Use of respective of space under the California Environmental quality act and an election on november 8, 2016. Thank you. I think i see april from supervisor kims offi office. Good afternoon supervisor tang and supervisor cowen april from supervisor kims office this measure is the conditional use and replacement requirement for pdr, arts and institutional Institutional Community use thank you to be here at the rules committee we were asked to consider two items ill present and it was in response to request from many projects in the current planning pipeline and also to that think Small Projects and exempting Small Projects so we have some amendments to that effect as well as some clean up amendments or not clean up amendments but 09 amendments i think were important to some of the stakeholders in reviewing the legislation again and i wanted to just go through those line by line last year lets see here the first one being that on im sorry one of the amendments that we have proposed to have interchallenge ability of the respective continue pdr and Institutional Community and art use but after speaking with stakeholders i think there was a desire to insure the replacement space would be replacement for the loss of the prior use that was pdr for pdr Institutional Community use for Institutional Community use activities. The other amendment actually on page 5 he let me start from the top im sorry starting from page 5 the following controls shall apply in the eastern neighborhoods plan michigan, eastern soma and western selma and as suggested by the City Attorney if adopted accident central soma that was the intent i think that is important to say if adopted central soma as well as there was a clarification or provision to insure that the most prior nontemporary use in the space would be required to replace pdr and Institutional Community use there was a concern that there was temporary uses in a space that was would be considered a new use after speaking with the City Attorneys office it is okay to clarify that the prior use was if a prior use of pdr Institutional Community or arts activity use that was a nontemporary use the concern of temporary activists for a pop up bagel store or Something Like that that was of concern to the community members. United states pop ups would not be required to be respected. Exactly. Lets see so the issue that i was bringing up is listed on my page 7 line one replacement space maybe space for pdr and Institutional Community or arts activity use that would be redacted the replacement would be one for one the loss of prior use the ass as far as the grairlth what we came up with with the grandfathering well move to grandfather projects of the environmental application of june 14th but there is about 10 to 20 list in the pipeline theyre contemplating a pdr replacement in theyre concentrated site but it was important to capture some pdr replacement even in the pipeline replacement the replacement is 40 percent for projects in the pipeline but had not received theyre planning approval by june 14, 2016, so youll be capturing some replacement and lets see here there was a specific case that was raised about a project that had received Affordable Housing credits with the affordable units on south bay marina and want to exempt that particular project. So i think. Im sorry explain why we want to exempt that project. There was a case of investor that provided a commitment to insure there was the 200 i believe thirty unit anothers south bay marina an expiring new Development Use they cameefore the board and they basically provided that benefit to these south bay marina apartments with the expectation that thatll theyre concentrated future Affordable Housing credit for a future site would be credited towards saving those two hundred. I remember this now sorry. And i believe those captured the majority of the amendments oh, we did consider an amend to the smaller site but after speaking with the stakeholders they were more concerned about not necessarily the future small sites more about a particular project that was and the impact the grandfathering date so while we considered an exemption for smaller promotions i think that moving forward as long as the roles are clear moving forward the smaller project exemption was not as much as a concern. Okay. Any other amendments or are these the only ones. Ill wait to speak until youre done with the amendments. I think those are most of amendments. So what i have here is interchange ability it will was for the replacements of that use or the same use a clarification that the prior eye if it was temporary for example, that it wouldnt need to be subject to the new requirement grandfathering there is a clause about environmental applications being accepted prior to june 14, 2016, but there will be a 40 percent requirement for pdr space for those projects in the pipeline if they didnt get the approval by june 14th and specifically the south bay project and a small beach exemption not at all; is that correct. And looking at the legislation i think for what we start to go into the replacement requirements so call the roll. The legislation in the areas of july 1st, 2015, the replacement space shall include one square feet of institutional use activities well delete m because of showcase square and castro street and that was the request also from supervisor cohens office. In the areas of july 1st, 2016, are devoted umu and u m u 0 the respect shall be 7. 5 pdrs were till redacting m u g and r for the. 7 requirement that is office and retail and dropping down and adding a section to have the replacement at the want 5 Research Want 75. Okay. Can you repeat one more time the areas youve removed from the requirement. In areas that are removed are m u g and m u r. Okay. If deputy City Attorney mirena burns. If i can clarify one of the amendments that was discussed regarding the temporary uses i believe the intent not if there is a temporary use not to replace that but rather than lets say a site with pdr use it is vacate for a year and a temporary imply pop up the idea then the next permit uses proposed will still have to replace the pdr use if it intends to demolish the building so the temporary use in between wouldnt wipe the slate clean that is the intent as i understand it. Thank you for your clarification. Okay all right. Supervisor cowen thank you very much good afternoon, everyone so last time we heard in committee you heard from me i had several concerns i want to thank the folks for speaking take into consideration i want to talk about the amendments proposed sforp the removal of the m category im in support of as i said, i didnt see a reason m would be included and now weve scaled back the scope of the measure any reference in zoning a requirement so thank you for that and changing dates from july 1st to july 14th im supportive of that as well i think that makes sense to have one be consistent date not that really the changes in this area or properties at that measure impacts so the change is acceptable to me now as a relates to the m u r and others districts a president 5 square feet replacement obligation instead of a one to i support and the change it acceptable we have this lower obligations overall and the removal of the option for the pdrs or constitution of Community Use to insure it didnt compete if pdr have removed you must replace that with pdr and vice versa i support that the change make sense what we have said is that we dont want to fit one of these desiring uses over another and this change will help to make sure that the pdr space is not taken over by Institutional Uses and also vice versa the grandfathering provision i think that is better but i dont think that it goes far enough i think that the grandfathering provision from the final planning approval to the environmental obligation is a step in the right direction and however i do have concerns about the president 4 replacement arrangement weve got projects in the pipeline nearing the Planning Commission approval or weve received theyre concentrated approvals im saucer aware of the feasible this is a question i can pose to you have you guys talked about the obligation with any of the folks. I forwarded to them but none has addressed the feasibility of the. 40 option. How did you arrive. As a policy we are isnt it true those new replacement requirements and trying to insure balance moderating moving forward with the different terse based on the only. 75 and. 5 the idea that while there is currently a pipeline of projects that we didnt want to exempt too far too many of them without requiring a replacement with the discount of. 20 in the project sponsor is committed to pdr thats one of the concerns for the stakeholders and you know the potential replacement requirement would be. 2 so that would be. 4 must. 25. So do you think this makes sense for all of the projects impacted. I know there was projects that have already envisioned a replacement of pdr i think it would take to looking at each project individually to understand you know what potential impact there say, i think because Central Waterfront and potrero are not included there is probably a list i think about 8 there are other projects that are in the central soma plan the conversation with the central soma will be ongoing so i would like to take a closer look at the pipeline to get kind of the finegrain and find all the different projects. Again on appeal you guys think twice about bringing up this to the ballot and really handle this to be able to reach out to all the parties involved particularly those the parties are impacted you know colleagues a week passed between our last hearing and the proposal and i highly doubt that was provided enough time for the Planning Department or the project sponsor to begin to redesign to determine if they meet the requirement and in pcos on this requirement at this point is it so arey im supportive of the change to the provision to apply to the environmental application dates but i dont think weve done our Due Diligence to decide that. 4 is the right requirement thats part of my overall frustration with this measure youve heard me articulate that last week, i feel if so not adequate time for people to review it there is little or no conversation of those that are impacted by it i know this is not the way to make the planning policies inside of San Francisco is feels incredibly undemocratic and unfair and executive im disappointed the small project exemption is that Going Forward i cant tell you introduced that. I dont have any further remarks. Supervisor cowen. Supervisor mar. Thank you to you and move the amendments proposed and say im really pleased youve looked at the concerns raised at the last meeting a couple of days ago any understanding with sfmade communications that addresses the concerns that others have made but for this issue im supportive of the south of market leadership and the Mission District advocates as well as i think this is an important piece of legislation that should move forward so im supportive and appreciative of the efforts to address the concerns that were raised. Thank you supervisor eric mar and thank you for bringing forward this amendment that will make this measure slightly better i concur with commissioner cohen on the grandfather provision so still requiring the 40 percent replacement for those projects in the pipeline i think that again another instance the city changes the rules midway through the permitting or fee process and in terms of the small sites or smaller projects exemption thats something that has i react to that we should have one in there but without the analysis to the new areas that sorry i guess the reduced amount of areas it is covering i dont know what that means i dont know. I, ask the Planning Department staff to come up later wanted clarity around the smaller projects and if it is necessary at this point and thirdly, flipping through this i want to calling your attention the 100 percent Affordable Housing 100 percent may be added as a permitted use if the replacement space includes one square feet of pdrs institutional communities or arts activity for each square feet for conversion so in my mind as im reading not an exemption for 100 percent Affordable Housing it is saying i must provide this space replacement space and i have a problem with that especially given the work at the board trying to promote 100 percent Affordable Housing through the Affordable HousingBonus Program im really concerned there maybe projects impacted and not move forward given provision i dont know if supervisor kim is open to changing that there is a full exemption for 100 percent Affordable Housing. Im just to address definitely will raise that with her in terms of the 100 percent Affordable Housing requirement exemption i apologize but i totally understand you passed the 100 percent Affordable HousingBonus Program and it would be this provision would be a requirement only on the specific district of pdr and s e g not a replacement requirement for all 100 percent Affordable Housing projects. Sure i think i want to give the flexibility when issues may arise or projects happen in on the flexibility to figure out what we may want to include in the wvld projects thats my only concern i do so Sophie Hayward i dont know if you want to speak to that. Hello. And deputy City Attorney. The response of that and our supervisor cowens comments regarding pursuing this protectively rather than the ballot you know as we put this forgot one of the things that was important in issuing the finding that relate to both not just the loss of pdr but the nonprofit and art space one of the solutions that has consisting come up in the Northern California grant makers report on the status of nonprofit one of the solutions theyve identified in zoning tool to be able to preserve and retain the existing nonprofit uses in the city and so this is really coming from from best practices and ideas for solutions and so i think that we want to continue to push forward this initiative at the ballot to say either the requirements for those types of use but providing this board and the next board with the flexibility to address issues as they arise on a comprehensive basis so i think that the amendments that you all have put forward that would allow the board to amend this legislation if it adheres with the scope of the this legislation is where i feel we have been able to try to find that flexibility moving forward. I do appreciate that amendment it is critical. Deputy City Attorney. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. For clarity for the committee our office hat has not signed off on the 100 percent proposal that the committee is discussing today were fourthly u figuring out what did board could do to the ordinance that within the scope and factoring the to thirty day rule the proposal your discussing would effectively allow the residential uses in districts not currently allowed that is beyond the scope of concept of the measure introduced we could, of course, worked with the very important or any of the supervisors after this meeting to see what is possible if the committee is interested in discussing further but for today, the committee could not adopt amendments with 100 percent affordable. Can i bring up Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office im curious to whether mohcd will consider those areas for promotions in the future. Sure tuff Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development as i read this i could be wrong the conditional use requirement i think applies to all projects within the mission and eastern neighborhood and western soma on the opening paragraph based on that well ask for exemptions more Affordable Housing projects because of the fact that the density bonus passed were hopeful well not have a automatic fee based on the presence of the pdr use i would say currently the ground zero of wvld affordable buildings include the uses like itself units, Tenant Services manager offices the lobby and, of course, the Community Room that is a requirement for our state financing be included so we if we have to move those to europe floors that is the at cost to the units we want to see the exemption for the projects if this measure would apply to all of those areas within the central soma yes projects we are compensating in those areas. Any in the pipeline right now. Well sure the shot well site within the mission area for example, and sites on fulsome street and other examples. But i maybe misunderstanding the application. Can we get clarity from the City Attorneys office on this. Deputy City Attorney mirena burns. Youd like clarity about the application with the promotion amendment. Around the existing provision regard