>> 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, i will ask anyone of you if you have a motion on this item. >> i will make a motion to move this as amended, as articulated by supervisor peskin. >> it wasn't amended today. it will be amended at the full board at the next meeting. >> i will introduce set amendments on the floor on the 15th. >> okay. >> okay. shall we make a motion to move this forward with a recommendation to the full board all right. thank you very much. we will do that without objection. can we please call item two? >> an ordinance amending the planning code to allow medical cannabis dispensaries with approvals from the planning department for a medical cannabis dispensary use to cannabis retail uses and affirming appropriate findings.

>> thank you very much. i'm not sure who is going to present today so please come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the item before you is a planning code amendment. the amendment was heard by the small business commission which voted unanimously to recommend approval. it was then hurried on november 15th, 2018, at the planning commission hearing on that date. the planning commission her the ordinance expressed. in the end, they voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the amendment to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you for that. i did have a chance to read through the memo from the planning department staff. one question that i had, for the

planning or office of cannabis, was clearly there was some community opposition particular -- for ticket -- for particular projects that were approved prior to the ordinance on cannabis passing. i even made comments on the appeal hearing about making us wanting there to be additional public engagement, or outreach should and m.c.d. at that time ever convert to general retail for cannabis. can view or the office of cannabis -- can you or the office of cannabis speak to the level of legislation that needs to be done. it is not just automatic approval happening. they still have to go through neighborhood notification and community meetings and so forth. >> sure. there were two main areas i came up during the hearing. the first one had dealt with the existing m.c.d. that were previously approved for passing medical use.

the ordinance would amend the dates that they are required to file their change of use of cannabis retail. it provides a pathway for some of them to convert to cannabis retail where they currently do not have one based on filing their application after march 31 st. it does not change the requirements for that conversion , so for the planning side, the change of use is still subject to neighborhood notification under section 311 of the planning code. all property owners will receive a notice. there will be a notice posted on the front of the establishment. >> 311 or 312? >> we are folding everything into 311. it is all 311 now. and then additionally there is outreach that is required as part of the licensing with the office of cannabis. >> thank you supervisor.

it is part of the parenting -- permitting process. it will be community outreach requirements, neighborhood notification, and a description of how the cannabis business specifically would be a good neighbor. it is folded into the permitting process as well. >> okay. i think i had a chance to look over that today, and so basically they have to meet with merchants, neighbors, send their own letter irregardless of the 311 noticing. that was important to the community to be aware of when the process was occurring. the other question is this is not necessarily speeding up anything, it is just allowing these for the time period they were approved as m.c.d. for medical purposes to be able to even utilize our safety program are to be able to convert, because currently they can't. >> that's correct.

it is the same process once the application is received. it is just allowing the applications to be received. >> colleagues, any other questions, comments? supervisor kim? >> i will be introducing an amendment. it is just to delete one clause on page 3, line 20 and 21. this is in regards to grandfathering, and if everyone has a copy, i have additional copies as well. there was some language here -- there was some language that inadvertently did not grandfather in existing m.c.d. retail that would be applying for adult use recreational retail. it is not within 600 feet of a new school. when they first opened, they were a 1,000 feet from all schools, but then during their

business, a new school opened up , and so because of the way the grandfathering clause is written, they would no longer be able to get adult use cannabis, and i don't believe that was the intent of the board of supervisors. i just want to, on age -- on page 3, delete the clause that specifies a minimum radius shall apply. as written, the clause would exclude some currently operating m.c.d. his from being grandfathered into cannabis retail use, and it would allow them to be grandfathered into cannibal cannabis retail use. i did want to clarify with supervisor tang, and i also strongly believe in this, that any of you -- knew cannabis

retail should follow the minimum radius from existing schools. i just wanted to clarify it is just for projects that are grandfathered. great. >> thank you for that explanation. supervisor peskin? >> i'm sorry. is this for another item? my apologies. i thought they were for further amendments. >> are there any other members of the public would like to comment on item two? please come on up. >> hello. my name is mark and i am the president of the room. i would ask you to vote and pervade -- in favor of the proposed section 190 amendments before you today. we were shattered during the 2012 department squawked down. six and a half years down -- later, we opened at a new location not too far from here

it supervisor kim's district. we are proud of our location and excited to become a positive community member. these amendments are necessary to balance a playing field for cannabis industries to convert to retail sales under article 16 , and i have worked pretty hard for the past six and a half years to reopen, as a long-standing and well respected cannabis store in san francisco. please support the amendment so we can continue our great work. supervisors, i wish you success in your future endeavours. your contributions to san francisco in these districts is greatly appreciated and will not be forgotten. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other speakers? please come on up. feel free to line up at the wall right there. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rob, i reside at 3,551st street.

i am here on behalf of the committee of concerned homeowners. we wish to voice opposition to the ordinance, specifically around the amendment to the 600- foot buffer rule with respect to other dispensary operations. the basis for that opposition is essentially the planning code as written is pretty clear on its face. it is unambiguous, and prohibiting a parcel containing a canvas retail use from operating within 600 feet of another such establishment. the code is already written and expresses the clear will and intent of the board of supervisors and further, when it was originally proposed, the 60d before the board of supervisors. testimony from more than 150 members of the public was considered, and that occurred during a hearing lasting nearly seven hours. it is our belief that the 600- foot buffer rule provides a reason it -- a regional does reasonable balance compromise reflective of all interest and requires no additional amendment

or exemptions. if it had been the will of the board of supervisors or the city , the clause exempting certain applicants could have been added to the planning code at that time. additionally, the proposed ordinance, if adopted, what impact district six, which is where i reside, which according to news articles, already has the largest share of the cannabis dispensaries as reflected in an exhibit i have attached hereto too. i think that passing this up will only exacerbate the clustering issue, and i respectfully request and submits that the committee today either reject the ordinance in its entirety, or reject the aspects of it that create exceptions for the 600-foot buffer rule. i would simply like to provide some written comments if i made that i provided to the planning commission previously. >> all right. >> is there a specific dispensary that you are concerned about? >> there is a neighboring one to

my building that would fall into that rule. >> what is the address? >> 443 folsom. >> i believe it is the blacksmith shop. >> okay. so you are concerned that the way the ordinance was previously drafted, it would allow -- >> my understanding, and please correct it if it is incorrect, is it is within 600 feet of another similar establishment. >> okay. that is the concern. thank you. >> thank you. i will bring up planning department staff in a minutes. is there anyone else who like to speak on item two? public comment is closed. maybe we can get clarification on that, unless you need to go back and look up more information. >> 443 folsom is my project, so i am familiar. >> it is in regards to the

pending m.c.d. application section of the ordinance which applies to projects which had been submitted for review, and had been under review for some time prior to the adoption of the 600-foot rule. there were three projects we had identified, and then suddenly they are no longer compliant. 443 folsom was under review for a couple of years. it is a historic landmark and so they were going through their preservation review on the ordinance was adopted that created the 600-foot rule. we rechecked the site and found it was within the 599.5 feet away from the nearest dispensary , which is the apothecary and on howard. based on that and based on the current planning code, the site is not eligible for cannabis retail. the amendment would allow them

to apply for cannabis retail, but would require them to obtain a conditional use authorization to do so where they are not currently required. >> 599? [laughter] >> 599.5. >> could you also -- what are the other two dispensaries that are impacted by the 600-foot buffer? >> the other two dispensaries, five leland avenue down in visitation valley, and then 257 market street near market and church street. >> so i do think, actually, the ordinance does strike the right balance, and in some ways, grandfathering these three in that where in the process prior to us establishing the cannabis ordinance, but also establishing a separate c.u. process for them , so this does allow the neighborhood to have an additional public hearing, and appealed the decision, and it will ensure that your future

district supervisor will be able to hear the concerns of the residents and neighbors. >> okay. >> thank you colleagues. any other further discussion? okay. supervisor kim made a motion for an amendment. >> would you like to close public comment? >> i'm sorry. i thought i did that already when i brought up the planning department his topic anyway, public comment is closed. supervisor kim had an amendment. >> i would like to make a motion to strike lines 20 and 21 on page 3 as i had stated, starting at accept. >> okay. we can do that without objection on the underlining ordinance as amendment, can we get a motion on that? >> so moved. >> i will make the motion to move forward with recommendations to the board. great. we will do that without objection. okay. can we please go to item three now? >> item number 3 is an ordinance

amending the planning code to change the zoning controls for nonretail sales and service uses , and the c3 are zoning district. amending the planning --dash planning and administrative code to create the union square park recreation and open space and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. i will turn it over to supervisor peskin. >> thank you. thank you for indulging me yet again on this item that has continued to evolve with regard to our downtown primary retail zoning district in and around union square where fundamentally i believe that retail is far from dead, and as ms. miss flood known -- knows, a survey that was performed by union square in collaboration with our economic and workforce development department showed that retail is doing quite well and vacancies are relatively low on the first

and third floors. in trying to strike the right balance and working with b.i.d. and representatives of property owners there, i am proposing some amended language, which i have distributed to you, and i want to thank my staff for working with various representatives in the union square area and district three and district six, and those amendments are attempting to strike that balance. they are before you, and they really center around the following things. the proposed use would not require modification of the location that would negatively impact existing architectural historic and aesthetic features, or otherwise inhibit the conversion back to a principally permitted use in the future.

the proposed use would not have an actual or potential impact on adjacent zoning districts where an office space is currently not prohibited, what we call office creep. again, making sure that we preserve the retail functions of the union square area, and the proposed use would not result in development that would undermine the district judge our primary function a retail district. these well, if we make these amendments, require rereferral to the planning commission. also, you will note that the nexus study actually allows for a slightly higher conversion fee in the amount of six dollars per square foot, rather than the four dollars per square foot that was originally discussed. i would also like to amend the fee to six dollars per square

foot. it will require rereferral as well. that is what is before you. i would like to thank mr rutland and my staff. you will hear from them shortly, and then finally i want to say this will create a little bit of some funds for beautifying areas in and around union square and the public realm. >> thank you. supervisor peskin, i'm just trying to look back, but is there a need to reference what particular nexus study or from a particular year? is that necessary? >> that is a question for the city attorney. >> the next study supported a higher fee than the four dollars this is a conversation that mr rutland and i had when initially

i thought it was a voluntary offer on the part of the property owners and later on he came to realize that the study actually supported a higher amount and the study, i don't know if it needs to be referenced or not. >> i am just wondering, because it says nexus study, if we could add a little bit more information as to where it came from, and what year, a little bit more specifics. >> i believe there is a reference to the study, a more specific steps reference to the study. i'm searching through it. >> i see it on page 10 now. sorry. i was only looking at this amendment so i wasn't sure if this was a standalone. >> it is on file with the clerk of the board. >> i see it, page 10. great. all right, colleagues, any other

questions or comments? i know this has been difficult but i appreciate you. >> we are getting there. >> i will open up public comment for item three. if you are wanting to speak, please come on up. i'm sorry, planning staff report first. >> good afternoon, staff. we heard this item on october 18 th, 2018, at the hearing. the public expressed a desire to allow more flexibility of the third floor under the proposed ordinance as written and nonretail services would not have been permitted unless they provide on-site services to the public. as supervisor peskin stated, the commission, after hearing presentations by planning department staff, oewd, and supervisor peskin's office, and comments from the public, voted 5-1 to approve the ordinance with the filing amendment. this four amendments. the first is to amend the applicability of their proposed union square park recreation and open space fee to apply to office development over 5,000 square feet only. number 2 is to amend one of our

tables in the ordinance to clarify the nonretail sales and services under 5,000 square feet are permitted in the zoning district, number 3 is to allow nonretail sales and service uses on the third floor with the conditional use authorization that supervises joe supervisor peskin has been speaking about this afternoon, number 4 is the grandfather all pending applications in the district to be subject to the current controls. that concludes our presentation. i am also available for presentation -- for questions. >> thank you very much. now we will open up to public comment. would any members of the public wish to speak while. >> good afternoon. how are you? supervisor peskin and i did have some conversations about this, and we have looked at his latest amendment, and we think this will allow us some flexibility,

but we are arguing for a couple of more changes. we did speak of adding an additional two dollars, and we didn't know whether or not the study would allow it or not, but we were willing to do it on a voluntary. our concern was being sure that we had some flexibility with our conversions on the third floor. i represent macy's, we probably have the largest retail footprint in the district. we are clearly as concerned as anybody about maintaining the retail flavour of the district. we do not want to have any vacancies because that reduces revenue for everybody, including the city. i have worked on some amendments to the proposed amendments by

supervisor peskin, i believe we have copies. she will bring them up. we are hoping that they will be accepted also. we don't think it changes the flavoured, we think that the direction that the supervisor wanted to have for the planning staff is still there. thank you very much. >> all right. any other speakers for this item >> i just gave our clerk some copies for you and your compatriots. >> thank you. >> by the way, we did and coproduction incorporate some but not all of the language you suggested a few minutes before the hearing. >> okay. >> we changed harm to negatively impact per your suggestion. >> good afternoon. i am with a law firm representing several property

owners. first of all caps thank you his very much for your work and availability on this. i do want to recognize that we all do have the same goal. we want to preserve retail and make it a as successful as possible. i think the question is that on some buildings in some locations , it is very difficult to make retail work on the third floor, and that is where we would like the flexibility. in terms of the language and the amended language, i do have -- i don't think my version is what is the version in front of all of you, but i do have an overhead and revisions that we were hoping to make into the legislation. that is really -- if you look at the very bottom for example, one of the things for the commission to look at is whether the use would supplement or complement the use. on the in the next sentence, whether the site of the use is not conducive to any principally permitted use with respect to

physical limitations. i think the question on physical limitations is not that you cannot use it for other pensively permitted uses, it is that there are physical limitations with which you cannot use the third floor on some locations for retail uses. so we would suggest that staff language could be flipped so it really talks about the site having physical limitations, that could hinder a retail use. it catches the point we are trying to see. it is not possible to put retail and some of these locations. and then i don't have the full language in front of me, but i assume that in the footnote, at the very beginning, when it talks about, if you can see my red writing here back i assume we are switching the language

and permitted on the c.u. for three and above. i am hoping. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speakers? supervisor peskin? >> could you hand me that language? i am not exactly sure how to construe, or how the planning commission would construe that language. of course, in the same breath, i'm not sure how they would construe not conducive to any principle permitted uses as well >> there are three copies. you can -- i think the planning commission, they are recommending to allow principally permitted office uses on the third floor. in that respect, i think, you know, making them subject to the c.u. in any conditions would assume they are be consistent with their recommendation. i think they said principally

permitted on the third floor. >> that is not my recollection, but we can bring up planning department staff on that. maybe we can hear from planning department staff. >> i think they said they wanted to allow office uses on the third floor with a.c.u. >> okay. >> okay. maybe we will proceed first with public comment and then we can -- >> okay. good afternoon. i am the executive director of the union square business improvement district. interestingly enough, we coincide with union square. we are the constituents and this is our district. we care about it, apart from a block with what one market or one or two parcels on bush we got very involved in this legislation. i do want to thank erin peskin for working closely with us on this, and trying to come to a

place of balance, as you suggested. in general, we agree with what is said. as legal council suggested, is the third floor where we are trying to work it out. initially, and throughout the process, we have asked for flexibility on the third floor deck at this point, it has gotten a little technical. i will defer to the land use attorneys and what they decide, but we do want to have the flexibility to be able to convert to office, and especially in cases where it is not possible to have retail up there on higher floors. we know retail is changing, footprints are shrinking, people are not walking up the upper floors as we talk with you in our various meetings, but we want to keep the district vibrant -- vibrant, we do not want vacancies up there. i know in other districts throughout the city, you are all looking at flexibility and zoning, and allowing restaurants to come in so people have reasons to come in the stores. we need that flexibility, and i don't think the third floor will essentially change the dynamic

nature of union square. thank you for working with us, and best of luck to both of you in your next move in your career , and thank you to your service first -- thank you for your service to san francisco. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public please come up. [please stand by]

. >> -- we'd be forced to either wait until we found somebody to take the second and third floors, could be a long time. or do a lease, and you won't have access to the empty floor for ten years. so thank you for listening to our concerns.

>> thank you. any other speakers for this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> i'll turn it back to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair tang. so there's been a number of cooks in this kitchen, and i have to say it's been interesting. i've been looking for the sweet spot relative to the third floor. even though planning staff and oewd really have been much more adamant than my office about precluding office conversion at the third floor, so the language that i'm introducing today is trying to find that balance relative to the third floor. my faear is that -- but that once you convert it to office, the chances of it changing to retail in the future as the

retail environment changes are significantly decreased. so this is aiming at trying to preserve the retail nature of the third floor, and i grant you that whether it's the amazon effect or the changing behavior of people who no longer like to go, you know, to multiple story retail establishments. and i appreciate the word that i've gotten from retail brokers that have been very helpful in my thinking. i'm looking at you. but i think we've got -- i think we're pretty close -- i'm not a planning commissioner, but if i were a member of the planning commission, i think we're splitting hairs not conducive to any principally permitted use can be interpreted by a majority of the commission really pretty broad broadly. i think it gives the commission

the kind of latitude that they want and that you deserve relative to the third floor. and i did take the amendment of deleting the constitute harm and changing that to not negatively impact, which i thought made sense. but as to the second one, i kind of think we're splitting hairs, and i'd stick with the language. i would, colleagues, like to do the following thing. i just had a sidebar conversation with deputy city attorney givner, and what i'd like to do is duplicate the file and send the file with the $6 per square foot fee back to the planning commission, which would require planning commission review and take the original version that had the original $4 and send that forward to the full board so we can -- well, i know we have to continue this for -- to the next meeting of the land use

committee, and i also want to remind my colleagues that the maxim maximum nexus fee that was set forth in the nexus study was just shy of $14 a square foot. $13.45 to be exact, and i think that's a pretty fair rate, and i want to thank mr. are youland for that suggestion. >> supervisor tang: okay. i just want to make sure i understand. you want to duplicate the file. >> supervisor peskin: and i'd like to continue that item. >> supervisor tang: continue that item and the rest send back to planning commission. [inaudible] >> mr. givner: just one procedural point is we haven't yet determined whether the $4 per square foot version will also trigger a referral back to planning, but we'll take a look at the planning commission

meeting in the next couple days and let you all know or supervisor peskin and the clerk's office before next monday. >> supervisor peskin: and i believe we sent you a link to the precise moment at the planning commission meeting where in i believe it does not require a rereferral. >> supervisor tang: very nice. okay. so can we take all those motions -- or i guess that motion without objection? okay. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. so with that, are there any further matters before us today? >> clerk: there's no further matters before us. >> supervisor tang: i just wanted to thank supervisor peskin for keeping us until the last day. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your eight and six years for your work to this commission, and thank you for your continued work on this

committee. >> supervisor tang: and thank you. >> clerk: thank you for the opportunity to chair this committee. >> supervisor tang: thank you for giving me this opportunity to also giving me the opportunity to work so closely with our planning commission on these wonderful issues impacting our city. so with that, last meeting; we are adjourned. [♪] >> i just don't know that you can find