Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Public Safety Neighborhood Services Committee 71416  SFGTV  July 21, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am PDT

9:00 pm
announcer: the first step to getting into college is finding someone who can help. for the next steps, go to >> [gavel] good morning. welcome to our special rules committee meeting of july 21, 2016. i am katy tang chair of this committee. our vice chair eric mar will join us shortly and we have supervisor cohen and supervisor yee and we would like to thank sfgtv. mr. clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and submitted to the clerk and items will be on the and items will be on the next
9:01 pm
board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please call item 1. >> item 1 is appointment to appoint a member to the treasure island development authority to the citizens advisory committee for an indefinite term. there are two applicants. >> thank you. we have citizens here for the one see the and i guess we can start with david brentlinger. >> good morning. thank you supervisors for having me here today and this is about the treasure island development authority citizens advisory committee vacant see the from suzanne kim's exit. i know her. she introduced me to treasure island a number of years ago and the origin of my interest in this position. treasure island as you know is a critical part of the development of san francisco, and it's a
9:02 pm
complicated project in land used issues and toxic clean up and transportation and this position calls for somebody inp r expertise in land use, architecture, planning and transportation, cultural resources, historic preservation, geotechnical, real estate and financing and large scale management, wetland management, natural resource preservation, environmental remediation. i can tell you i have been involved in all of those things in a substantial way. the communities that i built now have thousands -- literally thousands of people live thrg and thousands of jobs generated in place in those communities, so i would also like to point out that i have substantial involvement in san francisco city improvements. i'm involved in san francisco wholesale produce market expansion and renovation. i am
9:03 pm
recently started work with the planning department rail yard and i2 rail boulevard study, and more recently been a co-founder of the san franciscans for sports and recreation. yesterday as a result of that i was able to go through a list of 25 city tennis courts that need resurfacing. we secured funding for that as well as additional recreational additions to the city's inventory. in the course of that i was also able to realize that treasure island has some little league baseball diamonds that were at risk so having said all of that i just realized that mr. tepper who is here is deeply involved in recreation at treasure island, and i think in particular baseball? >> [inaudible] >> okay. so in any event i'm
9:04 pm
willing to defer my position to mr. tepper because of his closer relationship to treasure island so i didn't want to take up the committee's time this morning but i wanted to support the effort at treasure island and continue to volunteer to work for the city in whatever capacity is worthwhile. >> well thank you very much. that's very kind of you. okay. then i will not proceed with any other questions and maybe we can go to mr. tepper as the next applicant. >> very well. >> thank you for the application. >> [inaudible] (off mic) supervisor tang, supervisor cohen good morning. supervisor yee nice to see you again. as mr. brentlinger said i have been involved with san francisco little league and we have fields on treasure island. there is also a amount of wonderful fields for lacrosse, soccer,
9:05 pm
football and flag football and so forth, and the concern of a lot of us -- not just little league is that these are really the premier fields in san francisco. when we started san francisco little league in 1996 for the first three years we had to play our home games in sausalito and our away games in mill valley because no san francisco fields met little league specifications, safety and so forth, and around 1999 or 20001 of our dads who was assemblyman's administrative aid said we should try the treasure island department corporation and agreed to rent a field for 1 dollar a year and now it's three little league -- itself -- although i am no longer directly involved so i'm not speaking for little league. -- now has three diamond and one team of 14
9:06 pm
children to over a hundred teams, almost 2,000 players. we have girls soft ball and a strong challenger program and the little league's program for disabled children so my interest is to ensure that the fields that exist are either maintained or traded off so that we don't necessarily have to have the same number of fields on treasure island. we might be able to replace one baseball diamond with something in san francisco. i am open to that. i don't have any interest in stopping the development of treasure island but i think it's only fair that something is so helpful for family live to have a recreational area for your children that is safe, charming and a wonderful place be maintained, and so i hope that i will get the appointment. >> thank you very much. and i think it's a really great perspective you're able to
9:07 pm
bring to this body because as we all know there's a lot of changes happening and we can't lose sight of the recreational and open space facilities on treasure island. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. do we have any questions or comments? okay. we're going to open up this item to public comment. i have one card and if you would like to come up for this item please come forward. >> good morning supervisor supervisors. i'm a transportation guy but i also have a daughter who has down's syndrome and it's through this i got involved in the concept of challenger baseball which is baseball for kids with disabilities and worked with jessie 15 years ago to establish the program within san francisco little league and i have been associated with it, and know jessie since that time. we all know about the development plans for treasure island but think
9:08 pm
mostly in terms of the residential development and the potential of the museum, but much of the island is open space and a center is part of the development program for the island. we all know that the city has the scarcity of new baseball fields. we all know the battles by the fields by the beach and mission park and within sites in the city so treasure island represents valuable and invaluable resource for siting playing fields for -- particularly for youths in athletics and appropriately to maintain and retained as a resource for the city. from that perspective i think jessie brings an invaluable perspective to us in the development of the island and something appropriately represented on this group. >> thank you very much. any
9:09 pm
other members of the public to comment to item 1. seeing none. public comment is now closed. it looks like we have one applicant for the one see the so i would be happy to forward jesse tepper to see the nine of this body with positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you. i will join you supervisor tang and joyfully accepting and moving the motion forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> all right. great so we will do that and we will take it without objection. [gavel] item two please. >> item number 2 say hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending march 19, 2019 to the child care planning and advisory council. there is one seat, one applicant. >> thank you. and is fonda davidson here today? please come on up. >> good morning supervisors.
9:10 pm
i'm here as the nominee for a vacant seat for district 8 to serve on the child care planning and advisory council committee. i have attended the committee for many, many years as the director of cross cultural family center and have participated on several of the sub-committees primarily the work force committee and at times the policy and legislation committee, and i look forward to continuing to support the work of city in serving the children and families of san francisco and particularly to address the needs of the child care professionals in our city, and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> okay. supervisor yee are you here for this item in okay. >> i just wanted to be here for this item. fonda is
9:11 pm
somebody i've known like forever it seems like, and i can't -- you know just sitting here thinking when was it about cross culturally? you have been there a long time and i know you were somewhere else and she's like the perfect candidate to be on cpac. she's one of the most knowledgeable individuals in san francisco in this field. she's dedicated her whole life in trying to improve the systems throughout san francisco. i worked with her. i worked against her. we do battle but she's always there for the kids and the families so i certainly would support a person like fonda davidson to be appointed. >> okay. great. thank you supervisor yee and just reading and understanding your background too i know you have
9:12 pm
a huge expertise and have a lot to contribute to this committee, so and i appreciate your comments about kind of the focus area you have coming up which is around the actual providers, and how we really need to provide more for them so i look forward to working on those issues with supervisor yee and my other colleagues as well so at this time i don't see other questions and comments so we're going to take public comment on item two. any members of the public that wish to speak on item two? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] and can we get a motion on this item then? >> sure thank you supervisor tang. i want to make a motion with a positive recommendation. >> all right. we will move fond to understand to see the eight on the child care planning and advisory council. we will take without objection. congratulations. thank you very much. item 3 please. >> item number 3 is a hearing
9:13 pm
to initiative ordinance of four or more supervisors for the election initiative ordinance for the administrative code for the neighborhood crime unit in the police department and active when the controller certifies that the department is at full staffing level in the city charter and levels to the assigned unit. >> the author is here, supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam chair and supervisor cohen thank you for cosining with myself and supervisor farrell to place this neighborhood crime policing measure on the ballot. colleagues we have a epidemic of crime in the city and this would establish the neighborhood crime unit so we have a true focus on
9:14 pm
addressing these issues. this unit will be tasked with implementing foot patrols and working proactively with the community to address neighborhood specific crimes. i worked closely with the mayor's office as well as the san francisco police department to craft this measure. colleagues as you know are aware we have seen a spike -- actually not a spike but explosion of property crime in our city. data from the police department shows a huge increase in property crimes particularly burglary, theft, auto break ins and bike theft. i held a hearing in january and at that hearing the police department reported an 18% increase in property crimes from 2014 to 2015. we have seen a dramatic increase in property crimes in the last five or six years. the recent civil grand jury report on auto burglaries found that it occurs in san francisco more than 70 times
9:15 pm
everyday which is an 11% increase from 2014 to 2015, and just this week colleagues at the land use committee i held a hearing on bike theft and in san francisco it's grawd dupled since stwaw 11 and threatened under mine the policy of people to get around via bike. i know every one of of us hears everyday from the constituents that we have a crime problem in our neighborhood that we need more foot patrols and more police presence in the neighborhoods to prevent crime in addition to addressing the crime once it's happened but it's not just about cracking down on crime and community sfpding is what this is about and it's about building trust with the community. when officers are in the beats and riding bikes and in the neighborhood they develop
9:16 pm
relationships with residents, with merchants and all members of the community so it's not just about responding to the crime. it's about preventing crime before it happens. the neighborhood crime unit will be activated when our city reaches its charter mandated staffing minimum of 1971 officers which we're expected to reach by the end of next year. we have been working very hard every year in our budget process to fund police academy classes to get us back up to the minimum staffing level. at that point and time no less than 3% of all police officers will be assigned to the neighborhood crime unit. this unit will be tasked with prioritizing enforcement regarding crimes like burglary, auto break ins and theft, vandalism, bike theft while enforcing other laws. in addition to policing responsibilities the neighborhood crime unit will be tasked with collaboratively working with other city agencies like the department of public
9:17 pm
health, human services agency and the department of homelessness and supportive housing to address unlawful street behavior issues with a goal of transitioning people off the streets and into housing and services and we were specific in this measure that issues that relate to people being in crisis, people needing help that the goal of this unit is not to criminalize anyone, not to bring anyone to jail but to help people into service and off the streets and the measure mandates that the neighborhood crime unit work with these other city agencies to try to help people who are in crisis who need housing and other service. these officers will also assist with 911 and 311 calls for service related to neighborhood crimes. the measure also creates tran transparency and accountability about metrics about data crime and the efforts
9:18 pm
to combat the crimes with required reports to the police commission. this requires the police department to create a comprehensive written policy governing the assignment and conduct of the neighborhood crime unit that will be reviewed at minimum annually by the police commission. the policy will be required to include the following procedures for officers assigned to the unit, a list of penal code employee code sections that serve as a focus for the unit and the list shall be composedd and updated annually between collaboration district captains, community members, organizations and unit officers, and then annual report to the police commission. colleagues we know that community policing works but we need to commit to it and formalize it or it goes away and we have seen that over and over again with the lack of beat officers in the neighborhood and the resulting explosion of property crime so we need this commitment. we need to commit
9:19 pm
to the residents as we grow the police ranks which we want to do -- at least some of us on the board of supervisors want to do -- those resources will be directed to making the communities safe for everyone so colleagues i look forward to the discussion today and to making the case to the voters in november about the importance of this measure. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions, comments? supervisor yee. >> thank you. first of all i want to appreciate that we're all focus -- or many people are focused on this particular issue. as you know i have been -- well, maybe you don't know -- for the last year or so i have been working with the police department to address these very same issues within the district 7. district 7 like some of the other districts have seen the
9:20 pm
explosion of these crimes that supervisor wiener has described so eloquently, and so i also have had hearings at city hall around this issue, twice, and i continue to set up community meetings with our police captains and bring in other organizations into the meetings such as supervisor tang has done with sf safe and the da to have a discussion with the community members to see to not only talk about the problems but what do we see as potential solutions so through that mechanism we have been able to identify certain strategies that the community felt was the way to go. for instance they thought they needed more help from sf safe
9:21 pm
in the budget process i added more money into the budget. they said it would be really helpful to have some funding sources to purchase cameras if neighbors get a grant for it and promise to monitor it so there's money in the budget for that as a pilot project for district 7, so i think what i am getting at we're doing things -- i have been talking to our three different police captains that covers the district plus the chief, and i had several meetings already in trying to come up with strategies and we're getting close to them. my concern here is that i hope that whatever we come up with, and it seems very decentralized, the approach that we will be using,
9:22 pm
that this particular ballot measure doesn't take away our efforts that we would have solidified by the time november comes around, so the -- in fact i mean like tomorrow i am actually walking through ocean avenue with the police captain because of a recent rash of break ins of our small businesses, so again i am trying to get the police connected to our community as much as possible. i was hoping that the chief would be here but he's not. maybe supervisor wiener could answer. i'm just curious you know as we all know as we debated probably a year ago, so that it would take a little while to get to the 1971 and really is projecting as you indicated next year some time
9:23 pm
that we will reach the charter number of 1971 police officers, so here's my concern and i know this is not a debate whether this goes through or not, but i'm going to use this opportunity to have a discussion. if for instance we're successful in getting strategies going it's really more neighborhood based or police station based, and the strategies that want to use for their area they feel like it's going to work for that area. every area is going to be a little different, so you know and this is going on and okay we 1970 officers right now and it's still going on and all of a sudden we reach 1971 -- let's say 1972. all of a sudden my
9:24 pm
calculations says that we're actually mandating the police chief to actually pull 60 officers from somewhere, mostlily from the individual police stations to create this unit, so this i believe 11 -- no, ten police stations, which means that each station could lose up to six officers or more or whatever, and that's a big deal for a police station because i have been fighting hard to get more police officers in these stations, so that's one concern, and then where are you going to get the police officers from to create this? yes the number are there but these people are already assigned. that's one concern that i have.
9:25 pm
the other concern, as i have been talking first with chief suhr and cheap chief chaplain and several now and years ago everything was centralized and found it was working as well because the strategies were one size fits all and they started to decentralize. i spoke to the former chief about this and said one of the reasons they decentralize today they wanted captain to have autonomy to find solutions. so this seems to move back to centralizing and one of the concerns on the west side every time they centralize units that the west side you see [inaudible] ignored. the crimes you're talking about they're a lot of [inaudible] in place and
9:26 pm
if you start looking at the numbers of car thefts and everything else then certainly even though it's real high on the west side compared to tenderloin or other areas it's much higher in other areas. what does it mean that we're going to lose the attention we would have gotten if it was based in the police stations. so those are concerns that i really do have and i want to try to understand. i am hoping whatever happens with this ballot measure -- i mean if it's successful that it doesn't put -- you know, reverse our efforts. >> supervisor wiener did you want to respond first and [inaudible] >> sure, absolutely. >> no problem. i will respond after you. >> thank you supervisor cohen. so to supervisor yee through
9:27 pm
the chair i appreciate the questions. i don't think that -- i think what we're proposing here is going to improve the approach to neighborhood crime at the neighborhood level including on the west side because the approach we have now particularly in light of the under staffing is clearly not consistently working otherwise we wouldn't have this tidal wave of property crime that we have seen over the last five years. this is not about taking away officers from police stations. the officers in this unit will be in our neighborhoods. they're not going to be -- you know some sort of wall between them and district stations. they are working day in and day out with the officers assigned to particular stations and it will be a collaborative working relationship and the measure specifically mandates that a
9:28 pm
district captains in addition to community members be involved in sort of the planning and the prioritization in terms of these units. in terms of centralization versus decentralization yes this is a new bureau within the police department doesn't mean the officers are all the hall of justice. they're in the neighborhoods and that's the whole point here to be pushing more officers into our neighborhoods and the challenge that we have now, and i think in neighborhoods like some of the west side neighborhoods, and there are other neighborhoods in the east side that falls into this, it tends to be neighborhoods that are experienced higher levels of crime get understandably -- especially violence crime and more focus of the police department and that's not a criticism but a reality and in mission station they get more focus because there's more particularly violent crime in
9:29 pm
the mission compared to noe valley and by having a formal focus on neighborhood crime prevention and addressing neighborhood crime and beat cops i think we will see more police officers in our neighborhoods. i don't think this is going to under mine the west side. i mean already today in terms of staffing of the district stations bay view station or mission station or northern station for example have more police officers assigned to them than terra bell because of crime levels and already staffing decisions are made based on crime levels. this isn't going to under mine the west side. i think it will benefit the west side because we know the west side is experiencing enormous amount of property crime as well, but in the end just to be very, very clear under no matter the model we use and the
9:30 pm
revised model or officers where the sole focus is neighborhood crime issues the only way we're going to fundamentally address effectively our crime issues is with adequate staffing in the police department. our police department is under staffed. it has been under staffed for years. we are working very hard to rebuild it and we need to get it back up to the 1971 but honestly 1971 was a full staffing number that was set when dianne feinstein was their in the 80's when we had fewer people when we had areas of the city that are now neighborhoods that didn't exist then and 1971 is no longer a valid minimum staffing level and that's why the board of supervisors on a vote last year i believeet krad a new policy that due to population growth and comparing to other cities full staffing
9:31 pm
is at least 2200. we authored the resolution and got it passed and supervisor yee you didn't support that resolution. we continue to have debates at the board whether the resolution is applicable. it is. it was passed by the board. it's the policy now and we need to be getting staffing levels up so we actually have enough officers so the neighborhood crime unit is well staffed and so that every station is well staffed because that's how we're going to prevent crime so we have to keep the momentum going and every year at the board of supervisors there is an effort to tear down this down and not keep increasing the police staffing and we need to keep the momentum up. >> thank you. comprehensive. >> thank you. welcome. >> >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you to the committee supervisor yee. i am listening to the remarks and trying to understand better your areas of concerns. i think i hear two.
9:32 pm
one is a legitimate one that policing that is happening in your entire district you're concerned if this specific crime -- what are we calling this? crime unit. >> safety crime unit. >> safety crime unit is created and pulling other resources from your district. is that correct? >> the legislation says that once you reach 1971 at least 3% of the police force will be assigned to this particular unit that's outlined which equals to about 60 police officers and so this unit, if the unit didn't exist prior to the 1971 level then at some point when you -- when it gets triggered it's -- also like not that you have 60
9:33 pm
new officers on top and might have one officer and have to find 60 officers to be assigned to this unit. it could be done i think -- supervisor wiener may have described how it could be done, but that was my concern that that in creating this that all of a sudden things aren't working. some of the things -- actually our police stations in seven, some of the strategies are beginning to work. the stats for those particular crimes have dropped quite a bit. >> which strategies are working in district 7? >> they have focus on those crimes. they have certain people assigned to it. i've encouraged -- we lost both of our beat officers for instance since i have been a supervisor and i encouraged them to be
9:34 pm
reinstated -- >> like when you lost them where did they go? >> the police department -- okay. what happened -- i don't want to pretend i run the police department. i work with them, i encourage and support them but for whatever reason when they put it off they said they were -- their level of ros were -- officers were low and put is it off and we all supported the increase of police academy classes so more recently gone up again slowly and i said "well f that is the case then please reassign them." i talked to the chief and the captains and they were able to do it and i think it goes a long ways. i'm hoping that my meeting on ocean avenue tomorrow and walk with the captain, so those are the
9:35 pm
things that i am trying to do with the police officers and the police stations to work with them in our communities to bring the gap and break down the barriers. i actually went to some of the businesses yesterday to let them know, you know. i know there has been a lot of break ins in your store fronts and what i want is that the police captain of terra vel station for ocean avenue to understand your concerns and how we can work together, and two of them actually told me "there's no point. i don't trust them." you know the same thing there's not that trust so i am just trying to bridge it, so between the police stations and what i am trying to do seems like we're trying to develop trust so that the people -- one of the things
9:36 pm
i teld all of the community meetings and that's a new thing. i didn't do that with the police captains in the past but this past year we had three already and we have two more scheduled, and they -- some things that we hear about all the time. it's not part of the dna of most residents that if somebody break the window in a car a lot of people don't report it, so by the time somebody does really report it, and i tell people -- i tell the police station. this is an issue and they look at records. well there's only two people that reported it. no, i heard 20 people. i heard stories so they go out and tell them the same story i tell them -- >> okay thank you. >> so these are some of the strategies we're taking. you know i again i'm not the police department. i was hoping they would be here to give you more
9:37 pm
information. i had several meetings with chapter chaplain already to make sure that i don't lose the momentum chief suhr. i mean the captain. >> i got it. this is a hearing item so no action is taken so i am grateful that supervisor yee cares enough -- he's busy -- cares enough to come to committee and come and articulate his concerns. my questions are not meant to be antagonizing but i am trying to understand better your position because if there is an opportunity to make the legislation stronger i think this is our job so this topic we're talking about is the initiative ordinance that could go to voters or will be going to voters that would create a
9:38 pm
neighborhood crime unit within the police department, a neighborhood crime unit, so what i hear -- so you all know i represent southeast san francisco. we have a legacy of crime, and i have three captains that i work with, and bay view ingleside and southern captains and you're right. each captain has their own individual philosophy. they know their district and territory so they deploy their officers appropriately. my experience i get an overwhelming number of emails from people across all of san francisco about crime issues for whatever reason they come and they bring them to me, and i have heard from constituents from district 7 and one thing that is consistent -- you're absolutely right. foot patrol,
9:39 pm
beat cops are desired, that relationship, and you know what is also important? multilingual officers that are able to communicate with everyone so i am thinking about high traffic areas that are similar, ocean avenue, san bruno avenue, certainly third street, certain parts of the design district around the geneva corridor as well. they're all areas it's beneficial to have officers that speak at least two languages. i guess the primary languages could be english and spanish -- excuse me, english, spanish and also chinese, and people want to see that camaraderie and certainly in the mono lingual chinese parts of the community they like to have a police officer they can see and touch and when you have that presence
9:40 pm
that of which the neighborhood crime unit would also be significantly creating is that that creates that relationship so people have the confidence to report crime, and make anonymous tips, so i'm grateful we're having this conversation because i don't think we everyone or one person or neighborhood has the complete answer when it come to the law enforcement and community policing. what i am hearing something that is yeferl universal we all want community policing and in the hearing and i am trying to find out where the objections are with the concerns of the neighborhood crime unit? so that's really what i am trying to hear and listen for. >> yeah, and again hopefully i raised the concern. i think
9:41 pm
supervisor wiener answered it. you know i think part of it is to raise these concerns and i didn't come in here to debate whether it should be on the ballot -- >> oh no, i know that. >> i just want to be clear. it's important for me to feel like the effort i am spending a lot of time, like a lot of us, on these issues in the district, and i don't want my efforts in which -- this is not me telling the police what to do. it's more like what do you need from me to help you, and that's my approach, and they have appreciated it. they continue to want to dialogue. in fact more recently rather than meeting with individual captains which i have been doing which wasn't as effective, commander maddox i spoke with her and we were just talking and she says
9:42 pm
why don't you meet with all three at the same time? i never thought it of it and we had a great meeting because we were able to focus on this and talking about coordination and so forth, so you know -- thank you commander maddox for asking the three captains to be in my office with her to discuss these issues so that's all i am saying that many of the supervisors i am sure i'm not the only one that does this -- has focus on this and i just you know, want to make my efforts and other people's efforts within the district and working with the police it's not lost if this ballot measure passes. that's why i raised some of the issues. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. and i appreciate all the issues that supervisor yee has raised in terms of the challenges we face
9:43 pm
in our neighborhoods which are probably in every neighborhood in the city, and this measure will not in anyway under mine efforts to sway those legitimate concerns. i think this will help in terms of the very basic day to day neighborhood and public safety problems that people are just at their whits' end in terms of seeing things and experiencing crimes and wondering where the heck are the officers walking beats? why is this happening? why don't we have more officers in our neighborhoods? and this measure will help have some sort of discipline in our up staffing process to make sure we have a focus on the neighborhood level so just to be clear in terms of taking away from stations, which will absolutely not happen, it wasn't that long ago, maybe a couple years ago our department had fewer than 1700 active duty officers, fewer than 1700. we now have a little bit more than
9:44 pm
1800 and so as of today we have just over 1800. we will then claw our way up to 1971 assuming that something bad doesn't happen in this building which is always a possibility, and when we get to 1971 there are 60 of the officers will become purely neighborhood focused in all of the neighborhoods so 1910 will not be in that unit. we will still have more officers in our regular and every other unit than we have today. hundreds more than we had a few years ago but 60 of those officers are dedicated only to neighborhood crime issues, working with the stations, having those strategies that are neighborhood by neighborhood but also understanding that some of the neighborhood issues are universal. they exist in every neighborhood so this will force the department to make sure
9:45 pm
that as we up staff the department we are -- [inaudible] staff the department is a better phrase taking a disciplined approach with the beat cops in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you. colleagues i had this hearing i had to testify in earlier so i am sorry i am coming to this discussion a little bit late. i share some of the concerns that supervisor yee has raised, and i know that we need to be strategic in how we utilize police resources for the most serious issues and sometimes with the zone enforcement strategy for example focusing on a couple of districts or neighborhoods where the highest crime is happening is really strategic and important, but like supervisor yee i do feel like this isn't necessary to go to the ballot because it can be done administratively or with the interim chief chaplain's
9:46 pm
leadership and strategy as well. i do also worry that whether it was zone enforcement strategy, which focused officers and resources into some key areas, but then left other districts without or with fewer resources to be dealing with the issues that we had to deal with as well. bumping some crime like car break ins and other things to the districts that weren't part of the zone enforcement strategy. another example with super bowl policing which arguably was important and necessary but again it left some of the outer lying districts without enough resources. i work with our two captains in my district on foot patrols and other issues that i think need the resources. they need resources to be able to keep our neighborhoods safe with their own district specific strategies. the 60 officers or
9:47 pm
however many that would be part of the unit it's not clear if it's pulling them away and what resources we would have in each of the police districts. i think fledge fledge flexibility as supervisor yee mentioned is key to have and the centralized approach might leave some of the districts -- not just the west side one but outer districts away from the zone enforcement strategies with fewer resources. the last thing i will say i conducted with the budget analyst study of the resources going to the police department on homeless calls and i know that one of the goals of this new unit it's creating yet another unit within the police department to address the 911 and 311 calls and when we analyze the services to the police department a huge number were on complaints about
9:48 pm
various issues of homeless people or people without homes and i think it was 18.$6 million was according to the report spent on dealing with various issues like calls about homeless people and i think even some of the police officers cited in the report were saying they rarely resulted in a citation or any action and i am wondering if this unit might be used also to be more wasteful on resources to investigate a call but not result in anything on a homeless person? i think strategic approaches are right and transparency and accountability and use of data is right but i think this pulls us away from the existing approaches by the captains of each of the police districts to address these issues and i worry by placing something like this on the
9:49 pm
ballot doesn't make it better, in fact makes it less flexible for the captains to work with this as we create another unit within the police department and that's my 2 cents and i have concerns and i appreciate the supervisors' concern about neighborhood safety but i don't think this is the right way to address it. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor wiener would you like to open up this item to public comment now? >> i would be delighted madam chair. >> all right. we will open public comment for item 3. >> i have one public comment card. >> good morning jordan gwendolyn davis gender rights active. i oppose this neighborhood crime unit boondoggle. no, let's cut the bs. the appropriate term is broken windows policing unit. last monday i came to city hall
9:50 pm
with our community who spoke out in crowded several of your offices. also you may remember last month electeds were booed off the stage. why do you think that happened? because the broken windows initiative including this one and the u did you nottant antiencampus initiative and attempts to hurt the homeless over the years. it's reached a boiling point. our group and -- [inaudible] over gentrification and transgender youth and black and brown and disabled put in jail, a place where rape and misgend gendering is the norm and pressured by the police by homeward bound. to the supervisor please withdraw the
9:51 pm
cruel unnecessary and redundant measures and the encampus measure. you're using the donald trump play book to get wealthy people to vote and this is awful and just do the right thing and remove this. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none madam chair we can close public comment. >> all right. public comment is closed on item 3. [gavel] . if we can get a motion to file the hearing. >> so moved. >> take without objection. i apologize -- okay. well, we have our letters here from the controllerree office and reallocation of existing costs. item 4 please. >> item 4 is initiative ordinance for the planning code for requiring use use for replacement of production, distribution, repair, institutional community and arts activities uses and planning
9:52 pm
department under ceqa and election to be held on november 8,. >> thank you. i don't see anyone from supervisor kim's office and wait a few minutes and perhaps someone can talk and speak on this item. >> thank you chair tang. i apologize i thought there would
9:53 pm
be more than one speaker for the previous item so we're now joined by supervisor kim. >> thank you chair tang and thank you to the public that are here for item 4. i want to thank my colleagues for hearing this legislation in rules committee this past week and providing comment and thank you to the public for weighing in on this important conversation how we work to preserve production distribution and repair zoning here in san francisco, arts and community gathering spaces. as we balance what we all agree as much needed growth particularly residential and office growth here in san francisco. with the amendments that have been made and further will be introduced today i think that this legislation will strike the right balance between competing needs amongst all of the different uses we want to see here in san francisco. san francisco is a city and it is a city with a diversity of people and the character of
9:54 pm
neighborhood that makes the city great. we are in a moment of time where we feel we're at risk of losing san francisco special places and the people that depend on the spaces to work, play, mark art and receive services. for several years now the board has heard countless stories of organizations, non-profit organizations that cannot compete in today's hot office market. in a report by the northern california grant [inaudible] association two out of three organizations throughout the bay area will have to make a decision whether they can stay or moving in the next five years. the city's art commission well nearly 600 artists have stated that either live or -- that live in the city found that 70% of respondents have been displaced or were being displaced from the work place, home or both. as for the 30% that wasn't displaced
9:55 pm
potential displacement in the future was a high concern. we are also losing production distribution and repair spaces throughout the city as well. we are losing auto mechanic garages, spaces that repair and produce, and also we are losing space to limited enforcement that the city provides to ensuring that zoning is properly followed. but it is not too late to do something and this legislation attempts to address what we're seeing today as the rapid loss of production distribution repair and arts in san francisco. we need to make sure as the city builds it does it in the right way and the board had many conversations about the need for building more housing and building affordable housing. in fact this year i sponsored a measure that would increase having market rate developers build 25% affordable housing on site, but developers also need to know if you're building a projected where there's currently space for workers, artists and
9:56 pm
non-profits that we expect that these spaces be replaced in the future. this legislation and the new requirements that we are proposing today are one way to ensure we're building a healthier and more balanced neighborhood. the legislation provides clear rules and expectations for replacing the loss of space for people to work, make and appreciate art and provide services to the community. at the same time it does provide the planning department and the future board of supervisors as suggested by this rules committee the opportunity to strengthen the legislation in the future should the need arise allowing legislators to make changes to this ballot measure. it also strikes the right balance by allowing developers to build but making clear that the loss of space needs to be replaced. it strikes the right balance by addressing the crisis we're seeing in the neighborhoods that are facing rapid changes and displacement and respects other neighborhoods' process and to
9:57 pm
craft future legislation to address the specific nuisances of their neighborhood and i do want to appreciate supervisor cohen and supervisor tang that took on the initiative to support and balance distribution and repair in the respective districts but we also want to by striking a balance we don't want to pit pdr and non-profit and affordable housing against one either. they're all uses that we want to see more of and that we want to preserve. we need tools to ensure that san francisco's limited space is available to people of different backgrounds, different employment opportunities and different needs, so colleagues i want to thank you for your consideration of this legislation. i appreciate the thoughtful conversation that has been occurring over the last few weeks and i do have a number of amendments that i would like to submit to the rules committee today based on the feedback that we got over this past week so
9:58 pm
chair tang should i allow for comments from committee members or introduce the amendments? >> i think we spoke at length previously so you can go into the amendments and that is fine. >> sure. one is just a grammatical correction page two and line 13. in recent years the diversity has becomed threatened versus is threatened. we also had to make another clarification change on page three line eight. these pressures although city-wide are felt acutely in san francisco sought of market and i want to add mission neighborhoods. in number 5 per suggestion of members of this rules committee we want to strike in page five lines 22 through the following
9:59 pm
page 6 line four that we strike the requiring of conditional use authorization subject to the following requirements: to preserve the existing stock space for pdr and art and community use and the project result in building space and pdr feet at least 5,000 feet and in the districts requiring currently use for the amendment -- >> can you describe what the amendment would do? >> sure. we're striking the need for a conditional use for 100% affordable housing if there is replacement of pdr on site. >> i don't believe that's the correct one. i'm sorry. deputy
10:00 pm
city attorney or supervisor kim. >> it's the one you just read i think doesn't have anything to do with the 100%. >> give me one second. i'm sorry. >> okay. >> deputy city attorney. i might be able to give some clarity. that strike through was because as was discussed at the last hearing the way that this currently is drafted the requirement would apply as a blanket requirement for any conversion in the entirety of these enumerated plan areas and the replacement requirement only applies to the specific zoning districts. this amendment is intended to align those two up so there's no longer a blanket requirement for cu regardless whether subject to the replacement requirement. instead this amendment would tie the two together so the cu
10:01 pm
requirement is only required in the u numerated zoning districts of sally -- et cetera, listed in the subsection so if you need that you need a cu and otherwise you're not subject to that requirement. >> okay great. so if i am hearing correctly everything is aligned and only the planned areas described by this measure, the cu requirement and the replacement requirement apply to all the same places? okay. great. thank you. >> my apologize. thank you to the city attorney for that clarification. we do however put in an amendment later in the legislation that does -- sorry, actually address that particular amendment regarding a cu and 100% affordable housing where pdr is replaced and i am open to discussions with the rules committee on that one because i know that was a point of debate. we also on page eight provide
10:02 pm
several other exemptions based on the discussion that occurred at rules committee last week, so on lines one through four any property under the jurisdiction of the port or recreation and park commission and all redevelopment plan areas as effective july 1, 2016 and zoned p public after that date so if you're zoned parcel p today or if you're zoned p in the future you will get an exemption from this legislation. >> supervisor mar, did you have a question? >> yeah. i wanted to thank supervisor kim and april for listening to the comments at the last committee meeting. i wanted to thank supervisor tang for raising the issue of 100% of affordable housing and sophie hayward as well and i am appreciative of that. i am
10:03 pm
curious what was changed in the grand fathering as brought up in the committee? and also what potential future trailing legislation may be coming? >> so what we're proposing -- although there wasn't report at rules committee for this amendment is that we do agree that projects that have submitted an ee by the date of which this legislation was introduced on june 14 that you should allow some flexibility for those projects. what we're proposing along with our stakeholders is that we do an exemption for any project that converts less than 15,000 square feet of pdr in community arts activity use and any projects building under 25 units to be consistent with a threshold we are instituted in proposition c which passed via voters this past june, and also what we will be proposing -- although i don't believe we will have support at
10:04 pm
rules committee today -- is that instead of a complete grandfathering of the projects above this limit of pdr ask the larger projects to replace 40% versus 100% of the pdr on site. >> thank you so much supervisor kim, and i know kate from sf made raised issues and i am wondering what the communications have been with her? and i see a letter from spur in my file as well with some different issues that they raised and i am just wondering the communication with both of those entities supervisor kim. >> i'm sorry. we didn't make it through all of the amendments. i thought the question was about that so let's go through the amendments. >> there is one final amendment which is page nine and this is actually in response to sf
10:05 pm
made. this is actually a very good suggestion and that we allow for a future trailing legislation that allows the city to do a nexus study and create a scheme necessary to what the housing developers do and they can provide on site pdr or they have the option to work with the planning department and the community on either an in lieu fee and fee out of building on site pdr or provide off site replacement. we currently allow developers to do that with affordable housing and it makes sense that we allow flexibility for developers to pick from a menu how to replace pdr. kate from and sf made says it worked in other cities and cities are looking at purchasing entire
10:06 pm
sites for production distribution and repair on the in lieu basis or appropriate off site replacement. this is because what we have been finding -- or what sf made is find wg some of the on site replacement they're too expensive on the market or irregularly shaped or not correctly sized and this allows flexibility what pdr is instituted in the future will have some flexibility and of course input from the community. thank you. >> all right. so that's the summary of the amendments so back to supervisor mar. >> yeah, i was going to say i think the answers addressed some of the concerned raised by spur as well and i am appreciative of the amendments that you're propleasing as well supervisor kim. thank you. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. a couple of
10:07 pm
things here. i guess i will go amendment by amendment and i will wait. >> [inaudible] >> sure. i will open this up to public comment first and then we'll have more questions and things to discuss so if any member of the public wishes to speak on item 4 please come forward. >> hello supervisors. thank you supervisor kim. i'm sharon stoier, an artist in the mission in a shrinking building providing artist space to 60 artists and then 40 and now 20 artists. we lost hundreds of studios and lost hundreds of artists in the city who have just left and not come back. any legislation such as this or
10:08 pm
any proposal such as supervisor kim's that will stop the bleed and start to move in the direction of not preserving but insuring that san francisco invests in the future of our creative city and our community. our community is so -- so unique and so diverse and so creative and that's why the tech wants to come here but they're in the process of actually transforming the city into a mono culture of young white males replacing all of the rest of us, and it's really important for any investment that the city can make in the future of our community, our community
10:09 pm
spaces, working class, businesses. the blocks where my studio is on folsom street have auto body shops and repairs as well as artists and we're watching all of that shrink and turn into juice shops and servicing people who have no interest in rooting themselves in our community. it's so important everything that supervisor kim has been doing in terms of connecting with the artists in the city and trying to see how we can not just stop the bleed, but actually reverse this over gentrification to a mono culture. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment on item 4 please come on up. >> good morning. thank you so much for taking this issue up. my name is jonathan and a working artist in the city since
10:10 pm
1994. this ordinance proposed is important for preserving this space for light industry, blue collar jobs and artists and community uses. obviously there's a history of this. industrial production zones were introduced in the 80's and 90's for the similar work and recognizing the importance to have a place to repair the car and blue collar jobs and a diverse population and of course to the artists and non-profit uses. i think it's a reasonable request to preserve space for these organizations that can't compete with the rates that office and high-tech is offering. obviously the northern california grant makers association survey is alarming. that's 66% of the non-profit and arts organizations are at risk of losing their space in five
10:11 pm
years. that really needs to be taken under advisement. >> can you repeat the number. >> it's the non-profits and arts and other social services that were surveyed and 6% are at risk of losing their. >> >> 66% are at risk of losing their space. this is vital to and serve the creativity and diversity it serves. taking these space to convert to high end housing is shortsighted and pushes out crucial services that promote a healthy society and this ordinance is reasonable in having replacement. should an industrial property is proposed for mixed use. if the builder does that it requires space on the ground floor used for the traditional uses. thank you
10:12 pm
for the consideration. i appreciate the time. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. thank you for seeing us again here in the rules committee. i am representing the artists again. fortunately we have artists today to represent themselves, so i am happy to see that. essentially i have been in the city and a working artist my entire adult life and what i can tell you is that the situation is changed so radically that there's very few musicians. there's very few music studios left, about 500 left during the crash or whatever you want to call it and basically the tenor of the city has changed and i think that by not protecting the arts in the city
10:13 pm
and not protecting the cultural traditions that we have we've become a less friendly city, and i think that there's more need for expression than ever, so i hope that we will be able to preserve the art space and this is the beginning of the process it seems. it's a small beginning but it's a beginning and i was around during the beginning of the 80's, 90's with all of the things were taking place and that's what developed soma. that's what developed mission. that's why everyone keep in and wanted it and we clean it up for you guys to take over and a matter of the next group saying okay we want yours. i am just waiting for them. i own my space of the i can stay. i don't have a problem. i am speak for example other people
10:14 pm
but all of the people making all of this money as coders and coding themselves out of jobs. they're coding -- they're building the robots that are taking their jobs away so they won't be around long anyway. anyway thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. i am from sf made. first i want to thank supervisor kim and your office for really trying to be more inclusive in the last week and inviting us to participate in the dialogue and thank all of you for including sf made by name and making sure that manufacturers and our interest and data are part of this. i think a good amount of progress on the particulars of this proposal has been made as we received amendments from the body and had further discussion among a relatively small group of stakeholders, sort of behind the scenes. my main issue
10:15 pm
remains i think what we have here today should be immediately introduced with whatever final refinements are made as interim controls right now. i don't think that pushing this forward, waiting until november, spending a lot of money on all sides trying to convince the general public who may or may not have any understanding of the needs of manufacturers orastists or institutional uses is inprudent and there groups of individuals and east neighborhood and others would like to have more time in the process over time. we are in full support of introducing some version of what we have today with whatever further amendments will come from this body and others as interim controls now. we remain not in support of setting a precedent of governing how we use our precious space by voter initiative so that is my main comment for today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker
10:16 pm
please. >> board of supervisors my name is laura davis and i am one of the 60% that was noted that lost their studio space. i had a space for years in south of market and most of the artists -- probably half of them had to leave the city or just couldn't find another place. i happen to be one of the lucky ones that found another space in the mission which is also under threat in terms of loss of pdr spaces and i only have until this time of next year in terms of guaranteed a studio and then after that i really don't know where i'm going to be going so it really is important that we look at this issue today and if possible do something like the last speaker was saying, not wait for the voters to decide because this is a complicated
10:17 pm
issue. a lot of the artists being an artist myself it's even hard for me to talk about this to other artists. you know they don't understand. they want to go and do their work. you know we are part of the blue class working people in san francisco who are being pushed out, and you know it's important to keep us, so i see this as really the key thing as investment. it's investment for our future. it's investment for 20 years down the line. who will we have in the city? will we still have these businesses or will they be gone? will they go to oakland or wherever? but if we want to keep the businesses in the city we need to do something about it right now. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i have a question for you. >> ma'am, can you come up. i have a question. it's a real simple one. i am glad you're here and raising your voice and
10:18 pm
the the alarm on something important. did you reach out to the district supervisor for help on this item? >> yes. jane kim, a couple of years ago because my studio was in the south of mart and it was 43 artists that lost and as of right now the building i believe is still vacant. the owner of the building kicked us out last fall and it was a pdr, and again the thing is a lot of the businesses in the san francisco don't even understand what pdr is. >> i agree. >> he didn't understand. he thought he could kick us out and find someone else. >> find someone else. >> exactly and we lost the space and now it's empty now. >> thank you. i appreciate your testimony. >> any other members of the public to speak on item 4 come
10:19 pm
on up. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] supervisor mar. >> want oned to thank supervisor kim for addressing this issue and important issues that impact as we stated today artists and organizations and at previous hearings from metato south of mart market and the crisis many are in. i agree with kate and acting now is critical but i believe placing issues like this on the ballot are important so communities can raise their voice. i believe despite the artists displacement and the study shows that 60% are at risk and small businesses as mentioned there has been a bleeding -- serious bleeding of the small building sector in the city. i think since the tech boom began the data for 2011 and like 4500 businesses were
10:20 pm
pushed out and by 2013 it was even higher so i think the loss of the soul of the city, the unfortunate rise of the mono culture mentioned and as rebecca and other writers have mentioned critical measure -- this helps and otherric that help and the hotel measure that will create stabilization for artists and others but combined we can do more to stop the bleeding and create the culture and vibrancy of our artists and neighborhoods but this is a good way to start and i hope we're looking at it legislatively as well but thanks to supervisor kim and the coalition that are supportive of this. >> thank you. i will also put a plug if you're looking for space i am recruiting in district 4. i can now count five artists in the district and before it was one and great improvement and i want to
10:21 pm
encourage to you look into our district. supervisor kim had two amendments she didn't mention so let's do that first. >> thanks chair tang. there were two other amendments and one is a technical amendment. take out the pdr1 replacement because it's already required so on page 6 on line six we delete pdr because that is a redundant line and second on page eight we're exempting projects that have been approved by the planning commission by june 14, 2016 which is the date we introduced this ordinance as long as the pending appeals are upheld. >> okay. thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i think you kind of spoke to the concerns you and i had conversations about i and think we heard in public comment last week. i want to make sure i understand
10:22 pm
this and the second amendment exempts projects approved by the planning commission as long as the pending appeals are upheld so does that satisfy we heard from a business that came in here and access and satisfy some of the concerns? >> i don't remember the project. i don't believe that's the access project but there's a project that received approval but may have pending appeals so we're stating that as long as the appeals are upheld their project is exempt from the ordinance we're proposing. >> okay. so then -- it sounds like what you're describing allows the bistro on bryant goes forward. >> as long as the pending appeals are upheld. >> right. i understand that. all right. >> i don't believe the access project has received approval from the planning commission. i believe they're earlier in the planning process.
10:23 pm
>> legislative aid april is nodding her head and i am curious what you're nodding your head to. >> they have not yet received approval. i believe the project is going before the commission in august. >> i thought it was this week on the 26th. >> okay. i heard it was august. >> august? okay. fair enough. okay. so definitely want to acknowledge the fact that the legislation came a long ways and thank you for ln listening to the feedback you heard from the committee. i want to recognize the folks like kate and some of the other community folks that were not part of the process but jumped up and worked with supervisor kim as well as other supervisors offices to really make this a reality. i want to talk about the replacement requirements for sally cpg requirements. my
10:24 pm
main concern it's not supported by any analysis so this is something that i raised last week supervisor kim, and it still remains unclear to me how the .4 number was arrived and largely my question doesn't seem to be supportive from any analysis and i am trying to get better clarity how we got to .4? >> so there was a general agreement that projects that have already initiated their ee should get some type of grand fathering but because there are several projects on the list in the pipeline there's a concern that if we did a complete exemption of all of the projects we would lose way too much pdr and there are concerns from the community members this is too big of a ask. in proposition c and possessed unanimously by the board and via to the voters we did limited grandfatherrings
10:25 pm
and projects in the pipeline do less than projects that didn't submit theirs yet but we asked for some and the 40% is the new goal of the large projects that we have been asking developers to do 40% affordable and middle income housing so we want to be consistent with that 40% number and 40% replacement requirement for larger projects in the pipeline because we felt those projects could sustain that type of replacement. we do however exempt projects that currently have less than 1500 square feet of pdr or arts or community use. this is a painful exemption. many steaks didn't want to a -- >> who the stakeholders? >> we are working with advocates that many of you have seen at public comment. >> -- [inaudible] >> in the mission as well so
10:26 pm
what we're suggesting here -- but what i have decided i do think it's reasonable to do a small site exemption as discussed at rules committee last week and so what i am proposing an exemption for projects of less than 15,000 square feet pdr and community and arts and consistent with the prop. >> you mentioned there is an agreement and i am curious who it's with? >> what do you mean an agreement. >> you said agreement and universally accepted and talked about stakeholders. >> which agreement? >> i don't know. it's your words and not mine. just a clarification. you said agreement between people. >> i'm sorry. if you are referring to the amendment i said said earlier and different folks we have been talking about with each amendment. >> so the amendment i am talking about would require
10:27 pm
replacement for sally c3g. >> the 40% replacement requirement -- >> yes, that's what i am talking about. >> so this is with stakeholders that approached from the south of market and in the mission. mission. so i don't know to list each individual name and not each with an organization. if it's just organization or i would list them and you know the organizations involved but we're working with a lot of individuals in the neighborhoods and many are artists and not part of necessarily an institution. >> i checked in with my artists and the bay view and feel the same pressure and there still seems a lot of misinformation out there. they consider themselves part of the stakeholders so i'm going to move on -- >> i wanted to respond and respect the work in the district and we know supervisor cohen you're doing a lot to preserve pdr in district 10 so i know at the rules committee last week
10:28 pm
we worked to exclude neighborhood said in your district because we know you're doing work in this arena. >> thank you. i appreciate that. good. grandfathering exceptions. so for the reasons we have all right stated here today and previous meetings i think it makes sense to provide flexibility for projects that have already filed for their planning documents. i think we're in document with that. the change is not insignificant and i want to acknowledge that and potentially significant cost implications for projects we should be applying to it prospectively. i department to talk about the affordable housing cu replacement requirement. i don't believe we should be putting profits or barriers for affordable housing and particularly in the mission and talking about 100% affordable housing. i just
10:29 pm
don't agree with that. by requiring affordable housing projects to replace the uses i think jeopardizing the much discussed and recognizable need for affordable housing units. supervisor tang i think talked a little bit about small project exemptions. i am in support of that and i am happy to see that. i think it makes sense to include the small project exemption and i know supervisor kim you considered that and made good on that. i wanted to recognize the leadership there. it's not just for projects in the pipeline but future projects we don't yet know about so we've already taken public comment madam chair. i don't know if this is the appropriate time for me to continue. i do have more remarks about just the overall process. these are all issues coming to us that we can solve
10:30 pm
legislatively through interim controls or an ordinance earlier in the agenda. we were talking about another item for a hearing and supervisor mar echoed this sentiment and incumbent upon legislators to go through the legislative processes. i have highlighted in the last few hearings we haven't been able -- that i have highlighted the importance of this. it took nearly a decade of community meetings in order to establish the eastern neighborhood and there is an established sits advisory committee that oversees the plan they think deserves some respect. i again want to echo my concerns in terms of the very little community process that went through with the measure. i think it's unacceptable but i want to recognize in the last week we've had a series of very thoughtful conversations. i wish we front loaded it opposed to back
10:31 pm
loading it. it was heard at the eastern neighborhood cac and in fact we received a letter from them asking us to take a step back and not move forward with this measure. in the last week have you met with any. cac members or authors of the letter supervisor kim or to your aids? >> i have not consulted with the author of the letter but consulted with some cac cac members, chris and fernando. >> awesome. okay. so they are a few people that sit on the larger body and don't necessarily speak for the entire body considering that the period wrote a letter requesting that we slow this down and handle it a little bit more friendlier way. they're interpreting this kind of hostile move, and while we took steps remove the areas in district ten which were
10:32 pm
impacted i don't think this negets the need for process. no conversation was had prior to this measure being introduced. i understand that there's a relationship between you and the supervisor for mission district and i think he's given you the authority to do a lot of the negotiation on his behalf but in the future i prefer to be just a simple check in about legislation that affects -- >> just to clarify supervisor david campos has been actively involved in the negotiations and his office so he didn't give us the power to make changes in it is neighborhood and his office has been engaged in office meeting. >> thank you for the clarification on his involvement in this discussion. that's good to know and will be noted: the regulations in the neighborhood are incredibly complicated and heard this reflected in public comment about artists want to be artists and create their art. they probably don't want to be
10:33 pm
part time planners or encumbered with the planning process and i think that's just the planning process is not something that should be changed this quickly without robust analysis and coordinated community involvement and communication, so my overall colleagues my concerns remain that this is a complicated planning issue better left to be dealt with legislation, not a ballot initiative. supervisor mar you mentioned this related to the last item. i thought that was better dealt with dealing with the last item legislatively in the same way i believe we should be doing with this item. supervisor kim i would like to continue to urge you to work together with myself particularly as we begin to deal with many of the legitimate
10:34 pm
issues. i would love to deal with them legislatively opposed to the ballot. i think that's it madam chair. >> thank you supervisor cohen. i too want to thank supervisor kim for adopting many amendments that we suggested at rules committee but it still doesn't take away from i think my main concern about doing this on the ballot. one thing i do want to clarify and sort out here is regarding 100% affordable housing so i know there was a proposal to exempt 100% affordable housing projects from the cu process but i'm very concerned about the pdr replacement requirement. also fully aware that we don't want to pit pdr institutional community arts activities with housing, so with that said i know that you have been in conversation with emily as well and i hope you're hope to entertaining a full exemption
10:35 pm
for 100% affordable projects just overall from both the cu requirement as well as the replacement requirement? >> so to be clear several different stakeholders we're working with felt very strongly even 100% affordable housing should fully replace pdr as we require market rate developers that we don't want to pit them against each other because we want both and with that being said i feel that very few 100% affordable housing developments are proposed on pdr sites and i am willing to support that today. >> i appreciate that. i know we have sophie here from [inaudible] and if you didn't do that and the impact of the projects in the pipeline now. >> thank you very much supervisor. sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing
10:36 pm
and through the chair to supervisor kim thank you for accepting that amendment. that's hugely beneficial for us. as previously drafted before amendments the proposed initiative could have impacts on projects such as the soon to come 1294 shot well site and added a cu. for that project we're watching the timeline very carefully because we think it's a good position if titled in time to get cap and trade funds next year and would love to see that's still viable -- >> [inaudible] site. >> excuse me? >> how many units are proposed for the site on shotwell? >> i don't have that information with me. i can get that information to you. sorry. there is a second site i have been concerned about and 490 south van ness and the city required and the current zoning
10:37 pm
is [inaudible] and pdr use on the site and if i am understanding it correctly without the amendments the initiative would have triggered a cu and the replacement requirement at rate of .75 square feet for use of pdr on the site and of course concerned about the -- this site is also by the way a great candidate for the 100% density bonus so i am concerned to see the addition of a cu on top of that process and the pdr replacement requirement could drive up costs but also cost us units on the ground floor. that said i also want to acknowledge and state that the majority of our ground floor uses in the existing and proposed projects already naturally provide uses that fit within the planning code's definition of institutional community use so those are
10:38 pm
child care centers, philanthropic administrative services, those types of things so we're always trying to incorporate appropriate uses that serve the community and residents in that way. in any case thank you very much for accepting the proposed amendments. we appreciate it. >> thank you for shedding light on some of the impacts this would have had otherwise and i feel that we build so few of these projects 100% city-wide it deserve that separate category in terms of an exemption so thank you supervisor kim. >> and if i could make one comment to ms. hayward we appreciate on the ground uses to consider if there are pdr uses previously on the site and take that into account with the project. >> absolutely thank you. >> just to continue i would say in terms of the grand fathering provision and the 40%
10:39 pm
replacement requirement unfortunately i will be consistent with the way i voted last time with rules committee and reject that portion of the grandfathering portion and as supervisor cohen stated we haven't seen the analysis of that and i looked for analysis as to what are the types of pdr arts community activities are at risk now with projects in the pipeline. i haven't seen that information yet and for example loss of pdr space at the armory is different than lost of use for an art studio; right? so wanting to see that type of analysis as to what kinds of spaces we're really talk in terms of the loss and today i am prepared to take the majority of the amendments that supervisor kim proposed . i think we have to go amendment by amendment as
10:40 pm
we have done and overall again just to really thank you for the amendments supervisor kim but i just reiterate what supervisor cohen stated earlier and i wish more folks in pdr world institutional community use or so forth have been brought into this conversation earlier, so with that said why don't we move ahead here. what i have first the amendment just in the finding section and correction of a typo to say in recent years this diversity has become thrented and not threatened and get a motion. >> so moved. >> do that without objection? okay. [gavel] next amendment and adding the word "mission" and although the pressures city-wide are felt south of market and mission.
10:41 pm
>> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. take that without objection. [gavel] the next amendment starts on page five starting line 22 to page 6 through line four. basically what this is doing is just lining up the cu requirement and the pdr institutional community and arts use replacement requirement so they all apply to the same areas specified in this ordinance or this ballot measure so if we can get a motion to accept that. >> moved. >> moved by supervisor cohen. seconded by supervisor mar. take without objection. [gavel] the next amendment on page 6 and starting on line six has to do with removal of pdr from the requirement about replacement one for one and this is just because it's a redundant requirement so if we request get a motion for that? >> so moved.
10:42 pm
>> thank you supervisor cohen. take without objection. page 6 -- this is a lot of page 6 and essentially the amendment for replacement on site versus in lieu fee that is dealt through future ordinance and after a nexus study stated by supervisor kim so that is something i would be okay with as well. thank you supervisor cohen and we will take without objection. [gavel] grandfathering provision. we will probably need a roll call vote on this but spanning the bottom of page 6 to page seven. i agree with grand fathering in projects submitted environmental evaluation applications to the planning department by june 14, 2016 so perhaps we could take that portion first. >> could you clarify that again? >> agreement on allowing projects to have submitted
10:43 pm
environmental evaluation applications by june 14, 2016 to be exempted from the requirements. >> so all projects or just the small site exemption? >> for me it was all projects based on my comments from last rules committee meeting. >> okay. while i would not support that i would ask the committee to consider just doing the small site exemption, the 15,000 square feet of pdr or community or arts activities or under 25 units but if the committee moves forward with the full grand fathering i will make a amendment at the bull board and require the larger projects at 40%. >> okay. >> we have various opportunities to do that so perhaps do a roll call on that because my preference is separate out the grandfathering provision and small sites from
10:44 pm
that provision. >> okay. >> to repeat and exemption for sites submitted application by the date stated is there a motion. >> i will make the motion. >> roll call. >> supervisor mar. >> no. >> supervisor cohen. >> yes. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> we have three -- two ayes and one no and supervisor mar in dissent. >> okay. that amendment passes. [gavel] i know it's not exactly -- let's see let's take the small site one later. i am wondering through the deputy city attorney to do the 40% one, that amendment separately or was the last action. >> i am the deputy city attorney. i believe because you're grandfathering all projects that submitted the ee application by that date you don't need to vote on the 40%
10:45 pm
requirement. >> okay great. thank you for the clarification. >> or the small site either. >> or the small site either. >> you exempted all. >> okay. >> deputy city attorney. the small site -- the way i understood it and residential projects 25 units or less or the 15,000 square feet or less. >> in my mind there is a grandfathering provision for environmental application provision by the date and secondly there san exemption that would not cover the exemptions inlet pipeline but smaller projects? no. that's the way i would like it to be but there could be objections to that. supervisor kim. >> there were objections to that and my compromise was to do it for the grandfathering but
10:46 pm
actually you know this was a major oversight in my office and not reaching out to sf made earlier and i want to acknowledge the criticism and include them earlier but it was important to them we don't exempt small sites. >> from the ones in the pipeline. >> the future. >> but the compromise i am offering here and proposing at the full board is grand fathering the small sites in the pipeline but not prospectively. that is not the intention of the measure as written. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you madam chair. is it possible that we can get clarification from sf made on this item since the executive director is here. >> sure, i would like to hear that as well. >> thank you. >> our position was not on the grandfathering. we at this point feel that there is a process in place called the planning commission and other
10:47 pm
community processes to opine on existing projects. we're more open to looking at small site exemption. there is an exemption already for 5,000 square feet of pdr which is pretty significant in the smaller scale neighborhoods of the mission so i think that would be accurate to say we're more on the fence as to whether there is a need to pump it up to 10,000 in the mission in particular so i think we can live with the legislation as written at the 5,000 limit for pdr but not in support of putting further limits on projects that already have submitted their ee so half true and half different. >> my apologies for misunderstanding the position on the pipeline but to clarify you would prefer to keep it 5,000 and not and not the larger amount.
10:48 pm
>> it's a compromise and we want flexibility and being a non-profit developer of an industrial space how expensive it is to build that space so the more you have limits for smaller projects the harder it is to get the cost next economics and rebuild housing at the same time and for us we're willing to look at the exemption but there were a lot of community members at this meeting and we're trying to fairly compromise with some of the other stakeholders in the room particularly from the mission and the arts community but again we're not in support of placing new restrictions on projects that already have submitted ees, some of which are weeks away from getting the planning commission hearing. we feel the right place to opine on those is the planning commission. >> thank you. >> does that help to clarify? >> thank you for the clarification. so i don't know if that changes supervisor
10:49 pm
cohen your perspective on the grandfathering provision. >> well, currently -- >> the amendment that has been put in by this committee which i don't support but i understand where it's coming from and full grandfathering of projects that submitted it. my proposal is that we grandfather in small projects, 15,000 or under or proposing under 25 units and all other projects do 40% replacement and not 100% and given that the committee moved forward with the grand fathering with the projects and ask the committee not to do the small site exemption but hoping with the amendments to allow for off site replacement and in lieu fee that we're able to address some of the in between projects to give them a little more flexibility if that makes sense. >> okay. that makes sense of
10:50 pm
to me. i would be okay with that so moving on to the next amendments then. page seven line nine i think that there was just a clarification that replacement requirements reduced by .25 and project by the city and sold or leased 50% below market space for commercial space and subject to a deed restriction. did we answer the question whether this is allowed, this amendment, this vision provision given rent control laws. >> there is a provision under rent control prohibition and have an agreement and all parties agreed to meeting of
10:51 pm
the minds and development agreement with the city of san francisco we can impose through the agreement commercial rent control. >> got it. thank you. that is something new i learned. okay. and to further explain this piece although it was discussed last week as well we wanted for developers who were willing to commit to inclusionary on site and not require them to build as much pdr and acknowledge they would take a hit for fair market rent and non-profits and manufacturing to rent the sites. okay. so on the amendment page seven this is adding the words subject to a deed restriction. if we can get a motion? >> [inaudible] >> moved by supervisor cohen and seconded by supervisor mar. take without objection. that is adopted. [gavel] . page eight and this is where we get into all of the
10:52 pm
exemptions and supervisor kim would like to exempt parcel zone p and no replacement requirement at any time. >> parcels marked p are public. >> okay. thank you. can we get a motion? >> so moved. >> take without objection. that amendment is adopted. [gavel] there was an exemption about -- okay. so don't need to do small sites anymore. on the additional smeet sheet of paper and delete the other uses so it would be like for like replacement and not interchangeable and if we can get a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> take without objection.
10:53 pm
that is deleted. let's see on 100% affordable housing i think my desire was to add just a full exemption for any cu or replacement requirement for any 100% affordable projects so if we can get a motion on accept that. >> so moved. >> okay. take without objection. that is adopted. [gavel] >> madam chair, i'm sorry i might have missed this. did we do the motion for projects approved by june 14, 2014 as long as upheld by later appeal on page eight. >> how is that -- >> 11 through 13. >> i guess my question is how is it different from the grandfathering provision that we adopted about june 14 and environmental evaluation. >> actually that's true. you're right. thank you. >> okay thank you. okay. so we dealt with the 100%. on page nine lines 1-2 the amendment is
10:54 pm
to allow the board of supervisors to enact an ordinance adopting in lieu fee and/or off site replacement option via i believe ordinance. is that correct? >> yes. >> via ordinance. okay. if we can take that amendment or motion by supervisor cohen. take without objection. [gavel] great. so i believe that those were all of the amendments unless i missed anything? no. >> no. >> okay. so again thank you supervisor kim for allowing that. i think one other outstanding issue was about the historic buildings so i don't know if you could speak to that and why there's a disagreement on that. >> at this time we were not able to get a good enough survey of all of the potential historic in landmark buildings that would be impacted by this exemption so we don't feel comfortable moving forward with that amendment. now we understand the overall -- the general rationale basis for
10:55 pm
that concern in protecting and improving historical buildings. there are additional costs to that but without a good survey and study of what the universe of the projects are we don't feel comfortable moving forward with that amendment today. >> is that something you are interested looking into if there is future analysis done? >> yes, we are open to look at that if there is further information. we just didn't have the time to gather that by today's rules committee meeting and i wanted to acknowledge i know we have been talking about when is the appropriate time to use the ballot versus passing legislation via the board, and i just want to say i completely agree that is an important discussion to have here at rules committee and the full board just as ordinances that were discussed previously to this item, the neighborhood foot
10:56 pm
patrol initiative and i think there are ones we can pass here instead of the ballot box and via this measure and just to explain why we wanted to move forward with the ballot we felt it would ensure a floor by which the city was submitted to protecting pdr into the future and that this use is important enough to the city and to our body that we're willing to proffer this and put it forward via the ballot. we want to be careful and implement the amendments thoughtfully discussed lasted weekend. we appreciate many suggestions made. we know not everything was clfsed at least in the amendments i submitted but we wanted to engage the community and members of the board on that conversation. i do support if there is an interim control measure moving forward. i know
10:57 pm
that supervisor cohen was interested in that. i did think there is no reason to wait until november and pass an interim control soon today, but this is a permanent measure and i think that was truly our intention and this would be a permanent ordinance, not just an interim control, but i do -- we will continue this conversation both inside our board processes and outside as we determine what the best vehicle for preserving and protecting the pdr uses are in the city but i do ask members of the board to really consider the universe, not just this measure but others as well and taken via ordinance. >> point taken supervisor kim, so at this point we have adopted again the majority of those amendments so we will need to continue this to another rules committee meeting which i believe is scheduled for monday so can we get a motion to continue to the
10:58 pm
monday special rules committee meeting. >> as a committee report. >> well, at this point -- monday meeting -- >> okay. >> i will make that motion. >> okay. >> so moved. >> take without objection. this item is continued. [gavel] thank you very much. and are there any other items before us today. >> there are no other items madam chair. >> thank you. this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]test.
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
11:01 pm
11:02 pm
11:03 pm
11:04 pm
11:05 pm
11:06 pm
11:07 pm
11:08 pm
11:09 pm
11:10 pm
11:11 pm
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
11:15 pm
11:16 pm
11:17 pm
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
11:21 pm
11:22 pm
11:23 pm
11:24 pm
11:25 pm
11:26 pm
11:27 pm
11:28 pm
11:29 pm
11:30 pm
11:31 pm
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
11:39 pm
11:40 pm
11:41 pm
11:42 pm
11:43 pm
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the san francisco full board of supervisors meeting tuesday, july 19, 2016, madam clerk call roll. >> thank you madam president supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim not present supervisor mar not present supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee madam president