>> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday may 20th, 2019. i am the chair. joined to the left, matt haney, and vice chair supervisor who will be sitting to my right. our clerk is erica major. do you have any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and come copies of documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the june 4th, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you.

please call the next item. >> item one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to acquire the department of homelessness and supportive housing, a.k.a. h.s.h. to establish a safe, overnight parking pilot program. require h.s.h. to collaborate with the m.c.a. to develop an ongoing parking citation and toe and storage fee abatement program, and affirming appropriate findings. >> okay. is there any public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are going to defer action on this until later in the agenda. madame clerk, please read item number 2. >> item number 2 is then ordinance amending the ministry of code to allow applications for mills act contracts for historic properties to be filed concurrently with applications for designation of the same property. >> thank you. this is a pretty straightforward

, very simple piece of legislation that does precisely what the long title says, which is it allows somebody who has applied to landmark their property to apply for a tax relief at the same time, and are there any questions from committee members >> that was for the previous item, sorry. >> okay. is there any public comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. insofar as this has got my name on it, i would like to make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. can we do that without objection that will be the order. please read the third and final item. >> yes, item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code and business and tax regulations code to authorize

the addition of an accessory dwelling unit in the construction of a new single-family home or a multifamily building, clarifying the ministerial approval process and creating an extra board of appeals process. >> thank you. i just wanted to give some background on how we got here today before we dive into the weeds. i have a few amendments on the site in. essentially, there is multiple pieces of a.d.u. legislation that would be coming before us. they are working their way through the legislative process. this is one of six currently. the way that the existing law works, is we have two parallel programs to entitle and a.d.u., a local waiver program, and a state or no waiver ministerial program. this is state legislation that has allowed for this process to go forward, and we are now

putting this legislation forward to enable and get ourselves in compliance with state code. currently the planning code does not limit the size of the a.d.u. , and we are looking at at least having an minimum size on that. we do not want to have people having larger units and a really small a.d.u., so currently, we need to fix and bring ourselves in compliance with state code. this ordinance pretty much closes the existing requirements of that. we also talked about historic preservation if you're in a historic district, some recommendations that have been made to and by the planning commission. this has worked its way through the process over the last number of months. i have circulated to my colleagues copies of the amendments that were made today, but i wanted to talk about those before we open it up for public comment. first, the planning commission made a recommendation for setting a maximum size of a.d.u.s involving expansions of

existing envelopes. the city attorney added new subsections to specify the a.d.u.s under the no waiver ministerial program proposal and lots containing existing single-family homes that involve expansions, you may not exceed 1200 square feet. that is on page 16, lines 21 through 25. it may not exceed 1200 gross square feet. >> and that is to bring it in accordance with the state law changes, is that correct? >> yes. not to exceed -- through the chair to the city attorney, can you give some background on that addition to what i just said? >> deputy city attorney, that change is not required to comply with state law. >> sorry, recommended by the planning commission. >> right. what they wanted to do is

balance out the size of the a.d.u. with the overall square footage of the unit. sorry, the next one is to bring us into compliance. second one was -- i am adding a historic preservation review for the a.d.u.s. again, in the no waiver section, that would be page 15, line 17 through 24. essentially, if we were in a historic zone, a historic neighborhood area, we wanted to ensure we had the opportunity for that to be reviewed with the historic preservation commission to ensure we were following into that character so -- or into though -- into that area's character, so that it would not then have to be referred back. >> and threw myself to peter, just because i don't want to butcher your last name, that last sentence, such project should not be required to obtain

a certificate of appropriateness or permit to alter that is to conform it with state law changes that preempt. >> essentially, yes. that state law requires ministerial consideration of those accessory dwelling units. the start preservation commission has discretion under the existing sections of the code. they have passed a resolution, with standards that would be applied ministerially, and the a.d.u. would not be subject to the existing code requirements but would be subject to those ministerial standards. >> thank you. >> yes, so those are the words out of my mouth. thank you. the third one was some clerical amendments involving offstreet parking. we thought it was important based on some of the moves the city is made in terms of abolishing the vehicle parking

minimums. >> those are the three critical amendments adjusted by the historic preservation commission >> correct. >> did you want to speak on behalf of planning? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the planning department staff. so we already covered those critical items of the ordinance. i just want to also emphasize that related to the review of no waiver a.d.u. and historic resources, the historic preservation commission didn't adopt these objective architectural review standards, and that was during the april 3 rd hearing, following that, the h.p.c. also delegated such reviews to staff during last week's hearing. this does conclude presentations staff is available if you have any further questions. >> i do have one question. i realize it would be good for staff, h.p.c. recommended

getting rid of the waiver for open space planning commission and they did not. >> okay. insofar as all of the proposed amendments were read, it sounds like you are agreeing with planning, and not taking the waiver of open space. >> we did not include that, that's why it was not mentioned. i know you would ask about it. i'm just kidding. i do want to say, there is another thing to clarify and that was a really important point. i was what to bring that up because we did not want to have any more confusion about the no waiver, it is one of the most important ways for us to ensure rent control, and that is one of the dialogues that we have.

i was asking the city attorney clarification clarification question. thank you for bringing that up i wanted to ask the city attorney between now and because of these amendments which will require, it one week continuance, that we amend the residential standards in article seven and eight to referenced 207 c. four and 207 c6. if you wanted to talk a little bit about that so you can explain what we are asking for, but it would make us some currently not reflecting on our tables about vehicle parking and some other things. you can specify that. >> these are conforming amendments to the tables in article seven in article eight to reflect the changes to the a.d.u. controls who are being made with this ordinance. >> we have a number of

amendments on the table. i may offer some other ones. >> we'll talk about it after. i just want to clarify one other thing. part of the reason we can't talk to one another, so we have to hear about it for the first time here in committee, but i did want to say the approach of this , if i didn't say clearly with all the competing a.d.u. legislation, this is about new construction and new property. there is going to be subsequent pieces of legislation that deal with additional space and so on, but this is primarily focused on new construction and how we can ensure the ability to have additional units in new construction. that was my emphasis and approach on this. >> understood. why don't we open this up to public comment? i have somewhere in all of these papers on my desk, some speaker cards. we will open up public comment for item number 3.

georgia, michael murphy, and jeremy schwab, and anyone else would like to testify, you can line up to my left, you're right >> hi, i'm georgia. a.d.u.s formerly called in loss have been a good way to provide avoidable housing in the city. prior to the legalization with supervisor weiner's legislation, you can often find them all over the city, in every neighborhood, often in a single-family home, with tenants living in the in law unit, as they were called, paying a very reasonable rent commensurate with their income and allowing them to save money. rent control of new units and new construction is a new way to continue this historic pattern which existed prior to the extreme speculation and housing that san francisco has experienced in the last decade. this will give new generations opportunities to live in san francisco.

however, the a.d.u. in new construction must not be encouraging step back you later is to demolish livable single-family housing to add the a.d.u. this is particularly important in single family housing that is occupied by tenants who would be evicted to allow the construction of a large single-family home within a.d.u. this is an unintended consequence that would slow down the production of a.d.u.s, per mayor breed's statements, and her statement sitting the affordability of an a.d.u. as mayor breed stated, quote, i will not let all bureaucracy stand in the way of building more housing, especially new rent control housing. i think it is important that we make sure that housing be preserved as well as added at the same time. thank you very much. >> thank you for your that comment. i agree. speaker, please? >> i am michael murphy. i am a retired research attorney of the state court of appeal. i've take it upon myself to

analyse the estate law on a.d.u. and single-family homes. last june, the planning commission reported that only 12 % of a.d.u. permit filings related to single-family homes. why has a.d.u. construction lagged? my memo shows that dual failure, a failure to comply with state law, regulating the a.d.u. in a single-family home, and a failure to implement the effective policy, encouraging this form of new housing. the two are congruent. effective a.d.u. strategies will comply with state law. portland has experienced a surge of a.d.u. construction and single-family homes. it can probably happen here with an appropriate framework with the ordinance in the a.d.u. handbook. the amendment proposed here, for the first time, displays a commendable attention to state law, but my memo shows that its

impact will be somewhat marginal a serious study of the issues presented by the a.d.u. and single-family homes is needed. i hope my memo will be helpful. >> hi, my name is dylan casey, i am from the california renters legal advocacy and education fund. i want to lend my support for this ordinance and also mentioned that the two changes that are proposed will provide a much better process for single-family home owners to add a.d.u.s or establish a.d.u.s in a new single-family home. both of these changes are necessary to bring the san francisco ordinance into compliance with state law. i think san francisco could go further than this. the current ordinance applies

some zoning standards that were written for single-family homes to a.d.u.s, and it makes it very difficult to put an a.d.u. on a single family home property. visa be the rear yard requirements that are fairly large, and they don't leave a lot of space for new a.d.u. the last thing i want to mention is that it has been a long process in getting this ordinance to this stage, and i hope the board will move quickly i hope the planning staff his processing applications in accordance with state law as the state law requires. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i understand that the role of a.d.u.s and in meeting demand for housing, and with minimal disruption or distortion of markets and opportunities for expectation for need for housing by outside capital. i understand this bill is intended in part to conform with

state law which is understandable, but i like to point out this is another opportunity for the city to take steps to strengthen protections for tenants and others against this or possible other state law more and more we need to be vigilant to protect ourselves against the consequences of current and proposed legislation , no matter how benign or well-intentioned as this law is, or potentially even more malign or harmful as other proposed state laws can be. in this case, we believe more protection for tenants in the form of rent control for a.d.u. to allow for new construction is a worthwhile amendment. by deleting the requirement that there be an existing rental unit on the lot, the city can issue waivers that could subject every unit in a new building within a.d.u. to rent control. we also support the unit equity that would prevent the construction of sham units of a.d.u.s. other items to be addressed, we still face this very real issue of presenting landlords from

severing existing tendencies, and we encourage changes to address that issue. more needs to be done in this proposal and in others to ensure that the opportunity to create a.d.u.s and the values that they create does not become another incentive for demolition. we already have enough demolitions occurring in the city. there are six pending. tenants are used -- losing garages to a.d.u. is, a and new construction being proposed. they would give a non rent-controlled a.d.u. is, and we would hope that the amendments will address these issues. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, jennifer with a san francisco tenant's union. i wanted to speak in favor of this legislation and especially a couple of amendments that have been proposed, the costa hawkins waiver that will give rent

control to new units. that would be great. we would love that. and then the other one about making a 50% minimum size, but i do want to bring up this housing severance issue. we brought it up with several of your offices for a very long time, that the way the a.d.u. legislation is currently written is harming existing tenants in their leases, and we have been asking for a fix for that. this seems like a very good place to finally do that. and especially, there is a lot of state law coming. it will do the same thing where it will sever their own laws and disregard what we do here. i just want everybody to be cautious when we love a.d.u.s, but when you are jumping on this bandwagon, to also look at what's happening at the state level in deregulation that is

not always the best course. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm here on behalf of san francisco housing coalition. i'm speaking in support today. number of the speakers in front of me said i said a lot of good things when diving into the details. i know we work with michael on a ton of stuff regarding the legality that exist between the a.d.u. laws and state a.d.u. laws. one of the things and thinking about a conversations -- the conversations that we have had over the last number of years since i have been involved, i am relatively certain that no one has had more conversations in this room then a supervisor peskin, it is something that they have been very active with for a very long time. the speed at which we do things, considering the magnitude of the emergency that we are facing in the state right now, even in these cleanup spaces of legislation, i feel like this is the sixth or seventh or eighth time i've spoken to this body about it, so however we intend

to act to avoid these consequences is really good. thank you to the continued effort of everyone up here, hopefully we will get these people into new homes so people have places to live. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, renee, i 25 year resident of san francisco. i am a tenant advocate and a tenant myself in the building with a.d.u.s. i strongly urge you guys to adopt the amendment regarding rent control to any a.d.u. being added, including two new construction and single-family owner occupied houses with i want to echo we don't throw away any kind of regulations for losing their services. i am fighting my landlord to

maintain my bike parking. i seem to be winning, but that is because i am a thorn in his side. i know my rights and i am fighting for them. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here to represent the a.d.u. amendments that amendment that is going to allow rent control for the new construction , new a.d.u. is a new construction for single-family homes. this is a great idea to help us and do value capture. i also want to suggest having title control on replacing legally leased space spaces that the tenants have with a.d.u. i have been involved in several issues that were brought in to the detention -- the attention of the planning commission, as well as the board of appeals. believe it or not, every single one of us want to this, because

it has to be just because. if you are doing displacement, be it personal displacement, or belonging displacement, it has to be a just cause. we do not have that in our a.d.u. legislation. even though we are a city with a rent ordinance, that is going to preclude landlords from evicting the belongings or the persons from property that is rent-controlled. we do need to have an amendment that will interest us. we are tired of showing up and reminding commissioners that i cannot approve a project. it is a great step. thank you so much.

>> i remember when supervisors first put forth this idea of creating an a.d.u. in unused spaces so that tenants who are on rent control, who have been displaced can find a unit to live in, and they would still be protected. so somehow or other, this morphed, i think when supervisors came in to take up garage spaces, take up places where people do their laundry, and people store things, and

these are part of the lease agreements that tenants have, and it is really a hardship to be without them. a person on dialysis for not to have access to his car to go for daily treatment, elderly people not to have laundry facilities, so i thank you need to go back, in your haste, to put forth wonderful provisions. you forgot about the tenants. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm with senior and disability action as well as a long, long time north beach resident. i am thrilled that you are adding this amendment in terms of rent control for a.d.u.s. of course, it won't immediately be affordable if it is built today, however, one day it will

be affordable, and so for the majority of san franciscans who are seeking affordable housing, this would do the trick in some time. in addition, i want to make sure we find a fix for severing those services. i do know of laundry facilities that are being taken away from tenants, meaning that at the same time laundromats are closing, they are being sold, they are being developed into other housing, which can be a really great thing, however, what do you do about needing clean clothes? i do know that it is an issue in north beach because there can be one laundromat that actually takes care of about 300 tenants in other areas. a fix is needed for that. if you have storage space, i know of a vietnam veteran who stories his scooter in order to

be mobile, in his storage unit, and now he is being threatened and harassed to give up his storage space so that an a.d.u. can be built, which is great, but does that a.d.u. have to be 600 square feet? that is the other question. let's make sure tenants are not hurt, that we are indeed adding affordable housing, because this would be great. thank you so much. >> thank you, speaker. >> hello, i am testifying in support of passing a.d.u. law that is compliant with state law there's no particular reason why you can't pass something in compliance soon, even today, and do other amendments later. a lot of the things that people are talking about have to do with the city's multifamily a.d.u. program, and our main issues are with the a.d.u.

program that has to do with building a new sickle family house within a.d.u. or allowing someone to put an a.d.u. in a single-family house. i thank you can probably get everything done, but i urge you to do it timely, soon. we brought these same issues up before this version was passed. thanks. >> my name is ben, i live in the tenderloin. i would like to commend you all for working to bring the local a.d.u. ordinance into compliance with state law. i think it is great that we are moving forward and encouraging this housing type. it has been here forever, and it is a fantastic opportunity to build new housing in parts of the city that haven't seen a lot of housing production. i would encourage you to move a little more quickly, if you can, because right now, the longer we

wait to bring -- improve the law to make changes to the law, the more people who are trying to build a.d.u.s in living in limbo , not knowing what the standards that they might have to comply with. i think it is good to have clarity with these things and i hope you will take that into account. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. jeremy shop with architects. i fully support this proposed legislation today, and as mentioned, i am an architect, so i want to bring across the point that we're talking about planning department policy, but after planning reviews its set of building permit drawings, it will go to building department, and they don't care how many units are in it. they want the fully realized set of plans. if we show them that it is a single-family and then we wait another year and come back with

an a.d.u., it just adds more time and process to it. we want this legislation approved now so we can start creating units now. thank you. >> thank thank you. next speaker. >> it afternoon, chairman. i am with the california leader -- legal act -- advocacy fund. on the issue of severing tenant services, we had a good discussion about this about a week ago at the board of appeals , and there was discussion about adding a notice requirement, and discussion about what is already on the books in terms of protecting tenant services. there is currently a requirement that tenants be given notice, any severance of services for construction of a.d.u.s is temporary, and tenants are given compensation under the law for that. i would encourage the supervisors to move forward with the legislation that you have in

front of you currently so that there's not another round of these amendments. perhaps introduce separate legislation to deal with and potential notice requirements, and i think there's also a way to do that such that there's not a delay caused to the permitting process. you could do it more like the 15 day structural notice under d.b.i., as opposed to 311 notice that way we are not driving the expense up even further for these a.d.u.s or causing further delay in legislative process or construction process. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i would like you to see -- i'd like to see you be concerned about apartment building complexes for people that is coming -- that like you are doing for these add-ons to existing buildings so you don't have to go through all of these bending and changing rules and regulations to add on to existing property, because you are opening the door for

confusion and conflict. is one of the best ideas that people have come before this chamber, and none of you seem to realize how important that is, and a bigger bang for your back gets you a gift and spending and taking care of the problems for all generations, and all ages, in all categories of people that need housing. i don't know why that is so hard to understand. you would rather build a shelter bed then a god damn permanent housing for people. a navigation center is not housing, it is a map on the floor with a person 10 inches away from than laying down an additional match. that is not housing. her spending millions of dollars on a navigation center where you can only stay there for 5060 or

70 days, and you get kicked out and get put down on the seats again. i showed you where you can build a trade centre story tower with 144 units per every three floors and take out a the chunk of the homeless populations that came off to people being housed. it doesn't make any sense. it is counterproductive. >> are there any other members, any members of the public would like to testify on this item? seeing non, public comment is closed. mr. starr, on behalf of planning , anything you want to add that was not said? you are sitting there and i thought, you know, i just want to get out of the planning department for the afternoon. all right. >> thank you. i will -- i really appreciate the public testimony made today. what we have tried to do is strike a fine balance between

the conversation about new construction and the conversation about existing dwellings and protecting existing renters and ensuring that there's notice and all those things, and i think supervisor peskin is going to propose a fixed to that so we can continue the conversation and move this legislation forward so we are really narrowly focusing on new construction. with that in mind, there will be a conversation about -- and ed we have, as we have said before, there's a conversation about open space requirement and waivers and so on, so we have pretty much codified in our process that if any waivers are required that allows us in any form, that allows us the opportunity to engage in a conversation around rent control , we think that is important. we have done everything we can to nearly does find this legislation around new construction and in that new construction, the opportunity to build a.d.u.s. i will handed over to supervisor peskin. i know he has a couple of things

he wants to talk about in terms of the amendment going forward. >> thank you. and to whichever speaker that took a run at this, i think it was maybe 16 years ago, and i guess i was a little bit ahead of my time, i thought that i had six votes to pass it, but ended up with five. i was delighted in that period of time when i was off the board i think it was about four years ago when my successor and other members of the board since departed and took that conversation up. frankly, san francisco has, i think, being at the forefront of a.d.u.s statewide, and we have spent a lot of time in my office actually, back in 2016, working with planning and d.b.i. to take three months off the permitting process, and there's still work

to be done, and if you look at the numbers, just a year ago, there were a handful of a.d.u.s that have been built, i think 23 reported by the examiner. that number has more than when too bold with more than 1200 in the pipeline. and most of those are being built in multiunit buildings. and to the speaker who said that , this is really aimed at single-family homes. that is right. and if we have 120,000 single-family homes in san francisco, if 25% of those chose to have an a.d.u., that would be 30,000 additional units of housing over time, but while this program expands, we are sometimes falling short of some of the details. we heard a lot from the public today about what those details are, and with every change in state law, despite of all the good intentions that come with making sure that the rest of the

state is following san francisco 's model, we are having our hands tied in ways that make a.d.u.s less limp -- nimble, certainly as it applies to multifamily buildings. for example, when state law was amended to say that a.d.u.s do not exceed the allowable density for the pond for which it is located, we actually lose our ability to issue density waivers , which are the basis for subjecting a.d.u.s to rent stabilization, which was in my 2003 proposal, and has carried through just carry through and every proposal since. when we are told that residents can no longer seek discretional review, we are losing our ability to address clear violations of the rent ordinance , which occur when critical housing services, as we've heard today from the union , are settled -- severed from an existing tenancy without just cause. when we are told that a.d.u.s may not exceed a certain size, we are being told that a.d.u. seen brand-new construction like

it is being proposed today, cannot be and equitably size residential flat with front and rear exposure and other standards that would prevent creation of single-family monster homes, which i think we are all concerned about. what i would like to do, in spirit of what i think we have heard today, is to duplicate the file and to make a couple of amendments to that, and then add a drafting request, which i will attempt to articulate, and then we can work it out and maybe if that third one is nonsubstantive , we can add it as we go through this because of the changes that the supervisor made to the table that will require a one meeting continuance. on page 11, and i just handed these to my colleagues, line 13 out of 15, i would like to delete the language. as you see there, the subject

lot contains rental units at the time an application for a building permit that is filed for construction of the a.d.u. on lines 18 and 19, delete the now unnecessary language that reads, for purposes of this requirement, rental units shall be defined a section 37-point to are of the admin code, that is the rent stabilization ordinance what they would like to do is subject a.d.u. to rent control, even if there was not an existing rent control on the property. in brand-new construction, when there isn't already a rent can troll solution on the lot. on page 16, lines nine through 14, i would like to add in subsection seven, the total area of floor space for the a.d.u. proposed to be constructed with a single-family dwelling unit shall not be less than 50% of the proposed primary dwelling living area except that an efficiency unit that meets all

of the requirements of this subsection may be constructed pursuant to section 65852.2 subsection c. of the california government code. obviously insofar as this, we will have to be referred to planning and to the planning commission. we can discuss where that 50% minimum should be, but this is up for discussion purposes. i fundamentally believe that in the context of new construction, there is limited rationale for considering the a.d.u.s secondary to a primary dwelling, and we should be pursuing policies that restrict monster homes, and incentivize equitably sized units. i would also like to make another amendment or a drafting request in line with what we heard today from a number of folks, and in line with unanimously passed a resolution of the board of appeals, that is to require notice to all tenants of the intent to convert spaces in the building to a.d.u.s prior

to permit issuance, and the issuance of permits for a.d.u.s, his or property ownership provide tenants with plans and have a process in place to receive and respond to inquiries from tenants, which currently is not the case. the board of appeals has been very clear of that. they have become the internal court of last resort, and a lot of folks are not being adequately noticed. i want to thank the board of appeals for the position that they adopted on may 8th. i understand that there are some pieces of this legislation that can move forward at the next meeting, what i would like to do , as i said, his duplicate the file, incorporate the amendments that i mentioned, which will kick it back to the planning commission for 90 days, and continue -- and adopt the amendment, as well. >> i make a motion to duplicate.

>> why don't we do this. why don't we take your amendments, emotion made, take the -- a motion made, we'll take that without objection. then i will duplicate the file, and take the amendments i just discussed, and the one yet to be discussed, the one peter will draft, and we will take that without objection, and then we will rerefer the duplicative file to mr. starr and his team in the planning commission, and we will do all of that. we have to continue the first file to the next meeting. there is no meeting next week, so that will be june 3rd. is that what you were rising to say? >> i was rising to suggest that you actually continue both items to next week and then we can -- to june 3rd, then we can figure out which version the new

amendment should go in, and at that meeting, we continue your item, the duplicate to the call of the chairs of the planning commission can consider it and you can send the other version forward. >> thank you for that suggestion we will continue both files to the meeting of june the third and we will do that without objection. we will go back to item number 1 the floor is yours. >> thank you. okay. folks, this is a small piece of our safe parking legislation. the triage legislation that we put forward. we have some amendments today, and there were three different areas of the code that authorizes and governs this type of proposal. today we would like to deal with the police code. the first portion that went through dealt with the admin code. we have two other areas of the code that we have to deal with to enable the safe parking

program or the triage lot, what we are calling it. first thing we need to do today is we need to change the title. we can't have the exact same title as the admin code, so i will hand out copies to you all here. the first amendment is we are going to change the title on page 1, lines 3-7, essentially it will read now, an ordinance amending the admin code to revise the requirement for the controller to submit reports concerning the safe, overnight parking pilot program, and amending the police code to create an exception for participants in the safe overnight parking pilot program to the prohibition on using a vehicle for human habitation. we needed to change that so it has a separate peace, a separate title. second amendment, we are doing

this on page 3, lines 18 to 23. we are introducing an amendment -- >> this is to revise the code, the requirement of the admin code to require the control adjustment reports concerning pilot programs and amending the police code. that amendment reflects a change to the police code or the habitation only on designated sights. i want to think the police department for working with supervisor brown and her office to make these amendments possible. second, another amendment we are doing is to, on page 2, page 2,

line 17 to 22, that will introduce an amendment on the reporting that will have specific reporting requirements on behalf of the department of h.s.h. and the controller. that is lines 1710 to 22 on pag. essentially it says six months after the affected date, they'll present us with information, and line one total six on page 3, it continues on. >> i see it. >> and then the last, after all these, we need to continue the matter. because of these amendments, it will automatically trigger a continuance, so we are just continuing to june 3rd. >> motion made to take these amendments. is there something you would like to add?

did you want to add anything, shakira? turn that microphone on with that special little button there >> apologies. john, show her where the button is. >> can you hear me? >> thank you. thank you to the supervisors. on behalf of supervisor brown, we would like to introduce these small cleanup amendments that will allow our state parking program and vehicle triage center to exist. we appreciate you adopting these amendments, supervisor brown also supports the motion for continuance to the june 3rd meeting. >> motion made by supervisors to take these amendments, we will take these amendments without objection and continue the item to the next meeting of june the third. this committee is adjourned.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files

of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb

elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hanhang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat.

it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful muellermixer ura alsomurals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local mean that wor people willr money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪ ] - >> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are

impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals

my my name is ryan the co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more fresh produce produce cerebrothe

neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program it is so important about healthy

retail in the low income community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way. >> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and vegetables so that's good as far

been doing good. >> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways the most important piece to me when we start seeing the

business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor store sells alcohol traditional

alcohol but when they see this their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have more

>> call the commission to order. commissioners, i will take the role. [roll call] the second item on agenda is the approval 0 the minutes of the meeting of may 7, 2019. you have the minutes before you. i would entertain a motion after you've had an opportunity to look he