in the time. if you look up and down the street, all of these apartments and studios that were p.d.r. are all used for offices. we're not the only one. the entire neighborhood has become offices, and the amount of spaces that people have said, there aren't offices flocking to it. i don't know how you would manufacture a 1,000 square foot thing in a 100 square foot room. i hope we can stay until we want to leave, and then after, if you want to put p.d.r. in, great, but if we have to leave, it would did he haevastate mos. >> chair peskin: thank you. and this is the last speaker,

and if there are any other speakers, please lineup on your right. >> hi. i'm one of the few salons in the nation that offers true p.p.d.-free colors for people with color issues. i have an auto immune disorder which makes it hard to work a regular 8:00 to 5:00 for somebody else. so my disorder makes it hard to work for anybody else. i've worked for other salon spaces, and they are double, if not triple what i pay now because of gentrification. if i close my business, i would no longer have a way to support myself as a disabled person, so this legislation not only

affects my business, but it also affects my health and my state of well buildi-being, an of my colleagues are also in the same boat. i ask the council to please consider voting in favor of this legislation. ten years is great, but if you can see to grandmother us in indefinitely, that would be helpful for many of us. and on that note, i don't see why many of us have to cover the cost of the amnesty, and i ask you to pass the cost on to the landlord not the tenants because we were never made aware of this. >> chair peskin: thank you. and seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment and turn it over to supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: our first

choice when drafting this legislation was to gather everyone who is currently at the space in in perpetuity, but that when anyone decided to leave because they want today go out of business -- they wanted to go out of business or they wanted to grow their company, that once they left from that point forward, the space could only be used for p.d.r., what it's proper zoned for. the city attorney and the planning department says that was not possible. it wasn't legal and it didn't fit with the way we enforce our zoning laws, and so we had to put a time limit on this nonconforming use which is not preferable because i do believe that there is a great need for p.d.r. space. in fact, i've spoken to dozens and dozens of artists where the

active space rents are too high for them, and that's why they're not there. that's why they're not in that building sharing that space with you. it's not because they don't want to be with you, it's because they can't afford that. because there are a lot of personal services in the building, the landlord has gotten away with charging even the rents that you're paying. so it is -- these are connected issues, and we are taking away something for this p.d.r. artists space by grandfathering you all in. but i believe this is the right thing to do because we can't lose 100 to 200 businesses in one fell swoop that depend on this space. we have to act as a city to mitigate that below. but we didn't have a perfect fix for this, and what i tried to do was a very careful

balancing act between protecting the businesses as much as i could in these spaces without changing the zoning because i continue to believe that the p.d.r. zoning is the right zoning for the spot and is highly needed in the need. the issue about the mandatory discretionary review, i wanted to clarify that if all the businesses came together and filed the mandatory discretionary review together, you can do that and split the $3,000 cost, making it much smaller for anyone. and again, that's just for those using this space as office space, not the personal use, etc. so that's one thing to know. and then, the last thing i will say is that we did put a clause in this legislation requiring the landlord to give notice in writing to any new tenant about what uses are allowed at this

space so that any tenant are put on notice if there's an improper use. i am concerned that it would appear, at least from the testimony that i heard today, that the landlord is continuing to rent in active space, spaces that are not active p.d.r. so i think the city attorney was just distracted, jon givner, if you're available, today, we heard in testimony that the landlord continues to be renting active space sites or units to non-p.d.r. businesses, and i'm just wondering if you can explain, to the extent that you can, what the city attorney's office is doing to hold this landlord responsible. he did have to get a notice of special restriction when he got the permission to build this

site, and it's very concerning to me that the bad acts continue. so if you could weigh-in on that. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure i can give you much information on today's meeting, but i will definitely take back that information to the attorneys in my office who are working on this matter and i can report back to your office, if not publicly, at today's committee meeting. >> supervisor ronen: okay. that would be great. and just to be clear, mr. givner is our attorney at the board of supervisors but didn't work on this piece of legislation. that attorney that did work on this piece of lemgislation, we made it crystal clear that we wanted the landlord to be held responsible for this crisis. so with that, i'm happy to take any of my colleague's

questions. >> chair peskin: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor ronen for responding on such an important issue. this happens all the time in the city. it happens very often where landlords are not necessarily familiar with the zoning and the zoning requirements, and that's when we're called in to help solve the situation. it's happened over and over again in my district on the commercial corridors, no less, where people rent to -- or they're just interested in getting the space rented and collecting rent and not necessarily thinking about the rules in the city, or maybe in the past, they haven't always been followed. but the zoning changes, rules changes, and we have different objectives that we're trying to accomplish. i, too, believe that p.d.r. space is extremely important, particularly when it's been zoned in a very carefully

thought out manner. the sad thing is it looks like an entire building was rented out aggressively and continues to be aggressively rented out despite the zoning changes with the intent to protect that particular use. i've also gotten a lot of calls from people reaching out. many actually own their businesses and live in that location. one of the questions that came out, and i would direfrom the business is many of these businesses are going to have to pay fees for these small businesses, so i'd like some clarification that, and i'd like to under what that's about. >> hi. domenica donovan with the office of small business. my colleague from the planning

department might be better able to answer this question, but when personal services, health services, those who don't have to go through the mandatory discretionary review, they'll have to pay for a change of use fees like any other change of use within the city. do i have that correct, audrey? >> chair peskin: i want to say miss butkus, but miss merlone. >> chair peskin: i'm going to get that. one more meeting, i'll be good. >> so addressing the fees, it's no difference than any business that wants to establish itself in the first place, and they're establishing their use in the first place. so the fees where the planning department is concerned, we is always -- somebody can come in, whether they're trying to be an active business ten years ago, come in originally, or come in

today. >> supervisor safai: you're saying two different things. you're saying one is an establishing fee, and one is a change of use fee. so are you saying that some of these businesses that went through an establishing use are going to have to go through a change of use fee? >> i believe with the exception of three businesses, no establishing fee has been established for this business in the first place. i apologize for using those interchangeably. >> supervisor safai: i understand the planning terminology. i think it's important for the business owners and the public to understand that you're not requiring them to do something now that they've been caught up in this bureaucratic -- this is something that is required but would never happened, is that correct? >> that's the point. the reason the fee is not one set fee is in several of these

site visits with department of building inspection, we've noticed that some units have been altered without building permits, so that's why some tenants may find their permit fees higher than others. but again, this is all standard permit fees. we are not charging anything additional. these would have been applicable from the time they came in originally to establish their permit. >> supervisor safai: i would -- and this is, again, to the sponsor to the district. it feels a little bit like some of this stuff is being done after the fact would never have been noticed or caught had they not been caught -- >> chair peskin: i know there's a question, and i know that supervisor haney's name is on the roster. i would like to associate

myself with the comments of the chief legislator of this ordinance, supervisor ronen. i'm a little taken aback by the commenters who want to change the zoning. this, i think, as i said, is a sticky wicket. let me underscore some of the things that have been said on this panel. this landlord knew what precisely misrepresentations he was making to each and every tenant. the notice of special restrictions that he took title too was abundantly clear. so you got bamboozeled by this guy, and you can get all sorts of permits from the city. that's absolutely true. i wish we could solve it, but you've got a health permit if you've got a certain kind of business, but that doesn't get

referred to planning to see if you've got a permit that's the right type of use. but this is the behavior of an unscrupulous landlord who bam boozeled tenants into units that he could not use. people in the late 90's and early 2000's fought tooth and nail to keep p.d.r. i am going to vote for supervisor ronen's legislation, but don't get over your skis. this is a very rare thing, and i have not looked over any of your leases, but this is landlord is a very smart man.

i think that there's language in your leases that says you can't do what you're doing. >> supervisor safai: mr. chair, i agree with everything you said, and this is no way an intent to impugn any of our city agencies. it's meant to further the conversation about, you know, you have these very small business, they're in a space, they've been misled -- purposely misled in many cases. i guess is there a remedy that we can approach that would ask the landlord to be a part of paying some of the fees or the change of use fees, and i think that would be a little bit more fair. there's often times a negotiation on the types of leases, and i wonder if in this

case we asked the landlord who very obviously misled these tenants to take place in these leases which are obviously going to expire.

>> supervisor ronen: -- that we make sure we're outreaching and help organizing the groups to apply together. what i was going to say in response to you, supervisor safai, is i think we ask our small businesses in san francisco in general to pay too many fees. so what i would say is that we look at a bigger piece of legislation to reduce these fees in general. but this here is unprecedented. i can't tell you what a big

deal it is, especially in the mission district at this time to override p.d.r. zoning. i've never done it before, i can't imagine doing it since. i cannot emphasize enough that the reason that this building isn't filled with activists from the mission screaming from the other side that we shouldn't do this is because of the understanding of the value that you bring to the community, the fact that so many mission residents use your services. the amount of love that you all as small business owners and practitioners have garnered in the mission is why i'm politically able to get this amnesty program passed, but i cannot tell you how extraordinary of an act this is. a decade ago, we never would have been able to pass this, as

supervisor peskin was saying, when there was a word over words in the mission. i think -- a war over words in the mission. i am very much committed and would love to partner with all of you to lower fees for small businesses in the city because they're outrageous and too much. >> chair peskin: before i call on supervisor haney, i do want to say at the last board of supervisors not related to this instance at all, i actually called for a study on every single fee as it relates to small business so that this committee can get them in the right downward direction. supervisor haney -- or supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to finish that. i just wanted to say thank you

to -- for that. i think, again, this is a wonderful step in the right direction. want to appreciate supervisor ronen's hard work sand avoidin a major disagreement where there would be a fight over the same space. >> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i do want to associate myself with the comments about the behavior of the landlord in this situation and what we're able to do legally. i just want to commend

supervisor ronen in this situation. i think it requires a targeted response, and whatever we can do, by continuing to support these small businesses as we continue to move through this process, we should continue to do. so thank you, supervisor ronen and all the parties, and i think there will be an immediate solution to the issue to allow you to stay. >> chair peskin: supervisor ronen, i think you and your staff found the sweet spot. if there is no objection, we will take your amendments and send the item as a committee report to the board of supervisors for tomorrow's meeting without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, let's see if we can take items

four and five together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin. items four and five are two routine acceptances in the

ongoing development in mission bay. the developer has completed improvements to the water pump station and park improvements including sidewalk widening. this will allow the city to formally accept these developments. i do have amendments for number four and five. for five, we are deleting reference to a letter from the p.u.c. that was not part of the packet. this is a nonsubstantive amendment and copies are being based out. on number five, there is a responsibility on park p-2 parking lot. this is a nonsubstantive amendment, and you have copies of those. i believe a representative from public works and from ocii is here to answer any questions.

>> chair peskin: mr. nicholas huff, the floor is yours on general public works. >> so the first is part of the infrastructure plan for the mission bay south area. as you can see, it's infrastructure pumps. the improvements were constructed in accordance with the storm pump stations number

five plans and in consultation with the general manager of p.u.c. indicating that the project is completed and ready for its intended use. i have additional photos of where the project is located. it's actually hidden. it's -- and chase center is in the background for reference. so it's back there. the pump station is located under the concrete paving in the park. the pump station is in an easement in these buildings behind this tree. the city is operating the stormwater pump station under a temporary license from focil until it is accepted by the board. the department of city plans has determined that the construction and the acceptance of the improvements is consistent with the city's general plan, the eight prior policies of planning code section 101.1 and that this does not trigger any further

ceqa environmental review. the office of community investment and infrastructure determined that the project is consistent with the project documents. we request that the land use committee approve and request acceptance by the board of supervisors. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. huff. is there any public comment on items four or five? don't all run up here at once. okay. public comment is closed, [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and supervisor haney has moved the amendments to both items, and we will take that without objection, and we will send both report amendments as committee reports to board of supervisors full

board. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, will you please the next item. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: mr. wong, are you here on behalf of e.c.n. or is somebody here from mohcd? all right. i don't actually even need a presentation on these items. they -- they are part of ongoing work that we are doing relative to the hope sf project at potrero in phase two. they are known to this panel.

are there any members of the public who would like to speak on items seven or eight? seeing none, public comment is closed, and deputy city attorney givner, you are not aware of any minor amendments that are requested on those items. so seeing -- >> clerk: mr. chair, in the resolution, we just need to specify the committee as a whole date. >> chair peskin: and that date would be -- >> clerk: september 9, 2018. >> chair peskin: so in that instrument, we will add said date, and we will take that amendment without objection, and we will send items seven and eight in the due course of bid to the full board without objection. madam clerk, can you please read item ten out of order. [agenda item read].

>> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, over time, the abandonment period at section 178 of the planning code and north beach neighborhood commercial district has notoriously been 18 months and three years. it hassi toggled back and fort over the vacancies over the years. i propose that we return it back to its current 1 wi8 mont and i appreciate president norman yee waiving some of the ordinances so .

is there any public comment on item number ten? seeing none, public comment is closed. and colleagues, if there is no comment or objection, we will send this to the full board as a committee report. madam clerk, we will return to item 2, which we have previously read. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair peskin. thank you for taking us out of order. we had to get -- >> chair peskin: hold on. i have one piece of housekeeping, which is that item number eight, which we amended to have heard by the full board on september 3 should go without recommendation. is that correct, deputy city attorney givner? >> mr. givner: you amended item seven to reference the september 3 date, but item 8 will go without recommendation to item eight. >> chair peskin: i will rescind the vote on item number eight

and make a motion to send item eight to the full board without recommendation. that will be the order. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and now, we will return to item number two. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: you sure? >> chair peskin: positive. >> supervisor safai: okay. i got it. colleagues, i appreciate you taking the time. through many, many many conversations with stakeholders, particularly business owners and employees and representatives from labor groups and small businesses in the surrounding area, we brought back what we feel is a fair compromise which would now area simply a conditional use authorization. i want to just review some of the small -- some of the reasons why we proposed this

initially. there are through our research about 45 of these existing on-site internal cafeterias. they serve thousands and thousands and thousands of employees. many of them are in the midmarket area. many of them are in the area where our city made a significant investment in those businesses and allowable taxes to encourage those businesses. and if anyone walks that area of our city, it's still an area that's wanting for a ground floor activation in all different types of uses. so our initial approach and our initial thought was the impact that these potential on-site cafeteria has on the surrounding environment, the impacts on those businesses, the rent on those businesses, the impact of all of the above. but what we've come to

compromise now on is similar to what you've heard many, many times in this committee from cafes to other small businesses when the impact could potentially change the course of the conversation with the surrounding area. they have to go through a conditional use authorization. and what that really means is it's more public input, more opportunity for the planning commission and surrounding businesses in that instance to weigh-in and talk about the impacts that they might have. we feel like this is a balanced approach, we feel this is fair, and we feel it addresses many of the concerns that many of the folks had when they brought that to us. i want to thank supervisor peskin. we worked on this supervisor to being on the -- the committee together, so we've had to work on this independently at a distance now that we are the chair and vice chair of this committee, but i want to appreciate the work and time that he put into this working with all the impacted parties.

i'm going to highlight some of the amendments that we made today. you have a copy of those in front of you, but essentially, the biggest ones were we added some of the findings to talk about many of the businesses and concerns that their employees have. we amended on page 9, 13, 14, and 19, with the impact and where the -- this particular office use is and what the employee cafeteria is, and we clarified the difference between -- in this instance the difference between a break room where there's a lot of food versus an actual cafeteria, so we talk about that in particular. we also say any of these existing that are approved as of the date of this ordinance

will be approved and will be considered legal nonconforming accessory uses. they may exist but if they intend to expand or reinstall after abandonment, they would have to go through the conditional use authorization that all the different proposed private cafeterias will have going forward. so that's on-line 8 through 11 on page 5. and then, we had our conditional existing uses -- excuse me, the criteria that we'd like the planning commission and others to consider as part of the c.u. process. i'll just review a few of them. whether the size of the cafeteria is located in the building, whether it's open to the general public and it's conducive to use by the general public, whether it's impacting on the eating and drinking establishments in the neighborhood, whether those meals are free or heavily subsidized by the cafeteria, whether they're subsidized,

whether the employer would subsidize or pay for meals outside of the cafeteria, where the cafeteria has committed to using reusable food ware on-site and take away dining. and then some , on page 6, the employees of the cafeteria, what kind of impact they have on our city's housing, public transit, health, and other social services related to the demands that those employees create and those that would otherwise be employed at other eating and drinking establishments. and whether -- and this is important, whether the actual cafeteria itself provides all employees that work for that particular company, including janitor's, servers, security

guards, all of them have access to that particular cafeteria. we heard stories over the last couple years that janitor's and security guards wouldn't have access to those cafeterias. so that's it. the effect tichb date ive date legislation would be upon approval and signing by the mayor. supervisor peskin, if you want to add anything to the legislation. >> chair peskin: sure. i appreciate the additional findings pursuant to the rite real estate and section -- criteria and section 303.

ten days -- up to ten days later, how about the effective date is tomorrow or today? >> supervisor safai: yeah, that's fine. i mean,i i was going to say --i mean, really, we went to the planning commission back in march, april. >> chair peskin: it seems that everybody has had a blank ton of notice on this, and they're all proceeding at their risk with full knowledge this is a sophisticated industry that has lobbyists, attorneys, land use -- i'd stick with the july 28 date, but i also don't want to wreck this thing any further. >> supervisor safai: we had ongoing conversations, and

seeing that everyone was fine with it, so what i would say is we can even do july 1, 2019. >> chair peskin: that works for me. i just don't want to be in a thing where all of a sudden facebook is running in cramming something down the planning department's throat and they're supposed to get something done by september 8 or whatever the magic date is. we can do whatever date we want between july 8 and now. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. yes, you can amend to july 1, 2019. you can amend to today or tomorrow. >> supervisor safai: let's just do july 1, 2019, if that's okay. >> chair peskin: that works for me. why don't we hear -- if supervisor haney has no questions or comments, why don't we hear from the public. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item number two -- members from the city

department on planning, mr. sanchez? >> supervisors, as mentioned, this item was heard on march 7. after much deliberation about 30 minutes, the commission could not approve a motion to either approve or continue the item to a future date, and so in this case, the commission's recommendation is constituted disapproval, and that is the my presentation. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. we'll open it up to public comment. miss workman, on behalf of the san francisco chamber of commerce. >> the chamber of commerce continues to oppose this legislation. we have several reasons for that. we believe that employee cafeterias provide excellent, well paid jobs to san francisco and bay area residents that desperately need them. that many small businesses and vendors will be hurt by this

legislation, and that may encourage some businesses that wish to provide this benefit to their employees to locate elsewhere. we agree with the planning commission's vote to oppose this, and we oppose this legislation. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any other public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai, it looks like you're making some short amendments, effective date july 1, 2019, all right. deputy city attorney is nodding his head in the affirmative for the record. >> supervisor safai: and all of the others that i read into the

record. >> chair peskin: and we can take that without objection. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: and i would just like to say thank you for all the businesses -- i don't want to say supportive at the end, but i think at the end of the day, they were very appreciative, very appreciative of the amendments that we made, save one representative. >> chair peskin: with that, we will move that forward as a committee report with positive recommendation to the full board. madam clerk, could you please read item six.

[agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair peskin and colleagues for hearing this item again. i'm hoping this third time is a charm. as you know, we've been at this for sometime, working to pin down a satisfactory approach to two active citywide changes, proposed buffers and to eating places. with respect to these two remaining issues, two weeks ago, the committee provided guidance to take a deeper dive to look at impacts on each

district in preparation for today. my staff, along with oewd staff, have worked hard to identify the exact impact's proposed changes that bona fide and buffered eating places would have on each district. and we think we have -- we think we have -- we really addressed these needs through potential amendments. we also followed up with and had further discussion with the city attorney's office and with the planning department, both of whom raised concerns at the last committee meeting about an opt in opt out approach that used supervisorial district boundaries. based on that, we sought an approach that we hope is satisfactory to everyone, namely where one in each district can maintain any buffer it chooses before the legislation it before the full board. the city attorney's office is preparing amendments to retain

buffers in each district and with the right amendment, we're confident we can preserve any aspects of the status quo that are important to supervisors or that they like more time to discuss with their constituents, and at the same time, following through with the proposed changes to buffers unanimously supported by our planning commission. and today, we also have aaron starr or audrey merlowe from the planning commission to answer any questions, and also ben van houten from the oewd. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor brown. and i think at one of our previous meetings on this, i think we were advised by council that legislating along supervisorial boundaries was

not advisable, which i completely concur with, but there are certainly named n.c.d.s and restricted use districts in those areas. so i think what we have to do is get a handle on it. i know at the last meeting two weeks ago, we both said that we would endeavor either directly or through our staffs to go and see which supervisors wanted what for their respective restricted use districts or n.c.d.s. as you said, we've learned a lot in this process. the original maps proposed is what led me to believe all districts had a quarter-mile --

with that, i don't know, mr. van houten, i think we've heard everything you have to say, but you can yak if you want. >> i think i've said everything i need to say. >> supervisor safai: i'm find with removing any buffers. we want any and all business in our district. >> chair peskin: all right. d-6? >> i'm in. >> chair peskin: and d-8, did i put the right words in your mouth? so, are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this item?

>> hi. me again, deedee workman with the san francisco chamber of kmerz. -- commerce. we greatly appreciate all of the work and collaboration that went into the details of this legislation to help san francisco's small businesses establish themselves and thrive and we're delighted to support it. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tes tesla barnes with the haight-ashbury council. we continue to oppose it because we think the quarter-mile buffer should be retained. other issues not just on the

haight street area, but throughout the city, the alcohol zones -- we have too many licenses, and while we would love to have more restaurants on haight street and other businesses, alcohol is not necessarily the path to go, so we need to have more input on something like this that's so broad and affects so many people in san francisco, and we think it should be definitely much more thought out. again, i refer to supervisor mandelman's considerable month-long process with regards to legislation for groups that he introduced recently. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> we feel that this legislation is a direct attack on special use districts in san francisco trying to trim the edges by a quarter mile. the entire resolution passed by

the planning commission does not mention special use districts. this was never reviewed as being policy that would change the buffer areas. it's not mentioned once in the planning department resolution. i have a fear that unfortunately that that policy was completely misleading. it says l.c.u.s in r.h., r.m., and r.t.o.s. i think this was a sneak attack on the quarter mile buffer zones. please eliminate the n.c. 1 and

n.c. and l.c.d. legislation from this provision. everything else is fine. we do have a lot of questions along with the haight-ashbury neighborhood council regarding bona fides and how that's treated, but i think it's time to move on. there's some good stuff in there, but get rid of the n.c. 1 stuff. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. livingston. next speaker, please. if there are any other speakers for this item, if you would lineup to my right, your left. >> i'm the owner of the wooden coffee house in cole valley, and i just wanted to express my continued support for this legislation. as a small business owner, currently prohibited from expanding due to the haight street restrictions, i am seeing firsthand how these current restrictions can impact businesses in small neighborhoods. it would be a real shame for my

business to never see its potential and simply not survive. and for future businesses and others facing similar situations, i hope we can agree that lifting some of these challenges would be a great deal -- we do a great deal to encourage -- would do a great deal to encourage small business efforts in san francisco. thank you for your examination in all of this. >> chair peskin: whichever way this works out, you will be taken care of. next speaker, please. >> hank darrow. i'd like to echo the concerns about alcohol. this is just too many places serving alcohol. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public on this item, we will close public comment. supervisor brown, given the statistics of our various walks down the hallway, should we task the city attorney with finding the named restricted

use districts and other commercial districts in the aforemention aforementioned d 1, d 2, d 10, d 3. i have not heard from d 7, but d 8. can we task the city attorney with that? >> supervisor brown: yes. and i just want to say that i checked in with every single office and with the supervisors and their staff. and one of the things that we did, chair peskin, is we -- every single districts is we gave the impacts -- we let the supervisors and their staff know what the impacts of this legislation would be on their district. and i would love if city

attorney jon givner can speak to retaining some of the buffers and taking some away, too. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. last week, when we discussed this specific approach, my department and the building department objected to approach by supervisorial district. that's exactly not the approach you're doing here. we redraw the supervisorial districts every ten years. another reason is supervisorial districts are drawn based on a number of factors that are not related to land use, and it would be inappropriate as a land use matter to enact zoning controls related to those boundaries.

if you decide to include some n.c.d.s and not include others, that is a valid approach but -- the sponsors should be able to articulate and can work with my office and planning to articulate that special characteristics of each district that merit having a buffer or not having a buffer so that really the zoning matches up with the neighborhood and we can work with you on that. that -- those justifications do not have to be in the ordinance itself, but we want to make sure with each supervisor that we're able to articulate legitimate land use justifications for the decisions you make. >> supervisor brown: thank you. once again, i'd like to thank my colleagues and especially chair peskin for working with me on this and getting it right

because we definitely want to get it right and clean it up and make it easy not only for the planning department but all the small businesses and constituents that go in there and really want to get the correct question that they have the first time with this. i'd like to thank ben van houten from the oewd for working on this for a long time and going into the weeds. and all of the planning department have been really amazing helping us dissect this, so i want to thank everyone. >> chair peskin: okay. so as a matter of procedure insofar as the districts are kind of split 50/50, can we task you, mr. givner, to work with the offices, all of which other than district seven, have express themselves one way or another to find those purposes, articulate those districts, and then come back with amendments to this committee?

>> mr. givner: you can task me along with oewd and planning to come back with what amendments we've discussed or for the board to adopt -- or for the committee to adopt it, depending on whether you forward this out today. >> chair peskin: well, how long do you think that will take? >> if it's sent out of committee today to the july 30 meeting, i think we should be able to put together those listed lists by july 3. >> chair peskin: ok -- 30. >> chair peskin: okay. why don't we send it out with those recommendations, and we will ask you to prepare those by the 30th, and that will not require rereferral to committee

because it is lessening the impact, not increasing it. so we will send this item without recommendation those amendments pending, and it will be heard on its first reading, hopefully with those amendments on the 30-dth day of july. i can actually offer by way of the northeast corner of the city as couple of -- a couple of definitions as they relate to the third supervisorial districts on page 8, lines 3 to 25, and page 9 lines 1 to 3, the definition of bona fide eating place. i have a definition that i'd like to insert, and that is that paragraph c and e do not apply but actual and substantial sales of meals are required during the normal hours of operation. and on -- i'd also like to say

that this paragraph g does not apply to -- i think this is the way you'll write it or other ones, too, a place located or to a property located in the broadway neighborhood commercial district, northeast pacific neighborhood commercial district or polk street neighborhood commercial district. we don't need to do those now, but i think starting -- that will be the template language that those other supervisors are seeking. so why don't we send that out to the meeting on the 30th without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, will you please read item 9. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: supervisor mandelman, the floor is