the ordinance has more detail. on january 15, when the board considers the ordinance at the committee of the whole, perhaps then you could amend in a new section, explaining the provisions in the d.a. regarding the streets. >> supervisor safai: i amy fine with th -- i'm fine with that. i'm just, from having worked at d.p.w. and been in the role as supervisor now, when we're trying to deal with streets, right, and we had a situation in this chamber where there was some private streets that were not under the purview of d.p.w., and it caused a lot of confusion and problems. so i would not want there to be any confusion going forward that the city is responsible for maintaining the streets, has ownership over the streets and sidewalks, so on, so forth. >> yes. i think there's sufficient time to add it to the ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. and i saw that supervisor cohen's office was still here, so we can -- i think that they hear that loud and clear, and the ordinance will come in january , at the committee of

in the end, the spirit of the ordinance remains intact. it will help reduce litter and plastic pollution. it will make the dining experience more environmentally friendly in san francisco and will also ensure access to straws for those who need them. i want to thank the mayor's office on disability to their partnership with us on this and we are happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you, very much. thank you to both departments for trying to reach our collective goals together. supervisor kim? >> sorry. i want to make sure i understood what the amendment will do. vendors will be allowed to have plastic and nonplastic straws to distribute upon request, only. so the paper or plastic. >> that is correct. the intention is the default option, if a customer asked for a straw, would be nonplastic. if a customer does specifically request plastic, it would be available. >> will they be required to have those types of straws? what if a vendor decides only to have paper straws are only have plastic straws? i am just wondering what this

supervisor peskin included those in the final ordinance. at the land use committee hearing they heard testimony from two members of the public both in favor of the ordinance. they recommended as a committee report to the full board. i think i have my wrong report. i apologize for that. how come no one stopped me? first on the land use agenda supervisor ronen's ordinance that would amend the mission street district controls. you heard this item october 18th and voted unanimously to recommend approval with modifications. the modifications you recommended were to one, allow non retail professional services at the third floor and above within the n.c.t. as long as they have active non-profit status and provide exemption on mergers that result in a merger of 1500 square feet or larger. if submitted to the planning department on or before july 31st this year frmt the supervisor only included the second proposed amendment. the committee heard public testimony that was in support of the proposed ordinance. the multiple speakers all mentioned the ord

in december, the street vacation ordinance would become effective. in january , the board of supervisors would consider the parcel k north transaction, and in february , the transaction would close. and with that, concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. benson. the diagrams were very helpful, and colleagues, any questions or comments? okay? no? seeing none, then we're going to open up item one to public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we get a motion on item one? okay. so we'll move it forward to the full board with a positive recommendation without objection. item 2 [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have representatives from the p.u.c. here today, i believe. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm jamie sidell. i believe you have my presentation in your packet. i can go through it if you'd like me to or jump to questions tappi . >> supervisor tang: sure. why don't you go th

supervisor peskin did include those modifications in the final ordinance. at the land use hearing, the supervisors her testimony from two members of the public who were in favor of the ordinance. they recommended the ordinance to the full board. the land land-use committee also heard the variance -- of various audiences for the central soma plan which were continued from the october 1st land-use committee. the planning commission heard the amendments for the plan on september 21st and voted unanimously to approve them amendments. during the public hearing, there were seven public commentors covering a range of topics including a call for proactive land banking for future affordable housing sites and other neighborhood stabilization policies, desire that designed for a post and buildings in the area be culturally appropriate and accessible to youth, family and seniors, a request to prohibit market rate market units and s.r.o. and a desire for more greening and living walls. at the start of the hearing, supervisor kim signal she intended to introduce minor ame

you mentioned the decoupling regarding the ordinance. so the 35%, once you meet 35%, he will take 50% of the local hire but does that also trigger under ten what does that still apply to ten and up? >> thank you, commissioner. one of the proposed changes would be to have this apprenticeship program separate from the labor peace agreements component of the ordinance which is different than the one you have in front of you. we understand that is a change we expect will take place. so the triggering -- this situation that means apprentices are part of the program is not the over ten. it would be whether the state first approves an apprenticeship program and then second, if the city and our office certifies a preapprenticeship program that recruits equity candidates to that apprenticeship program. essentially if the city certifies the program, then that would replace every other component of workforce requirements. employers have said, i think there has been a lot of feedback that you have gotten, that there is first a source, local higher, t

way past the original ordinance several weeks ago. this is a duplicated version which has some cleanup amendments and allows us to strike a balance between preserving our light industrial and art uses in the south of market while needing -- while meeting our critical needs to build more 100% affordable housing. we provide an additional allowable use on sally parcels. allowing them to build 100% affordable housing on 24 identified parcels that are undeveloped within the service arts light industrial parcels. under existing law which is not permitted. this applies particularly to parcels that are undeveloped and contain no existing structures as well as on surface parking lots that have no existing building. but we had to provide some cleanup language to make sure that guard stations, kiosks and small buildings under a hundred square feet for billboard advertising signs were not interpreted as structures. i do have two more amendments that i would like to make to this ordinance today and colleagues, i have sent out distributed copies of

this is going to impact the ordinance, so please vote against it. it's going backwards, not forwards. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other member of the public who wish to comment on item six? thank you. item six is closed. i want to thank all the members of the public who wish to speak on this item, however, i think there's some confusion around what this ordinance is trying to achieve. a large part of it is conforming our local laws with state law, so for example trying to get d.p.h. out of issuing individual massage practitioner certifications because the state will be doing that. i think that is something that, again, should not be harming massage therapists. there are other requirements here, such as requiring applicants to submit to a floor plan -- to d.p.h. a floor plan and proposed types of coverage just clarifying the permitting process. again, i think that's a good thing that we want to provide clarity for people applying for these permits. anywhere that we touch upon convictions, we have really tried, not just in this legislation, get

the item before you today is an ordinance introduced by mayor breed to amend the housing ordinance, section 415.3b of the planning code. the ordinance modifies the date by which a grandfathered project must obtain a site in order to include the rates. as you may know, in june of 2016, voters passed prop c, which allowed the city to increase rates on private development. the board of supervisors amended ordinance for application prior to january 12th of 2016, to grant fathegrandfather their rae them until december 7th of 2018 to secure their site permit. the biggest issue with that is that not all-pro jets wer all pd at the same time. creating a ability to reach this key milestone. while many projects grandfathered have been able to secure their site permit, there's still 34 projects that have yet to secure this major milestone. and the looming december 7th, 2018 deadline puts housing units at risk. four of these projects representing 500 units were entitled by the planning commission in the last 30 days and another four totaling well over 1,000 units are still waiting for entitlement. it go

on october 15, the youth commission voted unanimously to support this ordinance. e believe that the re-entry council has provided important insight into the services needed for formerly incarcerated individuals to successfullies reintegrate into society. we especially applaud the continued inclusion of a [inaudible] trap sisteringal age youth seat on the re-entry council given the overrepresentation of tay youth in san francisco's adult jail population. we want to thank supervisor fewer for carrying this ordinance and the department of youth [inaudible] for her presentation to youth commission and we urge you to pass this ordinance to the board with positive recommendation. thank you. >> hi, i'm jafria morris. i'm the re-entry planner and i facilitate the re-entry council. i want to let you all know that we're on our 10-year marker and this is our second time asking for an extension. the youth commission did allow us to come and speak about that. and we've had a lot of interesting things come out of the re-entry council as well as our burns ratio disparities report

without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> clerk: item number 22, ordinance ordering the summary street vacation, new sidewalks michigan street, property transfers, authorizing official acts in connection with the ordinance and making appropriate findings. >> president cohen: same house, same call, without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. >> clerk: 23, resolution declaring the intention of the supervisors to vacation of streets and easements in the sunnydale hope s.f. project site and setting a date to sit as a committee of the whole january 19, 2019. >> president cohen: i have some brief remarks i wanted to offer on item 23. this is a resolution that memori memori memorializes to vacate streets in the sunnydale hope s.f. site. this body approved the revitalization project in the interchange of 2016. in short, the street vacation will allow the city to build the first phase of this development which includes the construction of new streets and utility infrastructure as well as 167 units at 100% a.m.i., 100% of affordable ho

the planning code. item 27 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to add a new pe pe appendix ten and to affirm the seek with a determination, make appropriate findings. item 19 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to change the designation of -- of specific properties located in the c-3 commercial district from no rating to category one, pursuant to article 11 of the planning code based on architectural historic and aesthetic values. also to change the designation of the listed properties located in the c-3 district from no rating to category three, pursuant to the article 11 of the planning code, and to change the designation of various -- this particular property located in the c-3 district from a category five unrated to a category three, pursuant to article 11 of the planning code. that address is 47 through 55 sixth street, the hillside hotel and to affirm the seek withceqa determination. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. seeing that there are no names on the roster, colleagues, with we take this same house, same call? looks like we can. without objection, these items are passed

we believe that the ordinance adequately targets the bad actors and does not punish property owners who act in good faith and work diligently to maintain their buildings. we agree mandating updates in some buildings which posts risks. we also believe this ordinance targets the buildings and residents that are truly at risk without mandating huge construction projects which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for small property owners city wide. one point of concern of course comes at the issue of cost pass throughs. the ordinance departs from the existing city law and rent board policy by prohibiting pass-throughs for fire upgrades subject to an order by dbi and fire. we would ask the committee and board of supervisors to consider a provision to bring it into accordance with the capital improvement law. it targets truly problem mat hick buildings in giving dbi discretion about what sort of upgrades to mandate, we are generally supportive of the ordinance. and we believe it strikes an appropriate balance to target problematic buildings without punishing good actors. thank you. >> publ

privacy first comes second only to the sunshine ordinance. e sunshine ordinance takes precedence over it, and right now, we have advocates, myself included that thinks the sunshine ordinance is broken and needs to be stronger. right know we have an empty seat that represents media, and it's defunct. without that, we can't fully look at transparency without that seat being filled. this would help to do that. >> closing statements, allison first. >> i wanted to address the last point. as i said, the poison pill in here, the reason san franciscans for sunshine is opposing prop b is because yes, it could be that -- or it -- we have strong supporters of sunshine now. but that may not be the case in the future. more -- and furthermore, san franciscans for sunshine, a group made up of former members of the sunshine ordinance task force, former chairs, myself included, we have spend years working with people in city government to amend, in a kprepssive way, this sunshine ordinance. our intention is to -- comprehensive way, this sunshine ordinance. our

i've been a member of the sunshine ordinance task force since 2016. i wanted to serve on that body because i believe that open transparent parent government and those appointed to govern. my time on the task force is only reinforced this belief. i take this responsibility seriously. i have attended 28 out of 30 full task force meetings, missing one due to illness and one due to a family medical emergency. i have also attended all of the compliance and amendment subcommittee meeting which i chair. i've been fair and impartial in my rulings and take each case individually. i have been a neighborhood and small business advocate since 2006 when i co founded the mental health neighborhood association due to a large uptick in crime where i live. i served on the board for 11 years and continue to be an active member. we work with city departments and agencies on crime abatement, clean up and beautification, planning and development and social engagement. we also work with our local merchant groups to keep the corridor vibrant, interesting and unique. i would

when supervisor tang was passing through the legislation to create this ordinance. we have discovered that it takes a little bit more work to do than just passing the resolution to ensure that this is included in the pace programming. we're working with our city agencies, the department of environment, the office of resiliency and building inspection to do what we need to do to ensure that this program is under the pace financing. that's working with some of the financing entities to headache it available. we're finalizing an a. b.c. property owners guide so just a more detailed guide to the property owner about their remirement and what we're looking for in concluding the design guidelines for from historic preservation and public works and in addition to some over lay of the legal implementations they need to be aware of especially they're going going to insist that they are the one to respond to the ordinance and the disability access fund budget. we're working to finalize that. we know we're having $300,000 we're collecting through the disability access fund. thr

the planning commission approved that document and the ordinance but recommended modifications. so today, it is up to the committee. you can make this amendment today if you chose, to amend the ordinance to say we anticipate the c.f.d. funds will be spent in accordance with the implementation program document, including that ex number of dollars, $15 million, $20 million, will be spent on -- it's a call you can make and it would be an amendment to the ordinance. >> that is not on my list of amendments today. it's something that could you brought back to land use committee on october 15th. in my mind, i had separated to the c.f.d. conversation going before the government audit and oversight committee. that can be made in either committee. >> i'm not sure if it sits in the legislation in g.a.o. i can figure touch it can be made in this committee? >> i can actually clarify that point as well. at the g.a.o., what will be heard are the resolutions of intention so that establishes the array and method of charging the c.f.d. on new properties and it doesn't talk about the public benefit