And if there are any other speakers, please lineup on your right. Hi. Im one of the few salons in the nation that offers true p. P. D. Free colors for people with color issues. I have an auto immune disorder which makes it hard to work a regular 8 00 to 5 00 for somebody else. So my disorder makes it hard to work for anybody else. Ive worked for other salon spaces, and they are double, if not triple what i pay now because of gentrification. If i close my business, i would no longer have a way to support myself as a disabled person, so this legislation not only affects my business, but it also affects my health and my state of well buildibeing, an of my colleagues are also in the same boat. I ask the council to please consider voting in favor of this legislation. Ten years is great, but if you can see to grandmother us in indefinitely, that would be helpful for many of us. And on that note, i dont see why many of us have to cover the cost of the amnesty, and i ask you to pass the cost on to the landlord not the tenants because we were never made aware of this. Chair peskin thank you. And seeing no other Public Comment, i will close Public Comment and turn it over to supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen our first choice when drafting this legislation was to gather everyone who is currently at the space in in perpetuity, but that when anyone decided to leave because they want today go out of business they wanted to go out of business or they wanted to grow their company, that once they left from that point forward, the space could only be used for p. D. R. , what its proper zoned for. The City Attorney and the Planning Department says that was not possible. It wasnt legal and it didnt fit with the way we enforce our zoning laws, and so we had to put a time limit on this nonconforming use which is not preferable because i do believe that there is a great need for p. D. R. Space. In fact, ive spoken to dozens and dozens of artists where the active space rents are too high for them, and thats why theyre not there. Thats why theyre not in that building sharing that space with you. Its not because they dont want to be with you, its because they cant afford that. Because there are a lot of personal services in the building, the landlord has gotten away with charging even the rents that youre paying. So it is these are connected issues, and we are taking away something for this p. D. R. Artists space by grandfathering you all in. But i believe this is the right thing to do because we cant lose 100 to 200 businesses in one fell swoop that depend on this space. We have to act as a city to mitigate that below. But we didnt have a perfect fix for this, and what i tried to do was a very careful balancing act between protecting the businesses as much as i could in these spaces without changing the zoning because i continue to believe that the p. D. R. Zoning is the right zoning for the spot and is highly needed in the need. The issue about the mandatory discretionary review, i wanted to clarify that if all the businesses came together and filed the mandatory discretionary review together, you can do that and split the 3,000 cost, making it much smaller for anyone. And again, thats just for those using this space as office space, not the personal use, etc. So thats one thing to know. And then, the last thing i will say is that we did put a clause in this legislation requiring the landlord to give notice in writing to any new tenant about what uses are allowed at this space so that any tenant are put on notice if theres an improper use. I am concerned that it would appear, at least from the testimony that i heard today, that the landlord is continuing to rent in active space, spaces that are not active p. D. R. So i think the City Attorney was just distracted, jon givner, if youre available, today, we heard in testimony that the landlord continues to be renting active space sites or units to nonp. D. R. Businesses, and im just wondering if you can explain, to the extent that you can, what the City Attorneys office is doing to hold this landlord responsible. He did have to get a notice of special restriction when he got the permission to build this site, and its very concerning to me that the bad acts continue. So if you could weighin on that. Mr. Givner deputy City Attorney jon givner. Im not sure i can give you much information on todays meeting, but i will definitely take back that information to the attorneys in my office who are working on this matter and i can report back to your office, if not publicly, at todays Committee Meeting. Supervisor ronen okay. That would be great. And just to be clear, mr. Givner is our attorney at the board of supervisors but didnt work on this piece of legislation. That attorney that did work on this piece of lemgislation, we made it Crystal Clear that we wanted the landlord to be held responsible for this crisis. So with that, im happy to take any of my colleagues questions. Chair peskin supervisor safai . Supervisor safai thank you, supervisor ronen for responding on such an important issue. This happens all the time in the city. It happens very often where landlords are not necessarily familiar with the zoning and the zoning requirements, and thats when were called in to help solve the situation. Its happened over and over again in my district on the commercial corridors, no less, where people rent to or theyre just interested in getting the space rented and collecting rent and not necessarily thinking about the rules in the city, or maybe in the past, they havent always been followed. But the zoning changes, rules changes, and we have different objectives that were trying to accomplish. I, too, believe that p. D. R. Space is extremely important, particularly when its been zoned in a very carefully thought out manner. The sad thing is it looks like an entire building was rented out aggressively and continues to be aggressively rented out despite the zoning changes with the intent to protect that particular use. Ive also gotten a lot of calls from people reaching out. Many actually own their businesses and live in that location. One of the questions that came out, and i would direfrom the business is many of these businesses are going to have to pay fees for these Small Businesses, so id like some clarification that, and id like to under what thats about. Hi. Domenica donovan with the office of Small Business. My colleague from the Planning Department might be better able to answer this question, but when personal services, health services, those who dont have to go through the mandatory discretionary review, theyll have to pay for a change of use fees like any other change of use within the city. Do i have that correct, audrey . Chair peskin i want to say miss butkus, but miss merlone. Chair peskin im going to get that. One more meeting, ill be good. So addressing the fees, its no difference than any business that wants to establish itself in the first place, and theyre establishing their use in the first place. So the fees where the Planning Department is concerned, we is always somebody can come in, whether theyre trying to be an active business ten years ago, come in originally, or come in today. Supervisor safai youre saying two different things. Youre saying one is an establishing fee, and one is a change of use fee. So are you saying that some of these businesses that went through an establishing use are going to have to go through a change of use fee . I believe with the exception of three businesses, no establishing fee has been established for this business in the first place. I apologize for using those interchangeably. Supervisor safai i understand the planning terminology. I think its important for the Business Owners and the public to understand that youre not requiring them to do something now that theyve been caught up in this bureaucratic this is something that is required but would never happened, is that correct . Thats the point. The reason the fee is not one set fee is in several of these site visits with department of building inspection, weve noticed that some units have been altered without building permits, so thats why some tenants may find their permit fees higher than others. But again, this is all standard permit fees. We are not charging anything additional. These would have been applicable from the time they came in originally to establish their permit. Supervisor safai i would and this is, again, to the sponsor to the district. It feels a little bit like some of this stuff is being done after the fact would never have been noticed or caught had they not been caught chair peskin i know theres a question, and i know that supervisor haneys name is on the roster. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the chief legislator of this ordinance, supervisor ronen. Im a little taken aback by the commenters who want to change the zoning. This, i think, as i said, is a sticky wicket. Let me underscore some of the things that have been said on this panel. This landlord knew what precisely misrepresentations he was making to each and every tenant. The notice of special restrictions that he took title too was abundantly clear. So you got bamboozeled by this guy, and you can get all sorts of permits from the city. Thats absolutely true. I wish we could solve it, but youve got a Health Permit if youve got a certain kind of business, but that doesnt get referred to planning to see if youve got a permit thats the right type of use. But this is the behavior of an unscrupulous landlord who bam boozeled tenants into units that he could not use. People in the late 90s and early 2000s fought tooth and nail to keep p. D. R. I am going to vote for supervisor ronens legislation, but dont get over your skis. This is a very rare thing, and i have not looked over any of your leases, but this is landlord is a very smart man. I think that theres language in your leases that says you cant do what youre doing. Supervisor safai mr. Chair, i agree with everything you said, and this is no way an intent to impugn any of our city agencies. Its meant to further the conversation about, you know, you have these very Small Business, theyre in a space, theyve been misled purposely misled in many cases. I guess is there a remedy that we can approach that would ask the landlord to be a part of paying some of the fees or the change of use fees, and i think that would be a little bit more fair. Theres often times a negotiation on the types of leases, and i wonder if in this case we asked the landlord who very obviously misled these tenants to take place in these leases which are obviously going to expire. Supervisor ronen that we make sure were outreaching and help organizing the groups to apply together. What i was going to say in response to you, supervisor safai, is i think we ask our Small Businesses in San Francisco in general to pay too many fees. So what i would say is that we look at a bigger piece of legislation to reduce these fees in general. But this here is unprecedented. I cant tell you what a big deal it is, especially in the Mission District at this time to override p. D. R. Zoning. Ive never done it before, i cant imagine doing it since. I cannot emphasize enough that the reason that this building isnt filled with activists from the mission screaming from the other side that we shouldnt do this is because of the understanding of the value that you bring to the community, the fact that so many Mission Residents use your services. The amount of love that you all as small Business Owners and practitioners have garnered in the mission is why im politically able to get this Amnesty Program passed, but i cannot tell you how extraordinary of an act this is. A decade ago, we never would have been able to pass this, as supervisor peskin was saying, when there was a word over words in the mission. I think a war over words in the mission. I am very much committed and would love to partner with all of you to lower fees for Small Businesses in the city because theyre outrageous and too much. Chair peskin before i call on supervisor haney, i do want to say at the last board of supervisors not related to this instance at all, i actually called for a study on every single fee as it relates to Small Business so that this committee can get them in the right downward direction. Supervisor haney or supervisor safai. Supervisor safai i just wanted to finish that. I just wanted to say thank you to for that. I think, again, this is a wonderful step in the right direction. Want to appreciate supervisor ronens hard work sand avoidin a major disagreement where there would be a fight over the same space. Chair peskin supervisor haney . Supervisor haney i do want to associate myself with the comments about the behavior of the landlord in this situation and what were able to do legally. I just want to commend supervisor ronen in this situation. I think it requires a targeted response, and whatever we can do, by continuing to support these Small Businesses as we continue to move through this process, we should continue to do. So thank you, supervisor ronen and all the parties, and i think there will be an immediate solution to the issue to allow you to stay. Chair peskin supervisor ronen, i think you and your staff found the sweet spot. If there is no objection, we will take your amendments and send the item as a Committee Report to the board of supervisors for tomorrows meeting without objection. [gavel]. Chair peskin madam clerk, lets see if we can take items four and five together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. Chair peskin supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, chair peskin. Items four and five are two routine acceptances in the Ongoing Development in mission bay. The developer has completed improvements to the water pump station and park improvements including sidewalk widening. This will allow the city to formally accept these developments. I do have amendments for number four and five. For five, we are deleting reference to a letter from the p. U. C. That was not part of the packet. This is a nonsubstantive amendment and copies are being based out. On number five, there is a responsibility on park p2 parking lot. This is a nonsubstantive amendment, and you have copies of those. I believe a representative from public works and from ocii is here to answer any questions. Chair peskin mr. Nicholas huff, the floor is yours on general public works. So the first is part of the infrastructure plan for the Mission Bay South area. As you can see, its infrastructure pumps. The improvements were constructed in accordance with the storm pump stations number five plans and in consultation with the general manager of p. U. C. Indicating that the project is completed and ready for its intended use. I have additional photos of where the project is located. Its actually hidden. Its and chase center is in the background for reference. So its back there. The pump station is located under the concrete paving in the park. The pump station is in an easement in these buildings behind this tree. The city is operating the stormwater pump station under a temporary license from focil until it is accepted by the board. The department of city plans has determined that the construction and the acceptance of the improvements is consistent with the citys general plan, the eight prior policies of planning code section 101. 1 and that this does not trigger any further ceqa environmental review. The office of Community Investment and infrastructure determined that the project is consistent with the project documents. We request that the Land Use Committee approve and request acceptance by the board of supervisors. Chair peskin thank you, mr. Huff. Is there any Public Comment on items four or five . Dont all run up here at once. Okay. Public comment is closed, [gavel]. Chair peskin and supervisor haney has moved the amendments to both items, and we will take that without objection, and we will send both report amendments as Committee Reports to board of supervisors full board. [gavel]. Chair peskin madam clerk, will you please the next item. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. Chair peskin mr. Wong, are you here on behalf of e. C. N. Or is somebody here from mohcd . All right. I dont actually even need a presentation on these items. They they are part of ongoing work that we are doing relative to the hope sf project at potrero in phase two. They are known to this panel. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on items seven or eight . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed, and deputy City Attorney givner, you are not aware of any minor amendments that are requested on those items. So seeing clerk mr. Chair, in the resolution, we just need to specify the committee as a whole date. Chair peskin and that date would be clerk september 9, 2018. Chair peskin so in that instrument, we will add said date, and we will take that amendment without objection, and we will send items seven and eight in the due course of bid to the full board without objection. Madam clerk, can you please read item ten out of order. [agenda item read]. Chair peskin thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, over time, the abandonment period at section 178 of the planning code and north beach neighborhood commercial district has notoriously been 18 months and three years. It hassi toggled back and fort over the vacancies over the years. I propose that we return it back to its current 1 wi8 mont and i appreciate president norman yee waiving some of the ordinances so. Is there any Public Comment on item number ten . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And colleagues, if there is no comment or objection, we will send this to the full board as a Committee Report