they are a part of the tenderloin community and so they have invested in the tenderloin community. in addition to all of that, there will be free services and care at the package to take care of the residents of this community. it is absolutely amazing. is a true testament to a real partnership between cpmc and the city and county of san francisco i can't wait to be there in march when we cut the ribbon to open the new hospital on van ness avenue. i also want to thank harland kelly and the guys and gals at p.u.c. for your work. thank you so much for finally getting this job done, because a randy, not only did he harass the mayor at the time, he harassed every mayor of the board of supervisors, and that

is why we finally have got it done, and yes, in less bureaucracy years than typical. i also want to thank the san francisco police department. thank you for so much for the officers who continue to walk the beach and develop relationships with the community on a regular basis. it definitely means a lot to have community policing so that members of our community feel safe when they are walking the streets. thank you to so many folks who are a part of really the driving force. they are the reasons why we, as a city, pay a lot of attention to providing resources to the community, starting with randy shot in the tenderloin housing community clinic, essential safety s.r.o. collaborative, thank you so much. [cheers and applause] >> u.c. hastings, and unite here local two. incredible partners. people who are fighting and

advocating for the tenderloin. i have made a commitment as i have said to you all before that we will continue to invest, invest, invest in resources. in fact, many of you heard about the significant amount of money that we actually came into recently. it is a one-time fund, and my proposal with conversations with so many people here today includes a significant investment, especially in the tenderloin community. make sure that you pick up the phone and call your supervisor and other supervisors to let them know that the tenderloin will get its fair share of resources, and will not be forgotten. we will make it clean and safe for all of the residents and visitors alike. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed. as the mayor pointed out, the reason we have lights, the money came from cpmc, and one of the

interesting things about the experience, there was a whole big narrative about how difficult it was for cpmc to work with certain people in the city, but their representative, from the very first time i met him, he said of course, we want to do streetlights pick whatever it costs, we want to do it. that is a fact. that is what he said to. it may get him into trouble forgiving us so much money, but he said cpmc wants to increase lighting in the tenderloin. it wasn't like the pole or the fighting, it was great. let me introduce -- i want to make sure i get your name right. pamela kentucky -- kanaki. >> we indeed want to have safer streets in the tenderloin. so as you heard, i am the chief operating officer at cpmc. we have been part of san francisco neighborhoods for over

150 years. we are very excited, as mayor breed said to be opening our new hospital and our new campus just around the corner from here, on march 2nd, less than two months. as a not-for-profit organization , centre health believes in getting -- giving back to the communities. and these lights that everyone is talking about are one of the ways that we are working with our neighbors, the city, to make our communities better, safer and healthier. in fact, a couple days ago, last friday, i was going to dinner in the tenderloin and i noticed the lights. i mentioned to my husband how beautiful the lights, how bright and beautiful they were, and so we are very pleased and proud to be part of the city, and the tenderloin. thank you very much. [applause] >> our last speaker, there is the empire market right across the way, which is benefiting from all these lights, and they

have been a running that market for decades. she would like to explain what the lights mean to her. bora? [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. good evening everyone. my husband and i own empire market right across the street. my family, which includes my children who live in the tenderloin for many years. i work at our store at night so my family is happy to have additional lights that will improve safety on sidewalks. during the daytime, a business owner and resident, we walk through sidewalks all the time. we are faced every day with

safety issues, however, i am glad to know that new lights will offer a much safer situation. we will be able to know what is going on the sidewalk outside of our family business neighborhoods. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> it turns out that the lights actually got on before jane kim left office, within a few days. jane kim by unexpectedly, so she would like to say a few words. [cheers and applause] >> so it really is incredible that these lights have come on. just a couple of days before my turn was ending, only because this was one of the first projects i worked on when i came into office in 2011. it only took a little over eight years, but this did really begin in the community first, when the

negotiations with cpmc began about the move of their hospital to the van ness core door, and has a lot of questions about the impact that this hospital would have in terms of traffic to the neighborhood, in terms of economy, and many other things. it was groups like central city s.r.o. collaborative who had been working collaboratively on passages to increase adult presence on the streets as kids walk and back doors walk back and forth between school and afterschool programs, and i see many of our partners are here today. and randy, who talked about a study of how this neighborhood had the least number of streetlights at night of any neighborhood here in san francisco. so this, along with the pedestrian safety improvement really became the priority at the community and how cpu josie beat -- and how cpmc could make this neighborhood safer and stronger. there are many steps along the pathway to get here, of which they were not the major obstacle

because they committed to this program so early on. i can't mention how many neighborhood studies and community processes that our offices worked with so many of the community leaders here over the last eight years to make that happen. i want to give a huge shout out to the public utilities commission. i know the general manager is here. [cheers and applause] >> the staff really did a tremendous amount of work to move this money that has been committed to, which i should note, also went to the tenderloin museum that was standing behind here today, and we actually had to repurpose other city funds to come to help fund with cpmc originally, which is a street lighting funding program, and the p.u.c. made that happen. and whether the challenges we are getting, we need to connect it to our infrastructure, to so many other design challenges, and then different wants from the community. the p.u.c. really came out, along with the mayor's office of economic development, working alongside our community leaders

to make sure that this happened within eight years. so i just want to wish everyone a big round of congratulations. our neighborhood really does work together to make this community safer, and i want to thank our mayor for her strong commitment to making sure that the tenderloin continues to be invested in heavily and strongly , and prioritized over her time as mayor. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> and matt haney is out of town or else he would be here, our new supervisor. thank you all. if you have any questions or anything important to ask to folks, enjoy the lights. the darker it gets, the brighter they are. thank you all. [♪] ♪

>> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot. and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪ >> when it comes to innovative ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in

the office and when she returned we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome --

accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour. >> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room.

our legislation does require a fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns about providing lactation accommodations for employees, however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change,

especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave. otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they

can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪ ♪

>> all right, welcome to 2019 period today is january 7th, 2019 period we are at the land use and transportation committee meeting. i am katy tang, chair of the committee appeared to my right is supervisor jane kim. it is our last board member -- board meeting ever appear to our left is supervisor peskin. we will get a motion later to excuse him. we like to thank jesse larsen and michael balthazar san francisco government t.v. and think our clerk. with that said, are there any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any document should be included as part of the file and should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the january 15th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. can we get a motion to excuse the supervisor from the

committee meeting? >> so moved. >> we will do that without objection. please call item one. >> and item ordinate -- extending the application deadline for projects eligible for the whole mess of temporary provisions, amending the fees for affordable housing bonus program projects and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you very much. just a refresher, this is an item the land use committee heard back in 2018 in december. the only reason why we are still hearing it again is because of an additional amendment we made that was not contemplated by the planning commission. we are hearing that to date. to refresh everyone charge a memory, and supervisor peskin is joining us today, it was discovered that through the home s.f. project packet highlighted an issue with home s.f. approval processes where some of the projects would potentially have to go through both the section 328 home s.f. project

authorization, as well as an additional conditional use authorization. a project could potentially be appealed to the board of supervisors as well as the broke -- board of permit appeals. the idea was originally, but was not worded appropriately was to have all projects go through section 328, a more streamlined process. that was a major change that brought about this legislation. there were other changes that also removed a specific date around the technical advisory committee and when we would reevaluate the different income levels and the tears of the project, and instead of stating a particular date that it would be pegged to, we are just changing it so the reevaluation would occur after the review process has been completed, because they would not be finished on time either. if i've missed anything, i know we have planning staff here who can address any additional

questions. before we proceed with this item , i am aware there maybe questions that might arise as to my ability to vote on this item given the recent announcements about -- about my future employment. i have consulted with the city attorney who has advised me that because of the law of general applicability that i will be able to vote on it. if you have any additional questions, our deputy city attorney is available to answer them. any questions or comments? i see mr starr here from the planning department. if you have any other inquiries. no one? supervisor peskin? >> thank you. i just want to say it has been a pleasure serving with you and supervisor kim. i am already starting to miss both of you. i do have a question -- i definitely appreciate your explanation and agree that it should not be subject to multiple and different body

appeal procedures, but it is not the way i am reading it. i do understand that on page 3 at the bottom, in section four, it says shall be governed by the procedures and timelines set forth in section 328, but it goes on to say, shall be exempt from any other discretionary approval process by the planning commission. including but not limited to conditional use authorization or other discretionary approval. it seems -- i'm having trouble with that language. >> sure. someone here is from the planning department. i apologize, i didn't see you earlier. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the idea -- of the original idea is that the project should only have one entitlement of the planning commission.

with this, and as mentioned, the 328 entitlement is appealable to the board of appeals. >> correct. that was modelled on a similar process that we have in the eastern neighborhoods, and the idea is if your project triggered a see you -- a.c.u. for something else, it allows you to hear those criteria and make sure the project matches those, but as part of the lpa, rather than having two separate entitlements. so that is the issue that this is trying to clarify. it wasn't clear that the home s.f. project -- may have in section 328, should also be exempt from those other requirements. this other requirements are rolled into the 328. the exempt is to make it clear that they are not -- they don't have to have a double entitlement.

>> maybe if i am hearing correctly, the issue that supervisor peskin might be having as he would not like us to exempt them from their requirements, but maybe the language is what you are saying, we are exempting you from a separate approval process but not the actual requirements. does not make sense? >> for instance, if you needed a see you for size, that would then become a section 328 approval. is that correct? >> correct. >> the other questions that i had had to do with getting rid of the eea and replacing it with development applications which seem to be antithetical to legislation that we all voted on relative to inclusionary that was based on the eea as the trigger.

>> i asked the planning staff the same exact question, but i will let planning speak about it >> i will handed over to jacob. >> good afternoon, supervisors. that is just an update to reflect our new procedures that we have adopted as of june 2014 when we rolled to the old e.e.a. into one consolidated project application. to know when a project comes in, they don't do the e.e.a. and that sometimes -- sometime do the conditional use later. the e.e.a. and the project application is one combines document. there was really no purpose in referring to the environmental of environmental option. section 415 still just referred to that. we do have an issue because it is clearly understandable that has been rolled into the project application. it has no difference in terms of the stage in the developing process. the e.e.a. was always the first thing that happened anyway. so that is now just coterminous with the actual development

application property. >> then i would respectfully suggest that the term used to be defined. this needs to be a d. development and a. application with a definition of what that means. it seems to me and internal to the planning department procedural thing that doesn't have any real definition of what is a development application. e.e.a. is a defined term, and that is why it is e., a., so i really think it would benefit a definition that is consistent with something that everyone can understand. >> i would defer to the city attorney. i think there is a definition of development application that is relatively general. i will have to double, back on that. the attorney on this case wanted to keep the term development application uncapitalized because it is applicable, rather than putting in p., a. project

application. we did in june, our terms. the planning department would have no issue in clarifying the correct definition. >> i just don't want to vote on legislation where you guys get wiggle room with d-lowercase-letter, lowercase a. , and it doesn't trigger at the time -- if the e.e.a. and the development application are coterminous, i need to see that in some definition. >> john gartner, i would love to get your thoughts on that. >> we can add a definition probably in section 102 where most of the planning code definitions reside. i wouldn't want to do that on the fly here, but if you send it out of committee today, we can definitely do that by the 15th >> and that does not require your referral? >> right. >> i will leave that to you, supervising their supervisor

peskin. >> i had some follow-up questions. sorry, you mentioned the attorney on this case had asked for this definition. who is the attorney, and on what case are you talking? >> i'm referring to the planning department case. not the case in a court of law. audrey pearson is the assigned attorney. >> our city attorney. okay. made it sound like there's a particular project that had asked for that. and i was actually one of my questions as well. you had mentioned that the planning department had converted from e.e.a. to this development application back in 2014. >> in june of last year. >> okay. all right, then i just misheard you. i'm sorry to go back to the same question that supervisor peskin just asked, i think he understood the response. i am still trying to understand this. are there conditional use authorizations that would be applicable to other projects outside of home s.f. that will no longer be applicable to home s.f.?

was my first question. my second wise i was confused about the line that only see use that were adopted by the voters of san francisco would apply, and i'm not aware of what discretionary approvals were adopted by the voters of san francisco. >> i will let my colleague speak on that. >> thank you. >> sure. there was really only one that we are aware of and that is formula retail. the requirement for a conditional use for retail. the idea here is that the planning department can say if you needed a see you, we can roll it into 328, but we don't have that same ability with something that was put in place by the voters. so those will continue to apply as a separate see you. >> so this will then -- the c.u. will become a discretionary approval of the department? it won't require additional

hearing at the commission? >> i think it should. should a project decide that it also wanted to include formula retail, than they would go to the planning commission -- >> not formula retail. not a.c.u. that was adopted by the voters, but a see you not adopted by the voters. that without become and approval by the department without a hearing pack a public hearing at the commission? >> in specific cases that are listed here, if it is a.c.u. requirement for a type of use, say a nail salon, or a youth size over 5,000 square feet, then -- or the commission recommended if a project wants to provide parking in excess of what is principally permitted, that project would need to make those findings as part of the section 328, at the same entitlement hearing, and the commission would have discretion over that entitlements.

>> that would be at -- that would not be appealable? >> it would be appealable to the board of appeals. >> okay. >> others, for example, there are some zoning districts that require a.c.u. for any building that is over 40 feet in height, those would no longer -- home s.f. would supersede those types of projects and would no longer apply. >> and why are we allowing this specifically for projects that want to provide parking in excess of what is principally permitted? >> the idea with including these three specific types of conditional use authorizations as these are the types of the commission would like to retain some review over. others are superseded, his of the project no longer has to make those other ones that are not listed out here. these were the three that the planning department and the commission felt were ones that

the commission should retain the ability to review and comment on and make sure the project still needs to comply with these criteria. if that makes sense. these are the ones that we want to still have apply to the home s.f. projects. >> and if a project wanted to provide parking in excess of what is principally permitted today, what would happen. >> they would need to get a.c.u. >> i don't feel comfortable about that. i don't think projects should be adding parking what is principally permitted. i think that should remain a see you and it should be appealed to

the board of supervisors. i'm happy to listen to the author or the sponsor of the ordinance, that seems to be a strange thing to streamline to streamline for the project sponsor. we are trying to move away from parking. i'm not sure why we are allowing this to get streamlined. >> if i may, originally this was something the commission requested to add into here, were this not in here, this see you would not apply to a home s.f. project at at all. in practice, i don't think this would necessarily happen. in theory, a project could come -- they could ask for two spaces per unit and because home s.f. is exempting all over all other conditional use authorizations, they would be exempt as well. this is saying you are not exempt from that, the commission will still require you to make findings, tell us why you

require two spaces, and that decision -- the commission has a discretion to approve or deny that request. that decision is appealable to the board of appeals. the whole project is appealable to the board of appeals. >> when i asked before what would happen today without this amendment, you had stated that -- that is not what i heard you say. you are saying this is something that is permitted. >> in the absence -- >> if we don't pass this ordinance at the board of supervisors, what would happen? what happens currently with a project that requests parking in excess of what is principally permitted? >> currently whether it is a home s.f. project or not, if a project wants to add parking in

excess of what is principally permitted, it is required to get a.c.u. from the planning commission. >> and so now we are lowering the standards with this amendment. so it is stronger right now. >> we are changing the appeal. we are still requiring them to meet the criteria -- >> i would like to hear from the author of the ordinance. i do understand we are weakening -- this is what it appears to me i would like to understand why. >> i understand got given your recent city wise -- we want to emphasize middle income housing where the city is not providing in that way, we are trying to streamline the process for approvals, but at the same time, we are not saying that the planning commission will not review and way in on parking in excess of what is principally permitted. they still will weigh in, but when given the policy choice of do we allow or want to try and

motivate people to use our local bonus program, i would err on the side of yes, let's wrap that conversation around parking into section 328 approval process, but commission is still hearing its. you would like the extra layer of another see you hearing, which adds months and months of delay, you know, timing, cost, to a project and could detract project sponsors from using home s.f. i come at it from a standpoint of trying to get people to be incentivized to use this versus the state density bonus law, for example, because they come with a lot of other requirements that the state law doesn't have. it is a delicate balancing act. we are trying to provide incentives, was still have requirements, and to me, it seemed like a fair trade-off. we are not just letting them skirt by if they are doing parking in excess of the principally permitted amount, we are just saying will be part of a planning commission finding

conversation. i will let supervisor pass can go next. >> thank you. going back to this subsection, i understand that the commission wanted to retain findings around parking and use. in other words, here is a hypothetical, not to implicate number 2 on the agenda, but if for instance you needed a see you for a cannabis dispensary at the ground floor, they would still have to make findings under 328. that is correct? >> yes. that is correct. >> if it was relative to conditional use for height, they would not.

>> correct. >> and so the real issue here is appeal ability to the board, versus the board of appeals. >> correct, and if i may, in practice, when a project is coming to the planning commission, typically a new project doesn't have the ground floor use decided already, unless already it is if safely decided to build on they wanted to go and start. in practice, what will happen as a project will go to the planning commission and get approvals, and then later, when they decide when the space is ready to be filled, that tenant will go to the planning commission separately and probably require -- if it requires a.c.u., it will still require a.c.u. >> good explanation.

>> all great questions. any other questions or comments? >> no, i would like to see some one '02 --dash 102 language relative to what is a development application definition. >> great. supervisor kim? >> i will express my discomfort with this language, but i will not be serving on the board of supervisors that will ultimately be voting on the ordinance, so i'm happy to pass this out of committee. >> r.h. thank you. [speaking spanish] i get to be determined amendment. [laughter] >> yes -- all the amendments have been made at the last committee. between now and next tuesday, hopefully supervisor peskin and the city attorney can work on section 102 definition. with that, maybe we can open up to public comment. if anyone would like to speak please come on up.

>> good afternoon on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i want to thank both supervisor tang and supervisor came for your service to our city and best of luck on what you've got coming next. you are both certainly pro housing voices that help us. our organization and future generations appreciate its. thank you. i think one of the conversations that was being had is what we are hearing and at this point in time, most of veltman projects that are coming through are looking at a density bonus and using the state bonus for a variety of reasons. one of which is it is a strong bill and it is relatively vague and gets a lot of flexibility for people to build and provides a lot of benefits. realizing is the two of you will not be working on the legislation with the future board, supervisor peskin, we want to be doing whatever we can to further incentivize the local

home s.f. program to make sure that we are gaining as much inclusionary housing as we possibly can, and that is a combination of figuring out ways to decrease the overall cost of housing, we need to allow for the housing to be built in more parts of the city, and more opportunities. and the streamlining process, which is related to the cost as well. and there's a variety of different ways that we can approach it going forward, and as citizens, i hope you continue to engage in a process that we can find more places for people to live. thank you very much. best of luck on what is next. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item one? public comment is close. colleagues, thank you for your very thoughtful questions, but as i stated before, and/or and a republic commenter stated as well, i am really trying to figure out ways that we can draw more people to home s.f. versus the state density bonus law. with that said,