Commissioner madame clerk item one. The clerk revising 42 definition of gross floor area and remove redoundancies. Commissioner we have Planning Department here to speak. Good afternoon, supervisors. The proposed ordinance would amend the planning coat to make amendments to the area. The department has not received any Public Comments and on september 7, 2017 the Planning Commission approved the ordinance. They could be packed as calculated in the planning code. The First Amendment would remove the distinction removing the accessory buildings from the definition of gross floor area. And accessory buildings in the calculation of gross floor area. Its problematic. The code does not define accessory buildings and parcels could be interpreted from being an accessory building and the definition are included in the definition of gross floor area. Therefore there is no distinctive dove mission for the purpose of calculating gross floor areas for structure. The Second Amendment would remove the car share parking retirement. Required car share parking say mandatory condition imposed by the city. Theyre mandate ford projects that meet certain conditions. Its a betterment to the public and Development Community to exclude it from the definition of gross floor area in all zoning districts. This concludes the presentation. Thank you. Commissioner colleagues any questions or comments . Supervisor peskin well open it up to Public Comment . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Can i have a motion. I would be happy to make it forward with a recommendation. Commissioner we can take that without objection. Mada madame clerk, item two. The clerk the planning code article 8 to clarify nighttime typographical clarifications. Commissioner thank you. Same thing. Planning Department Speak on item two. The proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to make clarifying amendments to article eight. The Planning Commission vote to approve the proposed ordinance. Due to multiple revisions text has been dropped and spelling errors and some are not reflected in subsequent legislation. Its intended to correct errors in the code. This concludes my presentation. Commissioner thank you very much. Any questions or comments . Public comments is now closed. Ill make a motion for positive recommendation. Commissioner seconded by supervisor peskin. Commissioner to make them happy. Madame clerk, item 3. The clerk prohibiting nonretail professional services and limit lot mergers and catering within the Mission Street nct and making appropriate findings. Commissioner thank you very much. Good afternoon, Planning Department staff. Just for background on the legislation, this is part of the many strategies identified in the Mission Action plan 2020 endorsed by the Planning Commission and transmit to the board last much. Up on the slide will be the goal of 2020 and the categories under which the strategies and plan fall from tenant protection to Economic Development to advance the target goal and objectives of the plan. Most of the strategies are already being implemented. This is the second youve seen this year and well have a bigger legislative package with alcohol and controls in the Mission Related to what is next on your agenda today. Ill pass it to my colleague and im available if you have questions of the broader map 2020 process. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im staff at planning. Just to give you a little bit of background about the specific amendments that were proposing today, they are aimed at they come out of the map 2020 claudia mentioned and aimed at curbing business to business uses on Mission Street. Theyre aimed at easing land use pressures on Retail Businesses on Mission Street. Expanding options for art activities and catering uses within the nct compatible with neighborhood uses. Protecting the Mission Street and continuing to provide space for project. So the specific amendments we are proposing include the removal of nonretail professional services as a permitted use known as administrative uses and catering on all floors, limiting lot mergers in the mission nct. On parcels fronting Mission Street to 100 linear feet and for projects with frontages with 50 and 100 feet it would require a special space less than 2,500 square feet. Theyd have to break up larger ground floor spaces to including one that is smaller. So just on the last issue of the lot merger issues, its probably the one amendment weve had the most back and forth upon we originally had a 150 foot limit. Folks of theed requested a 50foot limit and we wanted to limit lot mergers but not discourage project require a higher percentage of vmr. We looked at the soft sites adjacent to each other in parcels in the mission nct. We saw if we did a 100 foot limit and all the parcels were developed to full capacity wed get 105 units, 25 of which would be below market rate. You can get smaller projects below the 25unit threshold for a 25 inclusionary so you end up in fewer vmr units is how we came up with the 100 foot limit. That concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions about any of these amendments. Commissioner colleagues, any questions or comments . Well move on to Public Comment. I have a speaker card for item three, mark loper. If theres anybody else, feel free to come forward. Good afternoon, supervisors. Mark loper. Im testifying on behalf of a sponsor for Mission Street. Its a 75unit mixed income project. The project was first proposed in 2014. We filed formal entitlement applications in 2016. It was approved by the Planning Commission less than two months ago on november 30, 2017 that was nearly two years after entitlement application was filed. This project does involve a lot merger over the 100foot trigger talked about. While we believe state law protect the project from zoning change that are i am imposed we think a grandfathering clause would clarify the point and is common practice for legislation that affect Housing Projects like 2019 mission that are approved that havent started construction yet. For example, this bord include provisions in recent legislation related to affordable house. The Transportation DemandManagement Program in San Franciscos own density project just to name a few. Grandfathering in this narrow instance recognizes the Housing Project that complied when the project was proposed and should not be further delayed or be subjected to different requirements after receiving approving. We request adding language to the ordinance specifying the ordinance does not apply to those that submitted a complete application prior to the effecti effective date. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker, please. Cory smith on behalf of the San Francisco action coalition. Ive been following this for a little while. Regarding if its a 50 versus 100foot merger weve been work with people on this in terms of the ground floor. We want to make sure everything second floor and up isnt negatively impacted. We dont want to see anything inhibit our ability to put subsidized affordable units on t the market. There is restaurants or retail or whatever we wont have an opinion on that. And specifically relate to the comments of the previous speaker as well, this has been a longtime conversation in San Francisco about changing rules and moving the goal posts once everything is establish and we also ask projects already approved are not impacted by this simple, hopefully straightforward grandfathering. Thank you. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning. Commission Economic Development agency. I want to speak in support of this legislation and touch on a few of the important elements i think that are here and how theyll help with the stabilization of Mission Street under stress right now. I think limiting the lot mergers is important in terms of keeping things within a scope and scale that is community serving. Historically we see which project end up being community serving. The accompanying store fronts though the legislation not specific to them, plays into that. I think the addition of adding art and catering is important as it will provide significant new opportunities for our displaced art and cultural groups and new groups to grow and thrive. We have a growing system. Were having a all in all we have provisions for the street as well. Commissioner thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I am here to speak about the controls. Given there is a conversation now about whats happening with the permanent amendments i want to weigh in on those. First, supervisor ronen is supportive and sponsored the proposed amendments. The outreach and the discussion that have gone on in preparing these has been take joan taken in time and theres vetting of data and theres been a result in the proposed amendments. They were introduced at the full board in november. Frankly hearing about the concerns about the lot mergers today has been a surprise. I think any consideration of whether or not theres to be grandfathering shouldnt happen today. The supervisor will take it under advisement and well be able to look at what the potential effects are and if the supervisor wishes to submit an amendment im hoping shell be able to prior to the full board hearing. I think thats all i need to say. We noticed there are large lots on Mission Street and the fact that were trying to preserve smaller ones and ensure diversity of scale for the housing and retail use shes reason behind this. Thanks. Commissioner thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. Im with the latino culture district in support of the legislation. Were trying to make sure the smaller businesses in the mission are able to survive the gentrification in the neighborhood. Theres pressure on the Small Businesses with rent increases and investortype businesses coming in and restaurants coming in and we want to make sure the playing ground is equal. Its one of the few places that are left that cater to lowincome working class folks in the neighborhood. A lot of the restaurants that have moved in are expensive and not affordable for a lot of us. We also see the spaces below are being kept vacant for a long time. Developers arent able to rent them out. In particular the development on Mission Street, we wanted to work with the developer to get a neighborhood serving type business in the space but he refuse to deal with us and were looking for large developments coming in to have smaller spaces at the bottom to cater to the local neighborhood. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, San Francisco and everyone else watching. I support the Mission District and everything theyre saying. I wish you had someone other than a black man to come and support us. We dont have no businesses on fillmore. Or have you seen fillmore lately . And im not here to point the finger at no one, particular queen bee. I go to district 5 and i cant get action because hes playing both parts and i know yall dont want know say this but im not saying it for yall but for the African American lack negros however you want to say us. I hope you hear me, peskin, because you did a wonderful job for herman. You opened up the box and we cant stop. This is to the city and county because they say im not a media person. This say news bulletin being published so im part of the media. I dont want problems tomorrow when go to the chamber and im the only black person you stop. My name is ace, dammit in the city by the bay. Ive been trying to see our acting mayor. I went to her office, i cant get in there because they dont know what the hells going on. Im the acting supervisor of the district 5. My name is ace. Contact me. I know everything in the fillmore. When she was a little girl i was working in the fillmore. When she was born in the projects, i was working in the fillmore and im not saying this to get at you like this way but you need to see me. Ill be in your office in two minutes. My name is ace and im on the case. Thats a bulletin. I dont need a press pass tomorrow. You know who i am. Commissioner thank you, ace. Anybody else wish to comment on item number 3. Supervisor peskin. I dont know if this say question for staff or the city senior but i want to make sure the legislative digest the amendments i dont think is correct and explain what the legislation does. Instead of saying that it would restrict lot mergers by requires lots along Mission Streets to be at least 150 feet wide is to be no more than 100 feet wide, right . Deputy city attorney. Our office committed a corrected legislative digest to the court this morning. Its in the clerks file now and will be in the file going forward. Commissioner i wanted the chairman to know im reading all the fine print. Commissioner the chairman appreciates it. Supervisor tang. I have the same confusion this morning and i wanted to check in win supervisor ronens issue. Im hearing folks in Public Comment and im confused. Said she supports the amendment but you meant the legislation right. She is not proposing any amendment to this package at this time. The concern about the grandfathering provision has an effect on the specific proposed project underway has not been reviewed and vetted and nothing no decisions been made about any grandfathering provision. I dont know if theres been a reason given because i talk generically. Im curious if there was rationale. Has not come up to this point. Commissioner colleagues, seeing no other comments commissioner the only comment i would make is based on the Public Comment of the attorney representing the project at 2918 Mission Street. That attorney represented he believed they were grandfathered. If thats true i suggest theres an offline conversation. Its not scheduled as a Committee Report. You have until the 23 or 24 to have the conversation. I say we not take that amendment and have that conversation and as council said he believe its offered anyway. If thats true theres no reason to include it but why not have an offline conversation. Commissioner okay. Thank you. I think that would be great to have happen and understand whats going upon with that said, motion by a colleague. Id move it to the full board with recommendation. Commissioner motion by supervisor peskin. Supervisor tang. Madame clerk, item 4. The clerk in term zoning controls for cu authorization for commercial and storefront mergers by mission, cesar chaf he is and protrero. So this is a resolution for interim controls. There have existing interim controls in place passed by the Planning Commission. The series of controls meant while some are expiring after their limit of a twoyear term. There is one control, one interim control in place that is not yet reached its twoyear term and that is the requirement that spaces being converted to restaurant use would have to go through a condition use authorization process. Because theres time left on that interim control and because the need remains while the process of reviewing overall retail use and protections continues, we would like to the supervisors would lake to propose to continue would like to propose to continue the control and additional use requirement for storefront mergers to create a space over 2,000 square feet. These would provide protection for diversity we see disappearing on Mission Street and id be happy to answer more questions. Commissioner thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments . Well me of on to Public Comment . Anybody wishing to comment . Public comments now closed seeing none. Any followup . Commissioner we instituted controls and theyve been successful. Id be more than happy to send this as a Committee Report tomorrow with board of supervisor. Commissioner we have a second by supervisor tang we can take without objection. Adam clerk item 5. The clerk and the western shoreline area plan and wern shoreline area plan to restore the ocean beach shoreline and make appropriate findings. Thank you, adam clerk. We have our Planning Department. First, i would defer to supervisor tang but id be happy to cosponsor this legislation. Its in supervisor tangs direct. I would like to thank staff in particular work the Coastal Commission in such a fashion unlike many of the coastal plan amendments that get rejected. This one if we approve it i should not put words in my colleagues mouths but it should be approved at the february or march meeting. Thank you. Through the chair, i want to thank all the staff involved in this particular effort. I know it was a lot of Community Meetings and so forth. I will say that just to point out some of the obviouses we need the amendment to be able to include issues such as addressing coastal hazard and sea level rises. In terms of factually we know theres issues were contending with. We have not amended our plan since 1986. This is the first time were changing the policies and coastal hazards are the driver. Theyre erosion and climate level rise and those with problems well have more problems in the future. Erosion can happen. It le