building permit application furthering the establishment of such use was filed by january 19, 2018. >> this is a piece of legislation trailing that adopted a year ago that we introduced at the request of the jackson square association. for those who do not know it, jackson square historic district is the city's first historic district, geographically small but rich in history, and over the years through fine tuning of the ground floor retail controls for this area including the jackson square special use district, it has been able to maintain a vibrant mix of art galleries, antique stores, design studios, unique

restaurants and bars and retail establishments along the alley network. the legislation before us today would allow for a blue bottle coffee store to open at 909 montgomery street on the northwest corner of montgomery and pacific. they submitted applications in july 2018 before the board approved the modifications to the special use district. the cafe has been sitting there ready to open. i want to thank the planning staff and planning commission for their graciously waiving authority to hear this item, which reduced the period of time that we otherwise would have experienced and will minimize any additional delays and we have since met with blue bottle. we are pleased to hear they are using this to pilot a zero waste

business model. representatives are here to speak to that in a little bit. i want be to also acknowledge the reuse coalition. i think miriam might be here and planning staff, ms. maloney, if you have any questions. with that i open it up to public comment. any members of the public or from blue bottle who would like to comment on item 1? if you do this is your moment. if you don't, all right. going once, come on up, sir. >> i am the c.e.o. of blue bottle. we are going to use this location as ground to test conversing use of the disposable cup with a reusable cup. first time done in san francisco

by blue bottle, and we announced this at the end of 2019. it has already had global amount of bless. it is inspiring people not only in the coffee industry but google and sweet green and whole food service and starbucks changes. a lot of eyes will be on this test. we are thrilled how supportive you are behind the initiative in san francisco. we want to do it at this location. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public to testify on item one? seeing none, we will close public comment. if there are no questions, can we send this to the full board with recommendation as a committee report? seeing my colleagues heads nodding up and down, that will be the order. please read the next item. >> 2. ordinance amending the health

code to authorize the director to allow existing medical cannabis dispensary to operate provided he has been verified as an equity applicant. they have complied with all requirements of article 33 of the health code. >> we had a long hearing on in two weeks ago. the city attorney advised because some of the changes were substantive that we needed to continue it to today before we could send it to the full board. i know that honey is here from supervisor haney's office if you have any questions. if not any members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 2? >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am terry finch. i represent a medical cannabis dispensary 1944 ocean cooperative. we are opposed to the ordinance in the current form would suggest an amendment. my client empathizes with the dispensaries that suffered landlord abuse. when his landlord decided to break into the dispensary and put him on the street, when he had an existing lease and would not pay the same represent as other dispensaries that were willing to pay more. there was a lease in place the perspective tenant was willing to pay more money than he was. the ordinance as currently written fails to protect against those landlords who participate in this behavior. it only focuses on the location from which the permittee is

moving because of the landlord's behavior. we propose an amendment to the proposed ordinance to disallow portability to the mcd use location where the location is the subject of a wrongfully vacation or forcible detainer judgment. my client has personally beenen broiled in litigation over his location for two years. he has spent nearly $100,000 in attorney's fees currently in his location. we believe that this -- he is currently tried that case before judge andhe ruling should occur within the next six weeks. we believe the ordinance as proposed will allow the current landlord to circumvent the relief requested in that particular litigation currently and allow that landlord to sell

the particular property. because of that we would request. >> than thank you. have you discussed this with the office of the sponsor or is this new information to everybody? >> we have discussed it with -- we tried to discuss with the aides of your offers. we reached out to honey mahoney but have been unable to talk to her about it. i left a message last week and several weeks ago. we have not connected. we intend to talk to herb about this -- her about this after the hearing, if possible. >> next speaker, please. >> i am sue. i was wrongfully evicted by the landlord. i am the mcd holder at 1944

ocean. i operate a small businesses. the goal is to provide the protection of small business for the legislation. it should be considered potential abuse. equity mcd has been abused by landlords. i would like to voice to the supervisors how we could prevent the abuse. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am aaron. we own 1940 ocean avenue. according to the department of

health there are two available mcd locations at 1545 and 1944 ocean. i am also an equity applicant in the process of applying for the retail cannabis space at 1940. my retail application will be blocked by whoever decides to move into the vacant mcd at 1944. my family's location is 1940 it is within the 600 feet. my location will be blocked. i believe this comes down to equity applicant versus applicant. the town of the little guys fighting for the same right to operate in san francisco. i request the legislation is amended so an equity grandfathered mcd cannot move into an equity applicant in the

process of applying within 600 feet of that available location. if this passes it would disenfranchise me from operating a business in a building owned by my family my father left it to his children and grandchildren. my family has been small business owners since 1937. my father saved to buy this building at 1940 ocean. this gives my family one shot to continue the legacy of mall business owners. my father passed in october 2019. his wife suffering from alzheimer's has 24 hour care. i can empathies with heidi. my family was forced to move from two separate locations. i would like to reinstate i am an equity applicant.

>> next speaker. >> good afternoon. you guys have heard numerous testimony over the last time we were here, and there is a clear issue what this is about. it is about keeping an equity business that has been in business over 15 years to continue their business. this is not about some lawsuit from previous owners, not about future equity applicants. this is about an owner and 20 employees already displaced. they have already suffered. i ask you guys to spend month more time hearing any more amendments or anything about this matter and move this to the full board. people are waiting to get jobs back the owner of the establishment is still suffering. please move this forward. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. thank you again. this is me just asking you as a operator, owner-operator for the past 15 years, we were made to close doors on december 15th. i don't think you realize the first person that spoke, the attorney, his client has an operation. his situation with that location was awful, it sounds like. they are now up and running. unfortunately, we had nothing to do with that. we have been working on this legislation now for almost 11 months. hoping that we would be able to be allowed to get our people back up and running. me as an equity applicant back up and running. yes, this is a town about equity. this is a town about

opportunity, and as a native of san francisco i ask you to please allow this to happen so my people can get back on their jobs. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to testify? seeing none. we close public comment. maybe we can hear from honey mahogany. there may be a misconception that this legislation which is pretty narrowly tailored would have any impact whatsoever on the -- what i don't fully understand the ins and outs of legislation -- i don't think that if it were amended per the attorney's request would apply. >> i am not clear that it would apply. we made arrangements to set up a meeting to talk about this. they have evidence they would like to show us.

the intention was to allow a limited portability to make sure someone on the original application was able to move if they were displaced from the current location to another previously designated as a cannabis ready location. to the best of my knowledge, the amendment they are asking for would not impact this case because again the landlord is potentially selling thing. the building. i don't know that this would have an impact on this. >> legislation as you saw we tacked on something to a piece of legislation we did a year ago. we did it in record short time. because this is an evolving area of law, why don't the folks from ocean meet with the sponsor's office. it is an intriguing idea.

we have a long proud history of not rewarding bad actors in residential evictions. there may be some crossover there to that kind of behavior in commercial situations. it is worth exploring. i urge you all to meet with supervisor haney and his staff and if it makes sense we can entertain amendments. i don't want to get in the way of the current case we are trying to solve but let's have that conversation. i am happy to participate as chair of the land use community. >> this is a stopgap measure for type 30 permits. they there transition to 16 so soon. it may be better served to apply an amendment there. >> good point. that is why we should have these conversations. if there is no objection we will

take the legislation as is, send it to the full board with recommendation, and we will do that without objection. honey, if you want to involve me now that supervisor haney is not a quorum of the committee i can talk to you. >> item 3 an ordinance to abolish the north of market affordable housing fund and have certain fees collected in conjunction with north market affordable housing deposited in the city-wide affordable housing fund. >> ms. chan. the mayor's office of housing. the one question i have because this is before us three times. you guys request a ti a continu. we are going to get this done.

i understand the amendment you are seeking changed -- i thought the fee was indexed way up. now you are asking for it to stay where it was. that is the one big question i have. with that i will turn ittofer to you. >> thank you. mayor's office of housing and community development. we originally brought this to the committee to allow mayor's office of housing to deposit fees from the north of market fees into the city affordable housing fund ana and the plannig commission recommended the fee get in decked since it -- indexed since it has not been done since created. there is one fee forthcoming. because we did not actually make the amendment in committee last time we were here, the

legislation was sent back. since then the planning department has gotten clarification that they are able to index. they have existing authorization to index the fee starting in 2011. the planning department can speak to that directly. we have spoken to supervisor haney's office and understand this approach of indexing the fee from 2011 is a reasonable approach, and that is why we are seeking to change the legislation back to the initial $5 per square feet fee amount. planning will automatically apply to indexing from 2011 forward. my colleague is here from planning if you have questions how they have that existing authority and are able to do that. >> is it meroln.

>> ne? >> are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item. >> thank you. i brought this matter -- it came to my attention after it went to the planning commission. the agenda did not discuss increasing the fee 250% which is what the recommendation was. i represent two project sponsors. now, i represent one in the special use district. we have been in discussions with supervisor haney. this would increase the fee. this fee was originated in 1985 before there was an incollisionnary housing or program with market rate housing. as you know, since then we have

inclusionary ordinance that has increased the burgeon and obligation and the housing fund. in the special use district the inclusionnary is 25%, highest in the city. the project at 550 farrell street will have 25% inclusion air rehousing. it was not practical to pay a fiof $25 per square foot on the building. it doesn't work with the numbers. just a little background on the project. 111 units replacing a private parking garage with a 13 story residential tower. it will pay the child care fee, transportation sustainability fee, north of market fee, school fee, altogether with what ms. chanproposed the fee is

$1.8 million. that is a lot. the project sponsor thinks they can handle that with the increase. taking that fee several hundred thousands would endanger the feasibility of the project that is the reason we brought this matter to supervisor haney. >> thank you. any other members of the public to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe what was actually amended in the board back in july is precisely what is in the packet so we don't need to take any additional amendments. that has the $5 and change in the long title. as staff discussed, that would be indexed by planning to 792.

anything to add? >> we talked to the deputy city attorney and we believe we had to make amendments today to go back to the $5 per square feet and provided the actual red line to chair peskin for the amendments. >> i think the red line is what is in the packet and has been publicly noticed. am i correct? >> that's right. the packet reflects the reduction from a 25 fee to $5 fee. >> that will be indexed by staff to 792. >> any questions or comments from colleagues? seeing none, can we send this to the full board with recommendation without objection? that will be the order. madam clerk please read the next item. item 4. ordinance amending the plumbing

code to delete the local amendment to the california plumbing code referring to the san francisco public utility commission's rules and regulations in the section on cross connection control and to add local cross connection controls for beverage dispenserses and a testing requirement for back flow prevention and assemblies or devices and affirming the findings. >> we had to continue this because the amendments were substantive. they have been discussed. any members of the public to testify on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. without objection finally get this off our plate as they are finally getting -- finally getting along. this will be sent without

objection. you do need a red line of the previous item and you would like us to resined the vote. can we go back to item three? i will make a motion to c resined the vote and make the amended in the red line i have given to the two of you and send that item as amended to the full board with recommends without objection. now, madam clerk could you read the fifth and final item? >> eye team 5 ordinance amending the planning code to enable the use of development project sites during the project approval and entitlement process by authorizing the planning department to authorize certain interim activities at development project sites as

temporary uses for up to 36 months, subject to extension at the discretion of the planning director. >> we are finally all on the same page as to this interim activity legislation which has been thoroughly discussed by this body. we dealt with 36 months to the 24 months and definitions what is eligible and interim activity. it is all discussed and all before us with a handful of amendments which we will speak to and hopefully we can get this to the full board today. ms. malone, the floor is yours. >> this was last heard on december 16th. before that the planning commission heard the item on april 25th. this has been amended quite a bit since the commission saw it

one amendment was the intention to make today is to take a requested modification from the commission which is to amend the requirement to increase residential density to instead only require an increase in residential density if there was existing residential on the site. i am happy to answer any questions. i will keep that presentation short. >> that is correct. that is oat out on page 6 -- set out on page 6 at line 11 to line 14. are there any questions? supervisor preston, the floor is yours. >> thank you. apologies. i have not been along for the whole ride of this item. i had a couple of clarifying questions. does this apply just for private development sites or public

sites as well? >> this applies to all sites across the city. >> in the same breath there are different things that apply to different sites in different parts of the city permitted use or in certain cases in an area bounded by division and market and whatever applies to other things. it depends on where you are. >> it depends also on the project application. that is the largest. there must be an application to what we call tantamount to demolition or demolish the existing structure. there has to be a structure. it has to be enclosed. that structure needs to be proposed to become a development of something else, the full

demolition tantamount the temporary use would go inside of the original structure proposed for demolition. >> does this -- i am wondering if this shifts decision making. thinking my district at 7:30 stanon there was an r.f.p. around the use. they were responsible for vetting those. some of those i could see applying here involved uses that may be at issue here. does this move decision making around those uses from the department over to the planning? >> i would say no. i think the big clarification is that this is a planning department permit that needs to have authorization of the property owner in order to be applied for so in the case where

you have the property that is owned they are applying in the first place. the decision to apply rests with whoever the owner is. >> last question. so i notice in the earlier iterations the homeless shelters were amended out. i am trying to understand if this advantages things other than home less shelter or if there are parallel provisions elsewhere putting homeless shelters on equal footing as interim use. >> i am not aware of the legislation that balances that to take the homeless shelter out. i believe they were taken out after the commission. we recommended that a much larger amount of land uses be allowed in these sites. i may be wrong. i believe homeless shelter was

one of those. i would pose that question to the land use committee. >> you want to add to something? >> i believe that the ordinance allows temporary use if it is principally permitted. homeless shelters are permitted where group housing is permitted. pretty much the whole city except rh-1 and 2. i don't think this applies to those. >> on 18 and 19 it does, any use principally permitted. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> i have been advised by council this happens from time to time that in so far as the legislation that is in our packet and before the public does not have the amendment that we just discussed which really

takes us from a residential only to much broader universe that when we actually accept those amendments which i think we will do it is going to require a one week continuance because that amendment will broaden the legislation. that is what ms. pearson advised me. i want to put that on the record. are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i make a motion to accept the amendments as proposed. >> we will accept and continue as amended for one week. you don't need to come next week. with that, the item will be continued and we are adjourned.

[roll call]d we are adjourned. >> clerk: we have quorum. >> chair haney: thank you, mr. clerk. will you please call the next item. >> clerk: item 2, chair's report. this is informational item. >> chair haney: thank you. and thank you, colleagues, for convening as the treasure island management committee. as you know, housing on treasure island is ever closer to reality. the first new homes are anticipated on yerba buena

island as soon as 18 months from now. significant construction is underway, and with that, the new year requires some important decision including toll policy for future workers workers -- current workers as well as residents and future workers. this month, i offered our full support for the water emergency transportation authority's innovative application to the california state transportation agency for the 2020 transit and inner city rail capital program. the requested funds will support the construction of an all-electric 99-passenger ferry vellve, and the required shoring infrastructure to serve the new treasure