Mode of like, i guess, a real stable place to progress my supervisor peskin i think we hear you. Right. It helped me to stop what i was doing to progress back no a regular living situation. Further myself there. I also performed well in track and instead of going cold turkey and easily being drawn back into the situation, it allowed me to ease the tension into a regular living situation. Thank you. Supervisor peskin thank you for your testimony. Seeing no other members of the public on item number 1, well close Public Comment. Supervisor haney and his staff have asked for an amendment that is in the long title on page 1 and the substance is subsection c on page 3. If theres no objection colleagues, i will move that and we will take that without objection. And i have been advised by the City Attorney that because ha amendment is deemed to be substantial in nature, this will require a oneweek continuance so without objection, we will continue the item as amended one week to our meeting of the 20th of theres no meeting on the 20th. On the 27th. We will continue this to the 27th of january. Well do that without objection. Madam clerk, could you please read the next item. Clerk item number 2 is the ordinance to establish the inner balboa street neighborhood commercial district. The outer balboa, bay view, the court land avenue ncd, geery, the san bruno, the coal valley, Lakeside Village, lower haite street and the ncd amending the zoning map to include the new neighborhood commercial districts and affirming appropriate findings. Supervisor peskin thank you. Before we hear from supervisor ronens stave, i want to thank supervisor ronen and her staff and the co sponsors supervisors fewer, wall son, haney, preston, yee and i would like to add myself says a cosponsor and supervisor safai would like to be added as a cosponsor. I really want to thank Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission for hearing this in record time. Obviously this is motivated in large part by the impending vote in march on the vacancy tax measure that applies to named n. C. D. S so this would be the largest if we pass it, increase in n. C. D. S for many decades. A few have been added one by one over the years but adding 12 in six different districts is a big deal. Ultimately, as reflected in the legislative digest, well give neighbors and neighborhoods and their supervisors the ability to fine tune those n. C. D. S as is the case with the other two dozen of them that are spread throughout the city and county of San Francisco and with that, the floor is yours. Thank you, so you much, chair peskin and members of the committee. Amy bynard here to speak on the legislation before you. I was going to say almost exactly what you just said. And in the interest you said is so well. Im not sure i should go through that once more. So, i would just like to reemphasize, i guess, is part of that that what this does is adds 12 new named n. C. D. S to the existing 30 named neighborhood commercial districts and neighborhood commercial transit districts in the city each of which are very distinctive and neighborhoods in different ways and that along with the ability then to move forward and find ways to support our neighborhood commercial districts through very specific controls, none of which are changing in this legislation, just to be very clear, it does not change any of the underlying controls. We know in findings ways to encourage Property Owners to keep the storefront occupied is essential and so we wanted to make sure that in having a measure on the ballot that would allow for the city to use a tax strategy, that we knew that residents would be assuming that other neighborhood commercial districts would be included and we wanted to make sure that we were meeting the voters expectations so should they pass this measure at ballot, that these will be included and i also want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, to City Attorney staff who really, really came forward quickly to make this happen and to planning staff including audry who is here today who really stepped up and then of course to the co sponsors. And then, there are some very minor technical non substantive amendments that we wanted to introduce today. Its to call out under the use that the dwelling unit mix will refer to planning code section 207. 7 and it corrects where residential districts is described as those that full word. It changes that to our district. Its global through out the entire piece of legislation that needs to be introduced and then were hoping to hear this at the full board tomorrow. So, yes, were a Committee Report. Supervisor peskin audry. I just wanted to recite some quick statistics. Three of these, the inner and outer balboa street n. C. D. S as well as the geery boulevard would be in the First District one and the first two of them in district 5 which would be the coal valley and lower haite street n. C. D. S and one of them in district 6, the lower polk street n. C. D. Which would be just south of the existing polk street neighborhood commercial district. Two of them in district 7. The Lakeside Village neighborhood commercial district and the inner ter aville. Three of them in district nine and mission burnal, san bruno avenue and court land avenue and one in district 10 00 which would be the bay view n. C. D. So i wanted to put that on the record and i know that supervisor safai is about to ask staff why these were not n. C. D. S, they were n. C. 1, n. C. S. , n. C. 2 but not n. C. D. S. The n. C. D. Undertaking was done in the mid 1980s and why those were not individually named districts is now getting on to 30yearold history. With that, ms. Maloney. Good afternoon. The Planning Commission heard this item last thursday, januaro approve it and i am available for questions. Thank you. Supervisor peskin seeing no questions. Are there members of the public who would like to testify on item number 2 . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. And supervisor safai. Can i i was just going to wait until after Public Comment. So, i mean, supervisor peskin said it but id like to hear it directly from you. What was the genesis of this . I understand that were attempting to do this through our vacancy tax but why were these areas not and how many are there currently in n. C. D. Named . How many current named n. C. D. S are there . Thats a great question. I dont have the number off hand. I can show you a map if you would like. Superivsor safai that would be great. So all the n. C. D. S in the legislation were determined by planning to be a neighborhood that have evolved in the last, as supervisor peskin said, 30 years to start to have their own identities that would require potentially them to have their own unique zoning, different than the rest of the city that is zoned that category so as you know, with something as zoned n. C. 3, for example, any time a zoning controlled changes for the nc3 table it changes all of the nc3 districts, which we have throughout the city. Certain neighborhoods thats no longer appropriate. They need to be more tailored to the specific neighborhood. Let me pull up that map for you. Superivsor safai some of this is good to be on the record. Its not a map of the full city. This is showing what we could, without it becoming too small, so the green districts that are circled in red are those that are proposed for rezoning. The green districts that are not circled are all of our other generalized n. C. S. To n. C. 3 and i apologize that district 1 and 3 are cut off. For the rest of the city any of the colors you see there are our current individual named n. C. Districts. Superivsor safai can you slide down. Ok, there you go. Is that purple one is one that orange one is one and then what this doesnt this isnt the whole city. This is not the whole city. I apologize. We dont have a map of all the n. C. S this is so show which were being added. This is as close as a map that i have off hand to show you where the other current individual names. I think the Geneva Mission is pretty clear. Yes, correct and there is one right right here and that is these three districts right here and the ones that are proposed seven excel see year and eight japan town and nine north beach and polk street and sacramento street, union street, pacific avenue, 14 24th street. 18 irving, 19 taravel, 20 nud 2h and then we have 21 soma, 23 ocean avenue, 24 glen park, 25 folsom street, 26davis, and 28 haze goff, 30, 24th vet, 21 upper market. There you go. Thank you. So seeing no other questions and no Public Comment, i will move to accept these technical changes and we can take that without objection and then accepted the item as a Committee Report as amended to be heard tomorrow at the full board of supervisors on its First Reading in time the north of market Affordable Housing deposited in the city wide Affordable Housing zone and affirming appropriate findings. Thank you. We have been hearing this since last summer. I understand that the Mayors Office of housing has asked us to continue this to a date certain of january 27th. Is there any Public Comment on this issue . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. If theres no object sex well l continue to january 27th. Could you please read item number 4. Clerk an ordinance amending the plumbing code to delete the lola mendment to the california plumbing code to the rules and regulations. In the section of Cross Connection controls and affirming appropriate findings. Supervisor peskin this has been kicking around since late 2018 as the puc and the department of Building Inspections have been learning how to communicate better so resolve this issue and on behalf of the puc we have mr. John scarpula. The floor is yours. Department of building inspection and dr. June wine tropp and my colleague ken pain from the sfpuc Water Quality division. Thank you for hearing this and for the patients as we all worked on this. Its about time. So, really quickly, before we get into legislation, what is a Cross Connection when Drinking Water wipes you conducted to water fixtures across correction is created. If its improperly connected, contamination can result in a back blow event. A back flow event is when contaminants reverse flow from the fixture or equipment, actually into the plumbing pipes. Back loads can jeopardize the water supply of a given property such as in the photo on top where you see a containment Swimming Pool going back into the water supply of a house but lead to larger issues where the Water Quality of a city can be put into jeopardy. This can happen a lot of times in large highrises with a lot of plumbing fixtures that are fed so a hospital example is one and you have water supply feeding to xray machines or bubblers or cooling towers and you reversal of the chemicals that are used in those systems that can get into the water supply and its a real concern. So that is why we have back flow preventers such as those on the screen. So im sure you all have seen these in front of buildings or actually in the building and these are all meant to protect the buildings water supply in the citys water supply. So, with this legislation aims to do specifically with the amendment that supervisor peskin referenced, is drawn to alignment the three different areas where Cross Connections regulations occur in San Francisco. They occur in the San Francisco plumbing code, San FranciscoHealth Code Article 12a, and in the spuc Water Service agreement that every water receiving property must sign with the puc. And so what you have was you had these three different codes and unfortunately there were differences in these codes. What would happen is a contractor would put in their black flow prevention unit, dbi would say this is great and theyre moving along on their project and puc and dph would say actually while it may be dbi codes it doesnt meet our codes. It cost the contractor time and money and theyre frustrated. So the purpose of these amendments are that when you look at the d. B. I. Plumbing code and you look at the health code and the puc code theyre all the same. It eliminates those issues. So specifically, the four amendments i will reference that again supervisor peskin passed out, first theres a paragraph recognizing that San Francisco is at a higher risk of Cross Connection failure due to our topography and large pressure differences causing back flow to occur when a pressure shifts, water can flow backwards because the pressure changes. So we have a highrisk of that in San Francisco. Second, all backflow or devices that are testable must have passed lab and field evaluation tests performed by a recognized testing organization. That is also both on page 2 both of these amendments im referring in terms of ordinance and on page three, there are two additional amendments. Carbonated beverage dispensers with up stream copper piping pose a risk Health Hazard from the reached copper in the event of a back pressure event. With the code and any poet able to close loop Industrial Water chillers, which again used chemicals and shall be protect bid a reduced pressure principle back throw assembly which is say higher level of protection and im here with all the folks i mentioned before who you much more technical so they want to dive into what these are for each of these specific im happy to have my colleagues get up. With that, were hoping that you will adopt the amendment and it sounds like there may be substantive but i hope that we move forward. Supervisor peskin thank you for edifying this committee and for finally working it out between the various departments. Are there any questions from Committee Members . I have a general question. How often do you might not be able to answer this, john, is someone here from d. B. I. . How often do people, these back flow tests, how often do they fail . Dr. Winethorp will come up and take that one. How often are the tests being performed . Good afternoon. Im dr. June winetropp im a manager from Environmental Health and the Health Department and i manage the Cross Connection program. So question, your first question how often are they tested . They are required to be tested once a year. The testable devices. Thats actually important part of what this amendment is about is that the previous devices that were allowed were for the carbonators were not testable and now were all agreed that its a good idea to have, when copper is present, for the theres a soda machine, then we need to have a device thats testable once a year. Supervisor peskin you say we all agree. What made you all agree on that . What brought that about . I mean, i know weve had carbonated systems and were mainly talking about restaurants in a lot of cases. So what made you all come to this conclusion . Well, first of all, the amazing collaboration between all the different parties that brought us together. The code, the plumbing code change in year 2000, before that, the reduced pressure principle device was required by the plumbing code and then in the year 2000, the plumbing code changed and San Francisco adopted wholesale as we do the puc and dph said we still want to keep the more conservative method of protecting and as time went by, the distance between the differences between the two codes kind of got lost and thats part of why we tried to say wait a second, now we need to all be on the same page. So the other things we all agreed to that im happy about is that we are going to approach the state Building Standards Commission and ask them to address this in their adoption of the california plumbing code so it wont be just us being different. Rather, that the whole state will be different. San francisco is the only one doing this . No, no. Not at all. I misspoke. There are a few other jurisdictions that require the reduced pressure principle testable device fo soda machine. Superivsor safai what are those . San mateo and l. A. I think. Superivsor safai let me ask this, is it normal for three separate agencies could be involved in back flow reprevention . I know we have our Water Department but its always perplexed me why d. P. H. Was involved and Water Testing oversight . I mean, i understand why p. U. C. Would be and i know i get calls from individuals account holders and they have to have their Sprinkler System and their house tested every year and its a source of frustration but im just curious why theres three different agencies involved in this. Its something that is a goal for me is to kind of figure out how we can make it more collaborative and clear to the responsible parties but it is the state code that any potential Cross Connection be protected by a testable device. The Health Department jurisdiction inside of the property so it kind of makes sense for us to be the one that is entering the property and saying we want you to protect yourselves or your apartment dwellers. We use it sort of by proxy to protect the whole water system and that is why the puc wants to be involved even if its just inside of the