and if the penalty proposal holds up, the ordinance the somery ordinance it will hold up reforms to the program. that could be the downside. potentially if some supervisors were to view the penalty proposal as you described as being a double penalty or if they were to view it as being politically motivated or bad policy or what have you, it could slow down that single ordinance as a whole. it could also happen that in committee or at the full board, they decide to remove that provision from the ordinance, in which case it would not be able to take effect without coming back to you because you would then have to approve that amended ordinance but if you remove them separately if the board or committee took issue with the penalty provision they might not take issue with the reforms to the program and that it wouldn't have a effect on the financing reforms. that's the biggest pro for having two separate ordinances. >>i forgot to include one other factor in the privileged and confidential memorandum of law from deputy of city attorney.i;q our office gives the same advice to the board and to

body of the ordinance was in the packet. i wasn't able to review it. but then individuals if they were to have the opportunity to review the ordinance at this level and raise any questions, because then they received other implications for them as property owners. and then they could respond -- it might raise issues that they have that need to be responded here as well to sarah in terms of review. sarah's letter it was back in may. that is the last. >> forgive me. i want to give you as much time, especially for being here. they will have a bite of the apple when -- they will have another bite of the apple when they get to the legislative process and they will have the same notice requirements. i will have to call for a vote, unless you have something to add >> people might not know all of the issues. >> i'm concerned primarily with you because you do, i do want to make sure you get the options you ask for. i have asked for them to be provided to you by close of business. we will have to worry about that >> i know. i complete

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

however, the designating ordinance is silence. here is a proposal to build eight residential units on the side of that structure. the staff determines the structure was not contributing to the site however caps on commissioner still have concern over the design of this project. a motion continued -- a motion to continue failed and referred back to the architectural review of the commission. there was in a motion to approve the project as proposed with department recommendations. the reason for the motion to approve the commissioners cited that the provident -- that the project sponsor had complied with all the recommendations from the previous architectural review committee hearing of the h.p.c. and felt that the project should move forward as proposed. that motion passed 4-3 and again , as there was a good deal of public comment, also stating concern over the overall mapping and location of the new structure, these items will likely come up at your hearing as well. in addition to that item, there were to watch what landmarked desi

these amendments today in the context of the overall ordinance. i think it seeks to address some of the issues, but it seems a little piecemeal. so i would like to continue this item so we can have actually a full conversation with the ordinance and with these amendments and also with amendments that i think recology has and what we heard actually from some of the other concerned parties. >> let me offer maybe a medium here. if we were to accept these amendments, it would allow the substantive, this committee is not meeting next week, we won't meet for two weeks. we can accept the amendments and let them sit and be open for everyone to review and digest and still meet in two weeks. or we can set to hear the amendments again in two weeks. either way, it's a two-week window. the difference that is the amendments, if they're not accepted, then they're not made public unless the maker makes them public. supervisor safai, that is a decision i can't imagine why you wouldn't want to share the amendments, but if we're accepting them, they're in the file an

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

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

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

was placed in the ordinance last week. am i doing that correctly? >> i thank you are meaning to strike a section six, the unquantified section on page 236 of the ordinance. >> you are a mindreader. >> ok. i don't know why it is listed under that section but that is correct. we would be striking section six lines 11-25 on page 236. >> say that one more time? >> section six what? what did you say? >> 11-25. i apologize. we have so many different versions here. >> that is what i have. >> there are a lot of versions with different edits on the website. but i believe what the amendment

also further clarifying the see emissions vehicle ordinance. again, these recommendations did not apply to the sfpuc. g.s.a. did partially or fully concurred with all of the recommendations. our current out lock in q-2 ending december 31, we're expected to complete the following audited. a citywide cart audit financial audit for fiscal year 16-17, as well as a royalties lease equipment audit. we will also hope to issue or assess fiscal year 17-18 financial statements for all three enterprises inclusive of cleanpowersf. up coming programs we're anticipating to begin include the lien hiring process. this slide here represents prior years' audits and recommendations that are still open. the last time we were here before this body, in the appendix two of the actual quarterly audit performance review report, we have a new section that now highlights by recommendation all of the target closure dates for each of the recommendations. fore purposes of today, what we've consolidated peraudit and what you see is the target date of the closure for the audit

the a.d.u. ordinance is foundational to the success of the a.d.u. program in the zoning administrator may exempt projects in any district where administratively to reduce parking. there is a whole litany of other special conditions that we have come up with and then of course, just last week, you and your colleagues from the board voted unanimously to remove parking minimums for any project whose sole frontage is on a street where the city is there and we do not want curb cuts. we always say that we will make things more efficient and more legible but we are definitely making it more legible. this will be a substantial improvement to the code and there is a lot of places where the minimum parking requirements shows up in the code and this really creates confusion, mainly for the smallest applicants. small property owners are small business owners who may not have the resources to hire an armada of land use attorneys or permit expediters to help them navigate our process. so this will make it very clear to people that they can have the right to remov

was placed in the ordinance last week. am i doing that correctly? >> i thank you are meaning to strike a section six, the unquantified section on page 236 of the ordinance. >> you are a mindreader. >> ok. i don't know why it is listed under that section but that is correct. we would be striking section six lines 11-25 on page 236. >> say that one more time? >> section six what? what did you say? >> 11-25.

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

but we think that flexibility may be a good thing in the ordinance. and the second issue is a smaller issue. but along the port, we have areas that are dedicated public access. these are outdoor areas predominantly around the giants' ballpark, around pier 39. we have areas where it's recorded against the property that this is public access. the ordinance the way it's crafted today already exempt city cans in the public right-of-way. so these are cans primarily along sidewalks. it happens for the fort and city-wide. -- port and city-wide. they're exempted from the requirement, which we think is appropriate, because this is a really mixed stream. so we would suggest adding to the definition of public trash container any of these public containers in dedicated public access areas along the port, whether or not they're collected by a public agency. because we think they're like city cans. so those are our two proposals for you to consider. we know you have a lot more on your plate than just the port concern, but i'm available to answer any questions that y

i tried to read through the ordinance. i understand that you would have to have a permit for mandatory seismic retrofit but i know there's usually noticing and processes to actually get the permit. i guess my question is, i just want to make sure people can actually get the permit in a timely manner because it says it lasts for six months. it says then it could be extended at the discretion of the director. all that makes sense, maybe you could pinpoint to me, i just want to make sure they could access the temporary mobile food permit in a timely manner. you do a 10-day noticing to the neighboring restaurants, you have to remain 50 feet within your existing restaurant. you have all these exemptions, right? can someone talk about -- is someone here from d.p.w. i think i saw jeremy. if you could talk us through, i want to make sure these businesses will be able to get this permit in a timely fashion. >> thank you. jeremy spitz with san francisco public works. we tried to streamline this process as much as possible. we removed

the unquantified section at the end of the ordinance. in the public late notice document on 237. >> you made a motion to strike section -- section six. page 236 or page 237. 237 on the public document. >> do we need a roll call or can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. >> through the chair, can i ask another question? on the points with the flower mart, i wanted to hear what you had to say one more time. >> we need to continue discussions with all of the stakeholders on this amendment. i have made a commitment to kilroy to come to some kind of resolution by november 13th to the full board. i am not making an amendment to strike this today. >> i heard that. i wanted to hear the other part about the conversation. it seems pretty significant. >> we still haven't continued the discussion with all of the stakeholders. >> ok. >> ok. at this time, does the committee have any suggestions on how you want to move forward? >> i would like to make a motion to move this far with positive recommendation to the full board >

objection the ordinance is called. it's 2:33. et's go to the 2:30 special order. >> clerk: okay, 2:30 special order. we're ready. >> supervisor: we have three special accommodations. first i want to recognize supervisor tang and then hear from supervisor mann dallman and finally -- mandelman. >> supervisor: i have been working on illegal massage establishments and this board helped close many loopholes an ensure the businesses engage inning human trafficking or other illegal activity -- activities are shut down and i'd like to recognize george montile. please come up. ladies and gentlemen, let's give him a round of applause. >> so george has spent the last three years at the department of public health. sadly for us, friday will be his last year as he'll be moving on to promotional opportunity with child protective services. while work in the massage program, george has taken the lead on the majority of nighttime inspections, issued many citations an worked with actions including the city attorney's office, police depend and plann