Its currently amended by the planning domestic called the hub project to better reflect the needs of one of the most dense and transitrich areas in the city. The hub project provides us an opportunity to better ensure that the areas growth supports the citys goal for housing, transportation, the public realm and the arts. Recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a highrise in the district. And a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c. U. For their parking. It brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. As long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become. All of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. We know it and we see it. Yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isnt a significant impact. We all know that is flawed. So, we as legislators have found our own ways of making sure that were developing in a smarter, more sophisticated way. Were the most expensive city in the country and we must be more responsible about how we build. In the hub alone there are about six projects in the pipeline. Imagine if every single one of those asked for 136 spaces. Imagine what kind of impact that would have on traffic, which we all know in that particular corridor on market and van ness, it is constantly backed up. This iss a matter a major transitrich corridor t. Traffic is crazy as is and the van ness v. R. S. , all the delivery trucks and ubers and lyfts and you get a big mess when you put all those things together on a consistent basis. With planning amendments what planning plans to do, we cant afford to have new projects movinging forward in the interim with Parking Options that are counter to what is the ultimate goal of the hub and the market octavia plan. This legislation puts interim controls in place for the next 18 months until the hub project is complete. Specifically it removes the conditional use option for conditional parking for new developments within the hub area. Those already in the pipeline will be grandfathered in. But all new projects will have to work within these guidelines until the final hub area map is approved. This is straightforward, practical legislation that will help prevent new development from coming to the hub before we have a final plan, new parking prevent new parking that will come to the area before we have a final plan in place. I have some clarifying amendments that have been distributed. They further clarify that these interim controls are intended for new development and projects that have not received an approval of a Development Application prior to the Effective Date of this legislation. Happy to answer any questions and i would appreciate your support. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, supervisor breed. Supervisor peskin . So, we have gotten a bunch of emails with regard to the exception on page eight. And supervisor kim has asked that we consider a compromise amendment that, rather exemptioning Affordable Housing projects that instead and i just passed this out to you colleagues and i would support this amendment, that subsection b would read will provide onsite Affordable Housing after the citys inclusionary Affordable Housing program and add where 25 are affordable as are defined under planning code section 401. So it kind of really requires a very robust Affordable Housing project before one can receive the exemption. Ok. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Supervisor breed, any comments . I just have a question for supervisor peskin on the amendment. Do you know if any of the current developments in the hub are actually doing more than 25 Affordable Housing . I believe that there is only one project, which is the former cityowned 30 van ness property that is proposing on site Affordable Housing and i do believe that that one is, or is said to be 25 . And just for clarity, your amendment will still require that if they want additional parking, they still have to go through a process. And get a c. U. , specifically, for the additional parking. So i believe the answers to that, that is current law and that is not affected by the interim controls at all. So, the answer to your question is, yes, they would still need a conditional use. So, basically they would have what they have based on my legislation by right in terms of if their percentage is. 25, if their percentage is. 40 and so what im doing with my legislation is requiring that there be no c. U. S granted and you are adding an amendment to do an exception and that exception would definitely require a c. U. No. Well, the currently the way your legislation reads, which can i am a proud cosponsor of, is that these interim controls shall not apply to any development that, a, has received an approval of the Development Application prior to the Effective Date of this resolution or, b, will provide onsite Affordable Housing under the citys inclusionary housing program, period. So, this actually further defines that as at least 25 onsite tooerable. Thank you. And thank you to the chair, to my cosponsors on this legislation. To supervisor peskin and supervisor kim, with that, i turn it back over to the chair. Thank you. Id like to move president breeds amendments as well as supervisor kims amendment that we just discussed and once we take those amendments, would send the entire matter to the full board with recommendations. Ok. We have a motion, before we do anything, well take Public Comment. Let me first do that. Anybody wish to comment on item number two . Come on up. Well have two minutes. Each. Good afternoon, supervisors. The executive director of livable city. We just wanted to thank supervisor breed and her cosponsors, supervisor peskins and kim, for bringing this forward. You probably recall the t. D. M. Ordinance that you all approved a few month ago. And the findings for that showed that and the project provides the biggest single factor in how many automobile trips it generates. Now weve seen the rezoning with the market in octavia plan and spot rezoning of the hub. A huge amount of development coming in here. High density Automobile Development is untenable. But what weve also seen is a real abuse of this conditional use process. Conditional use requires findings of necessity and desirability and excess parking requires an additional six findings per section, 304 of the planning code. 303, sorry. These get abused all the time. So, basically the only criteria in the Planning Department has been using for excess parking is did the developer ask for it. Thats not protecting the public. That is generating a terrific amount of automobile traffic in the downtown, in our transit corridors and so on. So, we think that closing this loophole in the hub is important. It should be thats all you get. Right . Its either permitted or not permitted since the c. U. Was so badly abused and we think less is better for automobile parking in the hub. Not only do you generate a lot of automobile trips, but there is a lot of data showing that if you add parking to a unit, you increase the cost of that unit. What were allowing developers to do is to up scale project, right . They can pitch projects in these transitrich areas to a more affluent market and make them Luxury Products where they might be more affordable without parking. It is an affordability by design strategy to reduce parking. That was included in the home s. F. Ordinance. Thank you. Next eke spaoer, please. Good afternoon. My name is jeremy pollack here speaking as an individual. I would just associate myself with the comments of mr. Radulovic, largely. One thing that would be helpful is to get some input from planning and the universe of projects that were talking about to understand what the actual effect of this is. If i could have the overhead, sfgov tv. Through my research, ive take and look at what i could find and i found five projects that were in the pipeline, in the hub. Three of which were requesting the c. U. For additional parking and sfgov tv, if you could show the overhead, that would be great. And so, you know, looking at them, i see that 33 goff is one project on the city college parcel where their preliminary project assessment shows that theyre subject to an 18 b. M. R. Requirements. There we go. And so i think then were looking at, and seeking a c. U. For an additional 130 jeremy, can you push that down a little bit so we can see it . Yep. Oh. Wrong way. Not sure how well that is coming through. Right. So, basically were talking about there are three projects seeking conditional use for an additional 400 parking spaces. I think at least one of them, 30 otis is one thats not seeking the c. U. The p. P. A. Says its already subject to the additional 25 b. M. R. Requirement. I think, you know, onsite Affordable Housing is an excellent idea whenever feasible. But this idea of trading parking for Affordable Housing seems problematic. And lastly i would say the uncertainty that the c. U. Creates for developers on the public is really problematic. That is something weve heard over and over again in the housing debate. Madame clerk, because of the sfgov tv problems, can you extend his time by 30 seconds . Thank you. I would just say the uncertainty that the c. U. Process creates a lot of difficulty for developers and not knowing. Developers look at this and expect that theyll get that c. U. , the public that you hear from here looks at whats principally allowed and expects that projects will abide by the 4to1 raich yo. And creates this uncertainty that is going to lead to, you know, each of these projects being debated again at the planning commission, which doesnt seem very helpful to us. I would urge you to just eliminate the exemption for Affordable Housing and clear up this process for all of us and save us all a lot of time. Thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor breed. I really appreciate your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Supervisors andy thornly, speaking for myself. Thank you, president breed, for bringing this. Thank you, supervisor peskin and kim for cosponsoring. I wanted to voice my support for the interim controls. I do want to echo what tom and jeremy and others have said. I really do think it is important to not bring the loophole for onsite inclusionary forward. Onsite inclusionary, very important. I would not argue against that. More b. M. R. , absolutely. To the extend that the city has existing policy and is found a junction between b. M. R. And parking, it is that we with Incentivize Developers by allowing them to provide less parking. Last year we had a triumph at the board, unanimous approval of home s. F. And under that program, the local density bonus program, a developer is incentivized to add below market rate by getting some exceptions. And one of the key exceptions is that the developer can provide less parking as an incentive. Down to a quarter of the minutes my permitted parking and down to 0 parking at 100 affordable. To the extent that this city and board of supervisors have adopted a finding that associates below market rate with incentives for parking, its to provide less parking, not more parking. So, i urge you to support this interim control. But i urge you to drop the loophole for the onsite inclusionary. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im gail bau. Along with the apellant and the develop, we helped negotiate a settlement to get the ceqa appeal dropped. The conversation and the negotiations never included b. M. R. S on site. It was only about the interim controls on parking. We have four sites in hayes valley that will be zero parking and 100 affordable. I dont quite understand the relationship to attaching b. M. R. I see them as completely separate. Thank you to supervisor breed for bringing this forward. The interim controls are very important for all the reasons she mentioned both now and in the past. Thank you for cosponsoring this legislation. I do believe the amendment is relevant to the issue here, which is the cumulative effect of parking. But in terms of this ceqa appeal, there was no discussion about b. M. R. S on site as a connection to it a allowing a developer to have additional parking. Thank you. Thank you. Next eke spaoer. Good afternoon. My name is robin leavitt. For over 25 years, ive been livinging three blocks from the intersection of market and octavia. So im very concerned about additional parking in the area. As has been thoroughly discussed, parking brings congestion and delays muni service and has very negative health effects. Safety effects and so forth. So, im i applaud the effort to put in these interim controls on future developments in the hub area. However, as much as i support Affordable Housing and law, the effort to add Affordable Housing to these protons, to compromise the environment and allow parking in exchange of that and all the congestion it would brung, i cannot support the amendment to this legislation. And so i urge you to pass the interim controls without the proposed amendment. There are already incentives in place, sensitive bonuses, height, increases to incentivize Affordable Housing in this area. We dont need to add parking as an incorrective to build more Affordable Housing. We should find more ways, other ways to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. And if i if i may just to the last speaker who ive known for many years, i think the amendment actually addresses not all of the concern but the exemption is in the existing legislation. If we pass it asis, the exemption for Affordable Housing is in the existing legislation. The amendment that im offering on behalf of supervisor kim can, further narrows the applicability of that exception. And i appreciate that. But i would eliminate the exemption all together from the legislation. Ah. Ok. I would want to youve had your two minutes. You can send whatever. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. And chair. Karen babbit just speaking for myself today. I came here prepared to ask that you eliminate the exemption for the onsite Affordable Housing. Im intrigued by what was said today. However, in the time weve been talking, supervisor peskin proposed to do one plan and jeremy mentioned a second project. So, i would ask, this is my easy ask, we not send this to the full board today until we can look at how this proposed amendment today amendment actually applis to whats in the pipeline. Just because i dont feel confident asking or saying this is great or not great until we can see whats actually planned. Im going to repeat jeremys request. Can we hear from the Planning Department, some kind of report. As much as i love this spread sheet, it would be nice to have something official. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. And thank you, supervisor breed, for sponsoring this legislation. As we look at the possibly of as many as 9,000 units going into a few block area here, we dont want to create any incentives to increase parking over the allowed amount for each lot. I dont know why supervisor kim has proposed this amendment. I agree that when i read the legislation or the digest, i thought it exempted 100 affordable. So, im confused at this point. Ok. Thank you very much. Im jim with the neighborhood Valley Association and once again id like to thank supervisor breed, peskin and kim for this excellent effort to improve our city. If as all the speakers before have said, our concern is with any exemption. It only creates confusion and we believe it is a much stronger document without it as gail bau mentioned, this was never part of the initial negotiation with one oak. And furthermore if you read, as im sure you all have, the market octavia c. A. C. Document to you with more where as in two minute, they also detail why there should be no loopholes or provisions for having the c. U. During this 18month period for any of the nonapproved projects. We strongly recommend that we not move forward with the exemption in any shape or form. Souled you for any reason decide to do that, supervisors peskins comments are certainly very to the point of improving the originally submitted loophole. But i would even be much more strong in reiterating the necessariability or the necessity and desirability must be clearly demonstrated as an absolute provision of any c. U. That is the piece that we seem to always lose with planning and including that should you not decide to ban it out right and eliminate the exemption would be some protection. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comments now closed. I do understand, though, this amendment would be precedent. Well have to hear if there is anything else in the pipeline that would be affected negatively or otherwise on this. Perhaps we can get a Planning Department next week to come as we rehear this back in committee. Other than that, though, id be very supportive of it. Supervisor . I was actually just going to say that Legal Counsel has advised us that this will require a continuance and depending on what happens in the intervening week, we, i think, out of an abundance of caution trying to get this done, sooner wrather than later would schedule it as a Committee Report for the 12th if it is the committees will to ford it out subject to hearing mo from the public. I do want to say that as supervisors kim and i were working with president breed in and around the one oak matter, that i was able to do a little bit of shuttle diplomacy from between the apellant, mr. Henderson, and the project sponsor and president breed because its in her district, and i do want to say that mr. Henderson, i think, is supportive. I dont want to put words in his mouth and he has another week to we