You know the ordinance does allow the addition of dormers. The idea was these are existing nonconforming buildings they cannot be increased in terms of their Square Footage or footprint. Being able to add a pitched roof and then the Planning Commission wanted a sentence in there about calculation of height using section 2 six zero. I believe peskin, hopefully that is one you will keep in your amendment. The idea behind a pitched roof, if you have a very small living space you can do things that you can put up into that attic space. The hot water heater, those sorts of things. That would allow you to take more advantage of what is going to be in a lot of cases that will be limited Square Footage. Pitched roofs also last longer. Flat roofs tend to leak. A pitched roof will last longer and its a sounder construction. It was also with the idea of lets make the buildings that we are building in this city last longer and be a little bit more resilient over time. At this point im okay with it, it is the recipe for neighbor to neighbor controversy as they will read higher and there will be all sorts of downstream effects. With regard to the ceiling height in existing nonconforming structures, maybe this is a question for mr. Sanchez, but they may be increased interior floor to ceiling height of up to four feet. If you have mr. Sanchez in existing nonconforming structure lets say you have a sub basement that is three feet. Can you turn that into a habitable space at nine feet i would think so. To be honest we have not considered the sub basement question. We are looking at going vertically. We tend to find, as you mentioned more neighbor palms when the envelope is extended up. And this is going underground. I see it could go underground, but theres nothing in here that says that these are rooms down under. This could easily be i mean, couldnt this with this, i guess there is a provision that says you cannot raise the height . All right. With that, supervisor mandelman anything you would like to add . Supervisor safai . Just to clarify, on your Second Amendment. What i would probably do, that was my first reaction. We do not want to discourage someone from increasing ceiling height. If there were a disincentive, and i think the last qualifier in terms of no height to the building would be increased controls for what you are concerned about. I think you could leave the language and say habitable space and that would cover, because it still allows you to capture the promotion of adu if its there. At the same time, it does give some flexibility for somebody to use the entire envelope. I would be in favor of leaving that there. If the sponsor were okay without and you are okay with that. Ive been a broken record on this issue for a number of years, if not over a decade which is that im enthusiastic supporter of the adu program particularly if the adus are subject to rent control. While they might not be affordable today, they will be in the future. So, my thrusts here is, if they are an adu subject them to the rent stabilization ordinance. Maybe supervisor safais suggestion is a good one. It is habitable days. But if for an adu would be subject to the provisions of 207 c four. I can modify that accordingly. Habitable days or an percent to c4 him c6. Subject to the waiver provisions. Okay. Colleagues. All of these amendment if we take them he is looking answer over there, just want to give him an opportunity. On that you might qualify for your language is fine which says that you could increase the site for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit. You might also add to it say that story, or that height could be used to use the size or add to an existing dwelling unit. Would speak to the two purposes. If that dwelling unit were rent control. Space would be rent control. I think we just came up with language to do that which mr. Given her may have to share with other counsel on this. But habitable space, or. You are nodding your head in affirmative, count your . I am. Deputy City Attorney john ebner, in case you do not know me. It is habitable space, or an adu under 207c. That has a cost of hawkins agreement. It is attached to the adu, not to other habitable days. And then the number above ground building stories has not increased it applies whether it is a habitable case for an adu. Is that what you are after . Yes, sir. Colleagues, why dont we take supervisor mailmen and my amendment as modified by supervisor safai. As to my Second Amendment would you like to make any motion. I will make a motion to that effect and have some other clarifying questions. We have a motion pending. Your questions . We can go ahead and accept the amendment. Without objection we will accept the amendment. Just to the point about the open space area i think you clarified. By the way, very good job. I know this takes a lot of ended tedious when you get into the different asked x of open space, additional floors controlling for floors. Nothing tedious about it. The one thing i wanted to talk a little bit more about was the open space area i understand your goal was to increase the open space as a way to encourage the adu. Is that the argument here. Supervisor peskin put a modifier on that to say you can reduce it a little bit further if you agreed to do this adu under rent control. I just wanted to talk a little bit more about that. There is a lot of open space in here. Where are you looking . Im sorry, go back to your original. I think it is your first amendment, no, sorry, amendment number two, page 4, lines 25 printed changes the maximum required setbacks. Oh, that is the front of the building. Wait. The part that talks about the rear yard. Yeah. I mean, we are increasing the required rear yard setback for rm one from 25 up to 30 percent. The goal there is to align it with other residential districts were 30 percent is required. You know it also makes sense than on property where youre only getting one resident or perhaps 2 you would want more rear yard. It seems like a very modest antimonster home provision basically. Did you want to clarify anything on that supervisor transeven . If you reduce it further so, kind of a slightly different conversation. We are also encouraging the creation of cottages, second units through lots and corner lots. When youre doing that youre creating new rear yard between the two buildings. We are saying, gosh, you are adding density and we like that. Maybe we should recognize that there may need to be a little bit less rear yard there. Supervisor peskin is saying okay, sure, give me a rent control unit. I just wanted that clarified. We went through it quickly. I just think sometimes it is good to restate it for the purposes of the record so everyone is on the same page. I am in full support of that area i think that makes sense. If youre going to give the benefit then you want to receive a better Public Benefit in return. The amendments have been made and we will continue this item as amended to our meeting, one week from today on july 15, without objection. Madame clerk, i do not yet see supervisor brown. Sorry. Thats right, madame clerk we read item number two. [reading items] supervisor mandelman, the floor is yours area with apologies to my office for doing two of these. This one may be of narrower interest in that it only affects basically, are mostly affects district. District 8. I will tell you a little bit about this ordinance, and the amendments we are offering. The ordinance before the committee today will make restaurants, arts activities, a variety of Institutional Uses and general entertainment principally permitted on ground floors. For many of these uses, second floor and above in the upper market nct. It will make conforming changes to the nctthree Zoning District that run along market. It will add formula retail controls to Health Service uses in upper market and principally permit Liquor Stores that sell only wine and beer while setting the standard operating conditions around street loneliness for these stores. Budget and website of Analyst Report released earlier this year clearly showed what many neighborhood residents and Business Owners have known. Retail vacancies are problem in upper market. The report suggests that overly restrictive zoning is partly responsible for this growing problem. According to the report between 2015 and 2017 vacancies increased from 8512 point five percent. Most of which were found on market be between dolores and castro. Since the data was collected, the problem has was worsened significantly. The report suggests that among the reasons for upper market vacancies are the conditional use authorization requirements in effect there. And not in effect in other commercial corridors including nearby valencia street in hayes valley. In upper market it took an average of 332 days from submission of a complete application for an applicant to secure a conditional use authorization. When combined with other permitting requirements the entire process can take years. That means two years of more pay high rent on a storefront that has even open yet. In a neighborhood struggling with vacancies the city ought to be doing anything we can to attract essences and help them open as quickly as possible. That is what we are trying to achieve with this legislation. Our office worked with neighborhood stakeholders over many months, Eureka Valley association and Triangle Association to develop the zoning changes we are proposing today. The fact that these various groups do not agree on landuse issues. [inaudible] also the dire need for a sub actually easier path for businesses trying to opening one of our open markets. The first set of amendments removes the philanthropic Administrative Services used from the planning code. Our initial draft of the ordinance included this use as a principally permitted use. The philanthropic Administrative Services was a used type that had been created to deal with a specific site that made its way into other sections of the code. According to the Planning Department this is redundant and doesnt need its own designation. The removal of the definition in references to Philanthropic Services is shown on pages three, lines 32425, page 5, lines 1nine. Page 19 lines 1115. The next amendment found on page 5, lines 312 modifies our initially proposed sidewalk cleanliness for Liquor Stores. We are also proposing several changes to the nctthree zoning control table. First of these changes found on page 8 line 11, and page 9 lines 8nine designating arts activities in the nct3 activities. The second set of changes to the table found on page 9, lines 1 and six, seven. Permitting Liquor Stores celebrating wine and beer on ground floors. This amendment was a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Finally we have a set of proposed amendment to the upper market nct zoning table. Permits arts activities on third stories on above. That is the same change we are making to the nct three. The final amendment to the table found on page 11, subjects of Health Service use on the first story that is not a licensed community or free clinic to formula retail controls. Ive heard from multiple Neighborhood Groups that is an over proliferation of retail style health uses is in upper market with our currently proposed. These businesses have had a deadening effect on the corridor. Ensuring that operators interested in coming into upper market will have to engage with the community as part of a conditional use process area smaller Health Service operators or free clinics will not have to go through the process area there is a change shown in the documents i just handed out that i do not want to have moved today. It is found on page 4, lines 15 and 18, removing the upper market nct from section 145 point four of the planning code. For reasons im happy to explain to folks if they are curious. We would prefer not to do that. If you could accept my amendments without that one. Trent i am sorry, page 4 . Lines 15 and 18. Upon further consideration and discussion we dont actually like that one. And then actually one further change not reflected in what you have before you is at page 9, line 9. We would like to have the amendment say as defined in section 145 point four, not 145 point one. Im sorry, i am likely to have at least one more non substantive amendment next week to get its more than i would subject all of you to today. You are saying that the changes you are making today are substantial and will require one week continuance . Yes area some thank youse again. I want to thank tom for helping us think through some of the stuff, planning staff for their work on the ordinance. Any questions from Committee Members . If not, lets open this up to Public Comment. Are there any members of the public other than tom who should be working for the Planning Department. I am with livable city. I just wanted to thank supervisor mandelman for agreeing to carry this area and we discussed ounce ago this problem of vacant storefronts. Its a problem all over the city, its not just a problem of deregulation. At the same time we are seeing vacant storefronts we are also seeing skyrocketing rent. We think this problem is not a problem of there is too much retail. You also hear the same planning circles. We are all going to get stuff over the internet anyway, storefront. Not necessary. Storefront play a vital role in neighborhoods read if you want to see what high density storefront looks like, walk from this building down to market street. You will see all of those New Buildings do not bother to put storefronts and on the ground floor. It does not feel like an urban center. Its really dead at night. Storefronts are incredible additions. A very important part of him or her life and walkable communities. On the one hand to things like there should be penalties for keeping storefront vacant for a long time. The other thing is opening up the storefronts to Community Serving businesses and services that would like to be in them. In france dropped by half you would see a proliferation of fabulous businesses here in san francisco. Theres no shortage of desire to put in storefront businesses or services whether those are art spaces, or whatever. We want to salute supervisor mandelman. Tom you have gone to every Neighborhood Group and talked through the nuances of zoning and come up with a beautifully crafted piece of legislation that fit the upper market. Bravo, and we urge all of you to support this legislation. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Diego sanchez with the Planning Department. On may nine, the Planning Commission did this ordinance, they were in general alignment with this ordinance. They moved to approve modification. They suggested 10 modifications. For Liquor Stores, the summary would be to provide planning staff with quantitative and standards for the liquor store review. I think that is what is being amended. Thank you. The upper market street, maintain or increase the produce ability of arts and health uses, that seems to be included for the nct three it would be to increase the Liquor Stores only selling beer and wine. That seems to be happening. For both of those Zoning Districts, the summary would be to consider arts activities and Liquor Stores as active uses, and then citywide would be to eliminate the Philanthropic Services use type for the planning code as well as to include Health Services in the planning code that are subject to controls. I think those are also being included. This concludes the presentation. Im here for questions. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here on item number 2. Seeing none yet it will close Public Comment and if there are no objection i would ask one of my colleagues to make the amendment that are before us that supervisor madeleine has requested minus the deletion of the applicability provision in section 1 four five point four on page 4 on lines 15 and 18 as described by supervisor found them in as well as changing the aforementioned on page 9. May i make a motion to approve the amendments as proposed . Okay, motion made to that effect by supervisor safai. We will take those without objection and continue this item one week as amended into the meeting of july 15. Madam clerk, next item please. Congratulations supervisor mandelman forgetting two items amended and continued. Thank you. [reading items] i think we are going to be joined by supervisor brown on this matter that we have heard before, and here she comes. So, with that, perhaps i will turn it over to mr. Van hout. Before i do that, let me reiterate what we discussed at the last hearing on this item which is, and i wanted to thank and acknowledge supervisor brown at her office for the amendments that we talked about. At a high level to say that various aspects of this legislation, our local in nature and specific to the district and other portion particularly the portions having to do with the quartermile buffer around all of the restricted use subdistricts. They are citywide in nature. What i was hoping that we could ultimately do today is to determine which supervisors and which districts would like to have the quartermile buffer around a number of restricted uses as well as which supervisors and districts would like to limit the bona fide eating place language that is set forth on page 8. Hopefully we can come up with those today and get this out of committee. With that, before i turn it over to mr. Van hout i will turn it over to supervisor brown. Thank you. I want to go over this again for