tv San Francisco Government Television SFGTV July 30, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm PDT
his behalf. supervisor cal when i support this project- christianity johnson architects are unique architecturally attractive and incorporate design references that acknowledge and pay homage to potrero hill's industrial past. also, offering 22 three bedroom two full bath units as well as two-bedroom two-bath
housing and as well as neighborhood area of [inaudible] please support me in supporting this project as what we expect for this project in dogpatch and the city at large thank you for your consideration sincerely dogpatch resident. >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>my name is lester simon i have lived on potrero hill for many years i've met josh and he's very respectful with this project and i support this
project. >>hello dave-i am a resident of potrero hill and a dog patch member, this is a great example- i want to echo what other speakers have said. i think this is a great balance between the styles and the architectural teams and, a great use of the brick office building and so on. i think concerning the communitythat is very understandable what we've heard today and, i appreciate that the board of supervisors
on a macro scale i agree we should not hold back this particular project because of concerns about transportation on the pipeline that is coming in of additional proposals. community access to open space. mariposaand 17th st. regarding transportation impacts there is tremendous anxiety in the neighborhood. we see density and congestion [timer dings] and, we don't necessarily see the transportation improvements on the ground but it's hard to anticipate how the transportation improvements will match the buildings coming in. i did a private study very briefly on a friday night and i looked at the number 22 and the number 55 and the number 22 was
very well used and there is a hope that that will be resolved- >>[timer dings] >>thank you sir. thank you sir. speaker please. >>good evening. my name is karen heterberg i am the owner of the new life grocery store andi am uncomfortable being on this side of the issue could i'm usually on the other side of an issue with the developer but, this developer is special and this project a special. i think that one of his problems is that he is right across the street from a very ugly project, protrero 1010, this project fits in with the neighborhood and the developer has done amends outreach and
has been to all the community meetings that you could possibly go to and has taken in comments and worked on designs to try to mitigate problems. i would like to make a suggestion or compromise that says that i would like to see this project be an affordable project for residents and workers in small businesses on potrero hill that can't find a place to live. that their first priority be to open up the housing that are around small businesses that are driving in from daly city and adding to the congestion [timer dings] that somehow if you lived in the neighborhood that thatmy improve your lottery or whatever that may be.
i have another employee they can't find housing and is moving we need housing in potrero hill [timer dings]- >>thank you ma'am. thank you. ms woods. >>good afternoon, my name is ms. woods. i urge you to reject the appeal and approved the eir. i think a lot of the problems that we are seeing come from the fact that public benefits have not caught up with this rapid change in land use. as julie kirschbaum knows
we are constantly working with her to improve transportation options in the neighborhood. a lot of the mission bay street changes will impact traffic and transportation in the neighborhood. this is an on going issue that isn't going to go away and we are all working on it. this is a good project. this is a code compliant project. this shouldn't be tarred with the brush of the inadequacy of funding of the eastern neighborhoods plan. even though it is hard to cobble all of these improvements together, i urge you to approve the project and stay with us while we improve the public benefits. thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening.[clears throat]
good evening, my name is john-i will make this brief. i appreciate everything that josh has done. they have two of the best architects that they could. so, it is just a marvelous, marvelous plan and i do appreciate other people on potrero hill being critical all the time because maybe if we had a crystal ball we could've done a better job with the eir but the eir was based on what was in place at the time so please approve this project. thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening supervisor my name is janet carbon alley i
live in dogpatch and i have that we in dogpatch are asking every developer to provide and most of them do not do the two-bedroom units also, providing on street parking that we also want to have and i know a lot of developers are not providing much parking at all but we still need it, i appreciate the fact that the small brick building will be conserved and reused. i think it benefits the project in our neighborhood. the 30 foot wide landscape pedestrian walkway will provide a very nice
pathway for people to get to the neighborhoods and downtown. and the um use zoning will be 25,000 ft.2 of neighborhood serving retail space and also, the design of the project is very nice and i think that it will be an overall improvement [timer dings] and how it is kind of overpowering the neighborhood and i think it needs to be reviewed but for this project in particular, i support the project and i think that it should go through. looking forward, we have to be diligent and make sure that our neighborhood is not being overpowered by too much residential and not any urban
mixed-use >>[timer dings] >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening supervisors, my name is jack garman along with the 33 members locally here at local 22 and 8000 carpenter union members that come to work here in the city every day we want you to know that we wholeheartedly develop the proposed code compliant mixed-use residential development project located at 901 16th st. this will create new mobile construction jobs and additional opportunities associated with the development. this project is a family friendly mixed-use project that is code compliant and no extra
density and height and no change in zoning. the 385 residential units include 42 on-site bmr plus payment of $9.2 million of housing to find additional bmr housing. we know how the hundred and 46 and the 22 three bedroom two bath units and important though, i think important for the area is the 25,000 ft.2 of neighborhood retail space in an area that can use it in a 10,000 square-foot kid friendly play area for the residents to use and the project sponsors agreed to make a one million-dollar donation to the friends of jackson park, and i'm excited to work with builders on welding development on the proposed project between 16th st. and 17th st. and again, we wholeheartedly endorse for the
reasons explained and we strongly urge you to support the project and support the neighborhood and support local jobs. thank you. >>thank you. >>next speaker please. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on behalf of the real party in interest in this eir appeal, we step up. seeing none, the public comment has been closed. this hearing has now been heard and i would like to call up the appellant that has three minutes to do a rebuttle come on up but i the will bring it in supervisor heroin before you
speak. >>i'm sorry supervisor: thank you for your patience, but i think it is very important to hear from the actualproject owner not the legal representation in this situation. >>there are not ceqa issues and your brief contains a list of issues that you've discussed with the neighborhood could you show us or walk through what those are. >>sure in terms of open space
there are 25,000 ft.2 of neighborhood serving community retail and as we pointed out in the past, we voluntarily made a pledge of $1 million to improve jackson park because we believe it to be a local treasure and in need of renovation and improvement and we are happy to participate in that. >>that is true. thank you for that. your project actually has a shadow impact on jackson park? >>no? no, not on jackson. >>i know that you have made commitments to the friends of jackson park to support the
community's efforts for expanding and improving the space. i know i will be putting you on the spot and i don't want to embarrass you too hard but i want to be very public in upfront and i would love you to consider additional ways that you can support the park and development of the neighborhood and if there is any way that you could contribute a little bit more, we would really appreciate it because the park is not only a publicly shared aspect it is something that is a community effort and not just your future tenets. allison he talks about how sheot involved with the park and how they have chased them away because there wereno open space i will be a little upfront and say that we need a little bit more. >>we agree with the community that jackson park is a treasure
and we would be willing to increase our guest above and beyond the $1 million that we have already pledged we would be willing to go and increase it by another $800,000. >>[applause] >>i am on a roll. can i have a mercedes? i think keith jackson could use a little-- i'm kidding, i'm kidding, be a joke. i know mr. city attorney- mr. deputy city atty. >>if the project sponsor chooses outside of this appeal
to make commitments to the city or the community, that is between the project sponsor and to ever the project sponsor is making those commitments to but this discussion should really focus on the adequacy of that. >>do you guys see a quickly jumped up there deputy city attorney john gibbut i was actually joking but we will talk to the neighborhood about that.the appellant's of the community really talked about needing more open space in the neighborhood can you tell us a little bit more about that in your project? >>sure we really connected that promenade that connects 16th st. and 17th st. and whereas the code requires that that pedestrian promenade be 20 feet wide we have made it 30 feet wide and so, we have voluntarily increase the amount of open space and we also mentioned
previously that we will have a secure children's play area on site,again, we want to be a family-friendly project and we want the kids that are living there to a place to play that are secure. >>all right thank you mme. pres. just to keep this moving i don't have any more questions for the project sponsor. >>thank you at this time i wife the appellant to come forward and you will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. >>thank you for your patience allison heath, with potrero [inaudible] that number in the analysis was with response to comments that the planning
department must approve. we have made a compelling case to show that the eir is inadequate and that it's eir is out of date and several of its exceptions are no longer supportive we have certain impacts in certain areas. transportation as static views the shade and shadow and being consistent with area city plans and projects. the owner of the project fails to respond to comments made to the public in
the draft eir. the city asserts there is no medication and contributes significantly to the cumulative loss of pvr so there is no disagreement about that. under these conditions ceqa requires alternatives proposed for adoption. planning found that the alternatives were not feasible based on land studies and acquisition cost and, i have on the overhead, the memo from the planning department specifically stating that land
when reviewing alternatives increase costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility [timer dings] >>the fact that it would be sufficient or more or less profitable this not term that it is feasible. this is evidence that the additional cost of the probability are severe and the developer cannot meet that standard. thank you. >>thank you. thank you, supervisor cohen. >>allison, i just have one question for you. this team has been incredible in leading the charge and focusing this conversation around this project and one thing that's on
my mind is for what reason did you not make it appeal at the board of appeals? >>i think is a number of speakers have said it is a code compliant project,and our issue with the actual ceqa of the project and we feel the eir is insufficient and not properly studied. >>thank you. i appreciate that honesty and again,your leadership has been tremendous. thank you mme. pres. >>thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i was thinking by now that the issues i originally raise could be answered by the planning department. >>planning department, was that the question about the data?
>>where the appellant had said actually in the response comments that the 3135 was in the response the commons. i'm sorry, 3315, excuse me. >>can you please identify yourself. >>steve orthon, planning department staff and in response to thatthis report is from 2015 and in this report in 2016 the projects changed so even a quick perusal of our own data it shows that since he published this data in february, several housing projects have gotten considerably smaller. just looking at the one in the
middle of the table, for example the one in mariposa has been reduced by 21 units and their is another 1001 17th has been reduced by many units as well so as the project evolves the project reduces, that is from the housing side, and from the eir side,just because these are listed it does not mean that it is trulyactive. for example there is a project listed that proposes 2000 and
feet of office space and it required two things that required it to become a land mark and it required it to have a full conversion of eir supervisor: can attest that we can do [inaudible] more full accounting but from a time standpointand how i convey the data is different. i do apologize the confusion in providing two sets of data in - succession >>just to respond it is quite typical as projects to get
smaller as they go through the planning process often times they identified a much larger projectsthan necessary in your project review because as time goes on if your project is larger than anticipated than you've already covered that so that is not typical. >>just a comment to mrs. jones i'm not sure that is a healthy policy because as you are getting up to your 3180 and you're acknowledging that there needs to be some revisiting of the 2008 analysis you might want to stop doing that process because it's going to get you there faster. if i were to add up the numbers that mr.
moorefine just gave me even though what you have had quite a lot of time they have added tohundred and 80 units if you subtract that you interestingly enough you get the 3179 units which is one unit cheyenne 3180 which, i will say is under the 3180 which is nailed as the 2008 eir which mr miguel said
was right but if you take that you're at 3179 which is one unit under 380. it still brings up the metal shed and so, the planning commission's motion which is exhibit a on the findings was actually not attached to your letter but i have subsequently found itand miss jones respectfully through the president is both wrong and right. you mentioned many, many things but you also mentioned the economic feasibility or lack thereof so they are both listed there. i think you have enough other findings that you can get there on policy. but, i would say that given what was brought up in the rebuttal if you're going to rely on economic feasibility you should not do that stuff in regard to the eir and then i want to bring up that i as a member of the board of supervisors and extremely uncomfortable and no disrespect to my colleague but we are dealing with a hearing on the adequacy or lack there of, an
environmental review process and the impact that decision-makers have to consider and that is not the subject of a financial transaction or increase donations and i just have to say for the record, it makes me remarkably uncomfortable-- >>supervisor cohen, will take care of that as soon as you finish with your questions >>that is not a question a comment. >> supervisor peskin i apologize that i made you or anyone else, uncomfortable i
was making a joke although not funny i was trying to make a joke and i apologize for making anyone at ease and i would ask that i be recused from this vote? >>i don't know maybe we should ask the city attorney but i don't see where a conflict exists >>this was suggested by the city attorney. >>supervisor peskin is correct, there is no conflict that means supervisor peskin would have to cast a vote in less the board decides to recuse her from the vote. are suggesting the supervisor cohen was that the board recuse her though it that
there was no suggestion or clout to the board proceeding or any suggestion to the proposed gift of the project sponsor was proposing the outcome. >>okay, with that colleagues, understanding your concern supervisor peskin this is not because of your concern. it was actually recommended by the city attorney based on the comments or made by supervisor cohen.with that,do we have a motion for this? supervisor kim. >> i actually have a question
for the deputy city attorney. it was your suggestionthat she recuse herself.if >> the offering of the gift during this proceeding would influence the outcome of the proceeding that is a concern that we want to avoid. the board should be making this determination based on its review of the eir and its adequacy based on the eir and not any adequacy's within the project sponsor. >>i trust that my colleagues
will make their decision based on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental impact review that was before us. i am a little worried about the precedent that sets for this board. often, our offices are heavily engaged in negotiations around multiple, large projects this is a small project that come before the supervisors that have an environmental appeal before the board and in every decision that we make we make it within the confines of what we are allowed to review which doesn't include the offer that was made in that exchange. i just worry that in the future we are going to have to think about a lot of recusal's being that often district supervisors are heavily engaged in project developments and working on negotiations between the neighborhood and the community and the project developer to bring forward a better projects or whether there was an additional open space or affordable housing or increased art shoots there are
all things that we regularly engage in but that doesn't impact how we vote on an eir appeal but it certainly an aspect of every single project that comes before this board. >>i understand supervisor and our office provides advice to all of you and all of your offices regarding what is appropriate to ask for or to encourage of project sponsors in different circumstances and where it is not and i am not suggesting that supervisor, when would- that supervisors cohen's though would be swayed one way or another but what i am saying is this is a judgment to you and your colleagues to recuse her in this matter.
>>i will respect my colleagues decision in this but there are a lot of factors that may impact decision-making in determining the adequate nest and the completeness in determining this eir and we understand the seriousness that is before us and we review the boundaries that we look at which is separate from the approval itself although they are linked which i understand but i will just put that for this board. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor compos. >>i think that supervisor cohen clarified what was happening there because the question was more for the city attorney.
city attorney i don't really know that the recommendation- that there is a conflict i mean, a recusal requires a recusal not only from the vote but from the entire proceeding and so, if there is a problem with what happened here i don't know that sort of recusing one member at this juncture will actually cause a conflict and even in the context of an eir appeal sometimes the issue of community benefits, and so are we setting forward-going forward setting a precedent
that because of this we need to recuse the supervisor from the project. i'm just not sure that what you're saying actually it would cure potential conflict here >>supervisor cohen does not have a conflict. she has no personal interest in financial or otherwise in this appeal. she does not have a conflict nothing that the board does today considering this motion will require future boards to act in a similar way. i think what was on usual about this
particular exchange was that supervisor cohen said i would like something more, and the project developer took her seriously but i offered up to supervisor cohen that it's up to the board but that she may offer to recuse but that is up to the board. >>i think the way to deal with any kind of conflict that as individual supervisors we decide what is appropriate and we try to make individual preferences to the board. i don't know what your preferences supervisor cohen. i don't know what your preference is supervisor cohen
but i do worry that were setting a precedent for all of us and i would make it clear that specific to these circumstances and if it's possible to make that clear i want to do that. >>i would just say that i appreciate the comments of the colleagues. i do understand that it's really, i think about the appearance of what it looks like based on the dialogue that took place and none of us is perfect. we don't know everything about what to do in the case of bir's, negotiations and so we rely on the public we rely on the departments we rely on the city attorney to make good decisions and i think what we want to try to do in this particular case is to make the
public feel comfortable with our decision and from my perspective, i deftly think it is a little overreaction but i do understand the city attorney'ssuggestion that we do it and i would be open to it either way. so, supervisor cohen, would you like to make any comments? >>like i have made already too many comments already- >>no jokes. >>no more jokes. i promise. i do want to make a couple remarks before we go any further to make the motion for recusal >>just to be clear unfortunately have to decide whether you're going to recuse yourself or not so any further discussion as to whether you're going to recuse yourself or not until that decision is made. >>i would just ask that my
colleagues would take with caution what the city attorney has requested. i think that supervisor compos has made very clear the parameters and that is all that i have. >>would someone like to make the motion? supervisor farrell has made the motion to recuse supervisorcompos. >>i would just like to say that part of this was meant to be a joke and i don't know what went on behind the scenes but if
someone says i don't know, i think we need a larger contribution and right on the spot the developer says we will contribute an additional $800,000, i just feel remarkably uncomfortable given what has gone on i would like to make a motion to recuse myself because i feel very uncomfortable. and i feel comfortable many times in very difficult situations but right now i do not feel comfortable. >>but supervisor we need to do what we feel relates this
particular eir. and again, it wasn't based on your comments, it was based on once the dialogue took place the conversation took place between our deputy city attorney and supervisor cohen so was already in the works. i don't know if that changes your comfort level, but, i am sure that there are enough supervisors to vote on this particular matter if you would like us to excuse you as well. >>okay supervisor wiene?do you have a comment, >>i don't think anyone needs to be recused here. i don't think that this was a legal issue i think that it was just an issue of appearance and i don't think that is anything to do with the rest of us. we have an obligation to adjudicate this
160657planning, administrative code - construction of accessory dwelling units]sponsors: farrell; wiener and peskinordinance amending the planning code to allow the construction of accessory dwelling units (adus, also known as secondary or in-law units) on all lots in the city in areas that allow residential use; amending the administrative code to revise the definition of "rental unit" as it applies to adus; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302; and directing the clerk to send a copy of this ordinance to the california department of housing and community development after adoption. >>if it is okay with my colleagues i would like to have a vote now. >>mdm. sec. please call the roll. >>[roll call vote]
>>there are nine ayes and 1 no with supervisor e in the dissent. there is a motion to rescind the vote and we will retake the vote. >>this is motion by supervisor wiener and seconded by supervisor farrell. on item number 18. please call the roll. >>[roll call vote] >> the motion passes 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisory in the dissent. >>the ordinance is finally past.
>>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk, please go to item 25. >>item 25 is160813- cohen25.160813[charter amendment - affordable housing and community development hearings and reports]sponsors: peskin; kimcharter amendment (third draft) to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco, to require the office of economic and workforce development (oewd) and the mayor's office of housing and community development (mohcd) to propose five-year strategic plans for
consideration and approval by the board of supervisors; to require oewd and mohcd to report to the board of supervisors regarding their annual work plans at least two times each fiscal year; and to provide that ordinances adopted under the processes set forth in the charter regarding inclusionary housing requirements and regarding competitive selection for the expenditure of affordable housing funds and for the development of affordable housing on city-owned property under the jurisdiction of mohcd shall supersede ordinances and rules adopted by the board of supervisors or the voters prior to march 1, 2017, at an election to be held on november 8, 2016. >>mme. city clerk, can you also call item number 26. >>item number 26 is 160588- eight charter amendment with the housing and development commission with the sponsors peskin and kim and this is a francisco, to create the housing and development commission to oversee the department of economic and workforce development and the department of housing and community development; to require the commission to review and make recommendations regarding proposed development agreements and conveyance of certain surplus city property before the board of supervisors considers such proposals; to require the commission to hold hearings and make recommendations regarding proposals to adopt or change inclusionary housing requirements for housing developments; to require the commission to adopt rules creating competitive selection processes for the department of housing and community development's expenditure of affordable housing funds and for the development of affordable housing on city-owned property under the jurisdiction of the department of housing and community development; and to provide that ordinances regarding inclusionary housing requirements and rules regarding competitive selection for affordable housing adopted under the processes set forth in the charter may supersede ordinances and rules adopted by the board of supervisors or the voters prior to march 1, 2017, at an election to be held on november 8, 2016. >>as i expressed last week, one of my concerns was the fact that we were proposing the idea of one commission to oversee two departments. i do understand there are components with 0awd's work however in terms oftheir functions i'm very concerned with on commission overseeing at both
departmentsotherwise. so i asked my colleagues to support item 25 and if we don't then item 26- and again, i think i know what the outcome is but this would be something to eliminate the oewd from the commission with other transparency issues with my colleagues at a been raised with the department.at this time, i strongly urge my colleagues to consider an alternative for item 25 and for item 26 that is the one with the commission. so, that is all that i have to say today. again, i think i know where this is going to go. >>thank you. supervisory a. >>thank youwhat we have seen is
that we have been able to work on a couple of different issues. i have continued because i heard some things that i thought would be the possibility of maybe coming to some compromise. i spoke to both parties in this case and i thought that i had- what i wanted to do was not shy away from the commission idea and i wanted to improve maybe the policy of the idea. i was hoping there would be an agreement. but, at the end of
the day yesterday partners came to me and nobody seemed very happy. basically saying, forget it. no matter what you do, i am not supporting you. so, this came from both sides and it is really hard for me to pursue amendments when even though i don't think it's the right thing on both sides say well, we are going to amend it anyways. so i'm just sorry that i couldn't get this in terms of an agreement. so, i won't be offering amendments. i just wanted to let you know and let people know that it's not because i wasn't trying. >>thank you supervisory. supervisor peskin. >>thank you mme. pres. and supervisory a. i want to thank
supervisory and attempting to bring folks together. there are a number of issues some of which of already been placed on the ballot where, we were not able to find that sweet spot. i fundamentally believe that this city, our transparency, and the ultimate behavior and mission of mohcd and oewd will be enhanced by having a commission i believe it will become more fair and more transparent and i would hope that you would all consider joining me when i cosponsor supervisor kim. and thank you supervisor kim with your cosponsorship in voting for item 26 and item 25 is something that i put out there in an attempt to try to forge a compromise which unfortunately was not forthcoming and i respectively ask for your vote
against item 26 and let's put item 26 on the ballot and let's move ahead into the dawn of the 21st century. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor campos. >>i want to think supervisor e for trying to find a compromise and given that i think that was impossible here i think we should make a choice between 25 and 26 i think we should go with 26 it's incredibly balance. when you think about it, the most significant issue facing the city right now is
the issue of affordability, housing affordability, and i think having more discussion on this issue would be a good thing for all of us so i'm happy to support item 26. >>thank you supervisor campos. supervisor wiener. >>thank you mme. pres. i can't support this in the condition that is and if this were simply creating a commission in the mold of the planning commission or police commission over the mayor's office of housing or community development so an affordable housing commission essentially where the mayor appointed commissioners and the board president up pointed three with the same approach to hiring the director and if that were being proposed here i would certainly support that.
i have thought about the idea of an affordable housing commission and it is taking on a greater role and more money is flowing through affordable housing so our committee does make sense to me but that is not what this is. this is not our traditional split appointment where we would acknowledge that this is an agency and an executive branch where the mayor gets a majority of the commission appointments and the mayor plays a role in hiring a department head and the mayor is politically accountable to the voters for the performance of the executive branch. instead, this is taking two very significant departments, and taking these two departments that are part of the executive branch and removing them effectively from the executive branch by putting them under one
commission where the mayor makes the minority of the commission appointments and according to this measure if i'm reading it correctly the mayor plays zero role in actually selecting the director and so, under this circumstance though i am under the agreement of the concept ofwhat this proposes this particular way that this is proposed i just can't support that. >>supervisor. >>i would just like to say that we are spending quite a bit of resources on these housings we
know this is an issue that the public cares deeply about when in fact, if you look at the poles it's the top two or three that san francisco's are thinking about and certainly what they would like increased dialogue, discussion, and feedback on. but, as our a feasibility study moves forward on proposition c moves forward and we talk about the size of projects and neighborhoods but also based on the type of needs that we want to fulfill in the citya commission is going to be invaluable in helping to guide the support of the mayor's office in terms of direction that we as a city want to take for affordable housing. in particular, i believe this comes up in almost every single project that are office
negotiates and the type of affordable housing that we build and it what income levels. i do not want to say that there is not a rhyme or reason for each project, but we do do it on a project by project basis. we have to say i think senior housing is needed in this neighborhood and i think we should do this at 55% ami and we do the best that we can tell fill the needs that we are hearing from the community but i think the commission will provide a larger risible document that we can follow and, give us a better compass in helping to guide all of our budgets together and not go on a development by development basis which is actually truly what we're doing today. there are so many needs that we need to fill.
affordable homeownership that we need to fill and of course the continuing need for a working class community and those that are homeless and formally homelessand this commission is going to provide better laws and focus solely on this issue over the course the years and i think that would be invaluable. finally i should say having worked on many agreements by the mayor's office of development before this agreement comes before the board of supervisors in many ways the community process comes to us before this and we have to modify these projects because the community wasn't able to provide input early on into the process and i think a commission will help us to get good development mint deals
going forward that our community can benefit from. and finally, what a bounce commission looks like. yes, there will be free3 from the mayor's office and three from the community development office. i have to say the controller's office has played a particular role around the issue of affordable housing. they are currently leading the feasibility study around the maximum that we can require market rate developers via proposition c they also led our communities study when we want to see how market rate development affected the displacement of service organizations in the city. the office has been a valuable
impact on these developments before they hit our office. the controller of courses put forward by the mayor's office and i think ultimately this would be heavily guided by what the mayor would like to see in terms of the director and the mayor's office of housing. finally, i would just say that putting this commission forward is not a criticism of this department. i've a great relationship with the mayor's office of housing. i think they are truly committed to affordability. that being said, i think we can do a better job around a guiding document of what we are building and we can do a comprehensive plan of what that looks like and how much senior housing and how much family
housing and what income brackets this is something that will only enhance the work of affordability here in the city that we are doing today and certainly provide more transparency and accountability and trust with the public. >>thank you. before i moved to supervisor avalos i really appreciate your comments supervisor kim and i just want to ask two questions of you and supervisor peskin. have you done any analysis of how much time a commission would, for example, a number of projects that deal with housing. i know your office worked on and negotiated the additional time that would take a commission before it would potentially get to the board. do you have any idea what you think we are talking about? i know it is hard to really say probably because it is a project by project basis but we do know this is going to add an additional amount of time to new production of affordable
housing and i just wanted to know, you know, just ballpark what either you or supervisor peskin think that might be. >>i would just say i don't think that a commission has to add any additional time to a housing project that would be coming before the board and i would also say that additional projects that might be reviewed before the commission would be with the commissioners. the additional time of course would
be in the time of the meeting. but, i don't think it would increase the amount of time that it would get to that board of supervisors and, if anything, i think there would be some efficiency because we frequently do a lot of amendments on the backend of the development deal when the public can finally provide input because that is often the first opportunity that we can do that when it comes before the board. i actually think that would have a lot more efficiencies if we could have more public input on the front and of a development deal than on the backend. now, i have not done a study on the number projects impacted by this. i think that it varies from year-to-year. there some years where we have had-- and trish ryland and this year i would say we have not had as big of a number come for the board that are been impacted. >>supervisor peskin. >>mme. pres. i would add to that that it's really a function of into [inaudible],
because i can't tell from the legislation how all of this fits into one, because as you know, there are so many different layers to housing in a city and specifically, affordable housing. it is very complicated for people to understand where to apply for this and where do you go for this and why do i qualify for this amount and not for this amount and it is very confusing. so, i guess i'm trying to understand how those layers all fit together because i just do not see it. >>mme. pres., i don't mean to be combative but i think you just answered some of those questions. with your specific question relating to the successor agency and redevelopment that we call ocii,
after redevelopment was a sunset it and this legislation in no ways impacts ocii. >>i guess what i'm saying is there is still some overlap in what they are bringing together. >>mme. pres. there is now a transition of transferring some projects and the mayor's office of housing have developed that those that will be in the reit program will will have a place to go to talk about the bread and butter of their day-to-day lives. >>so, they won't have to go to
the housing authority anymore? or, they could go to both? >>so for example the right place for them to go under the new management the right place for them to go for those day-to-day bread-and-butter questions that would go to this new commission and should it be something to vote on the voters would vote for. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor avalos. >> being part of this commission i have watched san francisco move forward in housing development and i haven't seen that in my district and i think there
needs to be a way to bring some transparency into the decisions that are being made by the mayor's office a housing and economic workforce development and i've also worked closely with my community in san francisco and i have seen their role in community development work as they have been able to get more people engaged in changing the district 11 needs and we have changed the process over the many years i have been on the board now to add a little bit of money every year to be able to develop ideas for projects and this year we developed the workforce center in august 20 and that has been built out over the years that we are finally opening up and we will be able to do worker rights work and with the
immigrant community especially the chinese, filipino and chinese community we also have housing projects going forward and that effort was not led by an oh but it was led by community development and there was an effort to take out community develop as an effort by the city and bring forth the economic community and workforce development and they were actually narrowing the scale of what development was going to be in san francisco and it was really about commercial development. we need all three. we need housing, residential and community and housing development i think we need all three of these entities under one commission and that makes a lot of sense and if we are looking at models the community development to be spread around the city i think district 11 has a really good model of having a commission that can
have a way to approach how we could move the needle on making sure that the neighborhoods get their fair share of support and services of development in san francisco and i know supervisor tang has done a lot of work on community development as well and i think these are very similar that could be done on the hospices of a commission with some strategic planning. i am also concerned how the mayor's office of housing is often making political decisions on how to stretch dollars across the city and we will see it that these endings are moving back and forth between different cities in different projects and you know there is not enough to move around there. and as you can see there would be some real transparency on how these would be spent and how these projects can be built out over years in time to make them happen.
earlier this year i asked the controller's office to start working on building towards a commission over at the mayor's office of housing and i was going to slow approach and i was looking at doing hearings and trying to get information but it wasn't really tentative because i didn't have a lot of time left on the board to really do this. they presented their charter amendment and it wasn't ready for prime time. i really appreciate how we use the legislation process to move these projects that i really feel are worthy of supporting today so i thank you for your support and i think the public from hearing the board talk about what this commission could be about and i really like these to be uniform across
the city. some are split between the board and the mayor and some are with the mayor and their split across all of these commissions and this commission is very different in terms of having a controller make the appointment so that we have even numbers from the mayor and the board of supervisors has a controller but i actually think that approach makes sense given that within the process the answer from the mayor's office was no and when an answer is no we don't get any input on what to do i think it makes sense that we determine and reshape it the way that we think that it should be and how we develop
this commission and that we should do it in a way that we think is going to work for our district and for the districts in the city so again, thank you for putting this forward and i'm very happy to support this and i have no other questions. >>thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >>let's be very very clear that most appointments are made either all by the mayor or primarily by the mayor and there are two exceptions this would be the commission and the ethics commission where we intentionally split up these appointments because these are unique departments that should not be part of that executive branch the executive branch is a branch and we don't want people to have control over those there is no one that has
the majority and that means that no one is politically accountable for the performance in those departments.and that governmance and there is no accountability if know what one has a role of managing these departments and i think it's on precedented here andcorrect me if i am wrong but perhaps for the first time we are doing an appointment power for a very powerful commission to a non-elected official to control. i am a huge fan of my controller. he has done a great job. he is very efficient he is a friend he is a neighbor. but he was not
elected to make these decisions and perhaps this vote would be cast by someone who is not elected by anyone and to me, that is a huge problem. this is a bad precedence and i am going to predict that if elections happen and things changed with the current majority of this board that we are going to see a move towards more and more commissions having this kind of splintered structure where the mayor no longer effectively manages his executive departments and i will not support that. this is a very bad road that we are potentially going down if the voters approve this charter amendment. >>thank you supervisor weiner. supervisor campos has not had a chance to speak. >>i think i have spoken.
>>supervisor peskin. >> mme. pres. i had that discussion last week so i don't want to belabor it but i do want to recognize incredibly hard work of my staff as supervisor avalos had stated ms. ankula has really worked very difficult and i think that i really up ppreciate all of her work and i like to publicly acknowledge my appreciation for her work >>i would simply say that i think that we should call the question. >>actually supervisor campos, that is not a bad idea.all
right, i will say that this is a hard one. there are so many reasons why i want to see this commission happen. but, i was looking forward to some of the proposed amendments from supervisory yee that i thought would definitely make it better policy but since i am not 100% comfortable with the proposed direction, without any amendments to make it better legislation, i am going to oppose both item 25 and 26. and, seeing no names on the roster i'm going to ask mme. city clerk please call the roster. >>[roll call vote] >>there are 3 ayes and 8 no's,
and avalos and campos in the dissent. >>mme. sec. please read the next item. >>item 27 is an farrellordinance approving health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2017, and amending the administrative code to remove those rates from the code. >>mme. sec., please call the roll. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes.
>>this item passes unanimously on the first reading. >>[gavel] >>item 28. >>item 28 is an application and acceptance and expenditure grant for thedelegation of san francisco municipal transportation agency as co-applicant for grant - assumption of liability - affordable housing and sustainable communities program - 480 eddy street project]sponsor: mayorresolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency (sfmta), on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with the tenderloin neighborhood
development corporation for the project at 480 eddy street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. mme. pres. would you like me to read item 29? >> yes. >>item 29 is a resolutionbehalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with mercy housing, inc., for the project at 455 fell street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. >>collies, can we take this item same house same call? withoutobjection the resolution is adopted unanimously.mme. clerk please read item 30. >>item 30 is afrancisco
utilities commission parcel no. 29 in millbrae, ca - $460,673]resolution authorizing the amendment of orchard supply company, llc's lease of property from the city and county of san francisco, to reduce the size of the leased premises to accommodate the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) regional groundwater storage and recovery project, project no. cuw30103, in consideration of city's payment of $460,673; adopting environmental findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31; adopting findings of consistency with the general plan, and eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property and/or the sfpuc general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >>same house same call? the resolution is adopted animously. >>[gavel] >>mdm. sec. please that read the items 31 and 32 together. >>resolution approving an agreement with newcomb anderson mccormick for professional services related to energy and climate programs, for a five year term to commence following board approval through june 1, 2021, at a total cost not to exceed $44,000,000.
item 33is a resolution approving construction of a recycled water pump station building, and two groundwater well station buildings in golden gate park under charter, section 4.113, as part of the san francisco westside recycled water and san francisco groundwater supply projects. >>colleagues, can we please take these items same house same call?these items are approved unanimously. mme. city clerk please read items 34 and 35 together please. >>item 34 is a resolution retroactively approving the award of professional services agreement, airport contract no.
50085, to fsp ppm management, llc, to manage and staff the curbside management program in an amount not-to-exceed $19,522,294 for a period of four years beginning july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2020, with one one-year renewal option, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 35 35 is adevelopment, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>same house and call? the resolutions are adopted unanimously please read items 36 and 37. >>development, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 36 same house same call? the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 37 >>hitem 37 is a resolutionded
dispatch/automatic vehicle location system integration, and five years of warranty and preventative maintenance services, in an amount not to exceed $29,264,755 and for an initial term that includes an installation period plus five years commencing august 1, 2016, or later, with the option to extend for up to two five-year terms for a total term not to exceed 16 years. >>same house same call? the resolution is approved unanimously >>[gavel] please read item 38. >>item 38 is an ordinance
farrellordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in san francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating city affordable housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. 06/28/2016. >> we know we have had a displacement particularly in the mission but others as well. i have seen and superviisor campos has seen and probably all of us have seen the devastation that this has caused it is a dramatic event in anyone's life to lose your home but if you are of lower income it can destroy your life and it can take six months or longer for that to be fixed and we need to help these people. five years ago i offered the good samaritan ordinance to make it easier for landlords to displaced tenants while they
are waiting for the improvements to be fixed.. i ask for your support on this very important legislation. >>supervisor campos. >>thank you i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >>thank you colleagues can we take this item same house, same call,? with out of section we have passed this ordinance unanimously. >>mme. city clerk please read item 39. >>avalosordinance amending the
planning code to 1) define wireless telecommunications services (wts) facilities; 2) create distinct wts facility land use controls and, among other things, require a conditional use authorization (cu) for macro wts facilities in most article 2, 7, and 8 districts; 3) regulate micro wts facilities in all districts; 4) require that a wts facility's cu shall expire after ten years; 5) regulate wts facilities in certain mission bay districts and p districts; 6) exempt certain telecommunications equipment accessory uses from height limitations; 7) allow screening elements for wts facilities to exceed height limits, consistent with existing height limit exemptions for antennas; 8) define and regulate temporary wts facilities; 9) allow the historic preservation commission to delegate determinations on applications for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter to planning department staff; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>supervisor avalos. >> the proposed changes that were directed by the planning department staff based on lessons learned with the existing facilities in san francisco as well as the future trends of these wireless facilities and the goals of the wireless guidelines with the karen supplanting code
provisions of the wires caring facilities of the intrusive location and design of the proposed changes were provided by the planning department staff to nearly every neighborhoodgroup in san francisco that is registered with representatives of very many wireless carriers. they require a conditional youth authorization exempting screen elements such as pipes or elevated penthouses that are used to screen antennas from height limits which is consistent with the current exemption for unscreened antennas or towers. however, these were designed for historic preservation or
shattered review as proposed by the planning commission. so, in fact, these are regulations set in motion for the future and how we can have the least intrusive wireless facilities in san francisco and there is many years of work in putting this together. colleagues, i urge your support thank you. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without objection unanimously. mme. city clerk, please read item 40. >>amending the public works code to place additional limits on the duration of street space occupancy permits, and to limit the number of such permits including permit extensions that can be issued at the same address during a three-year period in residential, urban mixed-use, and neighborhood commercial districts, and precluding the issuance of such permits at the same address for two years after that three-year period; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor farrell. >>thank you mme. pres. i will cut but i have to say in the interest of time but this happens in every neighborhood and i just want to thank all of
the departments and thank my office for taking on this legislation. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without objection unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mdm. city clerk please read item 41. >>item 41 is a resolution granting revocable permission to the municipal transportation agency to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to
install and maintain three new operator convenience facilities at the terminus of various muni bus routes; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making a finding of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>can we take this item same house same call? the motion passes unanimously .mme. city clerk please read item 42. >>item 42 is an ordinance amending the san francisco fire code to require building owners and homeowners' associations to provide fire safety information to residents in buildings with three or more dwelling units, and annual fire safety information and training to residents in buildings with 16 or more units; making findings as to local conditions pursuant to the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to transmit the ordinance to appropriate state officials. >>supervisor tang. >>thank you mme. pres. i want to thank everyone who has supported this ordinance and today i would like to just have one amendment before you which is on page 6. when it was
passed out to you it is the amendment basically that would recommend that the residents test their smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors on a monthly basis at reportproblems or repairs to their landlord. >>this ordinance as amended can we take that same house same call without objection? without objection the ordinance as amendment did passes unanimously on its first reading. mme. city clerk please read item that 43 and 44 together please. >>resolution determining that the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises license from 86-2nd street to 65 post street (district 3) to
m&m group assets, inc. dba dada bar and lounge, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. and for item 44 it is a resolution to determinethat the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general license to najib saliba and hanan saliba dba franklin market located at 2836 franklin street (district 2), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco, in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. >>colleagues, can we take these items same house same call? without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>mme. clerk please call item 45. >>item 45 is amotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of darryl honda to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call. without objectionmotion
confirming the mayoral appointment of frank fung to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call, without objection the motion passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 47 two >>item 47 ismotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of richard hillis to the planning commission, term ending june 30, 2020. >>same house same call. without objection, this
motion is passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 48.motion approving the president of the board of supervisors london breed's nomination of richard swig for appointment to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020.>>same house same call the motion passes unanimously. >> mme. city clerk, please read item 58. >>item 58 is awienerordinance
amending the fire code and the housing code to require building owners provide tenants with an annual written notice of smoke alarm requirements and require building owners file a statement of compliance with annual fire alarm testing and inspection requirements every two years; amending the fire code and building code to require building owners to upgrade existing fire alarm systems by july 1, 2021, or upon completion of $50,000 or more of construction work, whichever occurs earlier; amending the building code to require owners of apartment houses damaged by fire to submit an action plan to the city within 30 days of the fire and requiring owners of buildings in group r occupancies with six or more units to install fire blocks in open accessible attics when performing $50,000 or more of construction work; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage as required by state law. >>supervisor campos. >>this is an effort to reduce fires by increasing the fire safety requirements for these existing buildings we required that the owners have common area firewalls tested and alarm systems tested every year and that these be updated so that these systems can actually hear them so that these can actually pass what we call the pillow test because instudies we saw that people actually did not hear the alarm going off and also to prevent the spread of fires we are asking that in these buildings there would be the placement of what are called fire blocks for fire
safety installation that prevents fires from going from one building to another and it also requires that the space tenants are provided with an action plan within 72 hours or within 30 days of a fire because it is very critical because what happens in many of these fires is that the tenants do not even know what's going on and they need this information to be provided to them so we need this information provided in multiple languages. so, we ask you for your support. thank you very much. >>did you have any amendments supervisor campos? >>i think we need to amend a few lines i make a motion to amend those along with this? >> without objection as amended
county of san francisco for $156,250; the lawsuit was filed on january 7, 2015, and it involves medical negligence. item 62 is a lawsuit that involves a restitution andcivil penalties under the zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma centerfor emergency medical care provided to blue cross's insureds prior to july 1, 2015, and for the payment of additional amounts for such emergency medical care provided between july 1, 2015, and june 30, 2019; the lawsuit was filed on may 24, 2011, in san francisco superior court, item 63 it is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by state farm general insurance company against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 13, 2014, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-14-537478; entitled state farm general insurance company v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged property damage arising from flooding. ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by paul walker against the city and county of san francisco for $80,000; the lawsuit was filed
on november 10, 2015, in united states district court, northern district, case no. cv-15-5129-jcs; entitled paul walker v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged americans with disabilities act violations. >> item 65 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by mery perez against the city and county of san francisco for $87,500; the lawsuit was filed on february 9, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-15-544024; entitled mery perez v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves a medical malpractice claim; other material terms of the settlement are that co-defendant dr. derrick lung is to pay $87,500. item 66 is an ordinance ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 67 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 68 iscounty of san francisco for $30,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 3, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc 15-543936; entitled sadeq naji v. city and county of san
francisco; san francisco public library; the lawsuit involves an employment dispute. >>collies can we take these items same house same call?item 60 through 68 were past without objection unanimously. >>[gavel] mme. city clerk please read item 61. >>item 61 is aordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by ricardo palikiko-garcia, stanley harris, and keith dwayne richardson against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on march 16, 2016, in united states district court for the northern district of california, case no. c16-1305 jcs; entitled ricardo palikiko-garcia, et al. v. city and county of san francisco, et al.; the lawsuit involves allegations of excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and egregious government conduct. >>mme. city clerk can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >>there are nine ayes.
>> this ordinance passes on the first reading and the clerk if you could please call the item 69? >>item 69 is a resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of a state transportation development act, article 3, pedestrian and bicycle project grant, in the amount of $995,524 including $497,762 for public works and $497,762 for the san francisco municipal transportation agency, for a three-year period of july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2019. >>can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes. >>the resolution is adopted unanimously. mme. city clerk,
please call items 70. >>item 70 is a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to modify the management district plan and engineer's report for the property-based business improvement district (community benefit district) known as the "central market community benefit district" to remove the district-wide cap on annual assessment revenues; ordering and setting a time and place for a public hearing thereon; approving the form of the notice of public hearing and assessment ballot proceeding and assessment ballot; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to give notice of the public hearing and balloting as required by law. >>colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 71. >>item 71 ismarordinance amending the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to require hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the city registry prior to accepting a fee for booking a short-term rental transaction, and to provide an affidavit of compliance to the city and retain certain records; authorize the office of short term rentals to issue an administrative subpoena to obtain records; provide for civil, administrative, and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of their obligations under the residential unit
conversion ordinance; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor campos. >> yes pres. breed i am wondering if we can excuse supervisor farrell and supervisor campos. >>before you are the amendments of the resolution that i have amended with supervisor peskin. the intent with the ordinance is straightforward to require that hosting platforms to do business with law-abiding host to assure that they are not aiding and abetting illegal activity. after consultations with the city attorney about the air b and b legal arguments
that we know what they filed in the mitigation we agree that we can simultaneously address these items before you. these are designed to eliminate some of these ambiguities that the air b and b have latched on in their lawsuit. the amendments clarify that the city is regulating the business activity of platforms not website content which the air b and b has alleged. it is been made clear that they would not conduct a business activity where they would collect or book a fee for short-term units not registered with the city. let me just make a couple of points clear because for some reason questions came up when
supervisor peskin received this in committee it does not matter when they received the fee for booking services. for instance, whether they received the fee at the time of or after the booking it doesn't matter nor does it matter if they collect the fee directly from the host or the user words indirectly from the third-party. in any instance the hosting platform will be in violation once the registered unit is rented in its booking services. if the hosting platform has advertisements in these platforms and does not charge a fee and we have the example on craigslist then we could not verify this registration the fact is we need to make our current short-term rental wall enforceable. our current law is simply not working. without
an enforceable law, we cannot truly regulate short-term rentals to ensure that housing for residents of san francisco isn't being taken off the market from housing to engage in short-term rentals. the city's budget and legislative analyst found that air b and b alone took up to 2000 and entire units completely off the unit making those housing units unavailable to long-term residents of the city. our hope is that the hosting platform and the air b and b will drop their lawsuit and work with the county of san francisco to ensure that this industry supports, rather than harms, san francisco.it is only fair that air b and b and others help us to enforce the law when they themselves actually help to write the law. colleagues, i have circulated
the amendment or the amendments to the legislation and i ask again for your support. >>thank you. supervisor wiener. >>thank you. in terms of the amendments, in committee i believe it was yesterday i guess i had asked the question to make sure that this legislation was going to apply to all hosting platforms and i know there was a question about that and i have always been of the view that this was notbout air b and b or one company and this was about all hosting platforms and we need to make sure that our regulations are broad and not tailored to go after onecompany. i think air b and b has about half of the listings in san francisco so it's on our benefit that we
have this broad for hosting platform so i just want to make sure the supplies broadly to hosting platforms. >>deputy city atty. rob kappla the ordinance has originally had applied any hosting platforms to provide these are booking services and collect a fee for these services it is meant solely upon those who perform and engage in the business activity and perform a business contactor of providing that service for us.>>so, for example all home away or air b and b or whatever they call them they will connect you to
a service thenit would not be collecting a fee for booking services that type of transaction. several companies have different types of services provided and when they offer the actual calendar or reservations and accept the fee for those services that business activity would be covered. we are regulating not companies but business activities and conduct. we are regulating the fee and payment for services. >>with this have to be specific to that transaction or is there an annual transaction fee that's what i am getting at? >>it doesn't have to be specific to that payment if it covers booking and services that you provide too.
>>supervisor campos. >> just want to be very careful with this discussion because i don't want this to be in any way use for binding what the city's arguments areand i just want this to be fact specific our intent is to cover not just one platform but several platforms that engage in this business activity and the fact that they are not doing that and they are simply publishing that were not doing something else outside of the scope we certainly want to hear those specific facts and we've been very careful to make sure that we can discuss this that we don't bind ourselves because we also know that from each one of these companies