>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, we're going to get started please come in and take your square feet please come in and take your seats the meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of land use and transportation i'm supervisor cohen's chair and to my right is supervisor wiener the vice chair and count ii is supervisor peskin our clerk is ms. alicia and thank our friends at sfgovtv mark and manny for broadcasting this meeting announcements?

>> completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 12th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> all right. madam clerk item 2 we'll skip over item 2 and revisit it. >> item 2 a resolution authorizing the to grant a amendment under the state of california affordable housing and system for a project on eddy call two and three and . >> 3 a resolution for the mta to grant an agreement and relayed documents under the ahbp as a joint applicant with mercy housing on fell street. >> thank you very much so the mayor's office of housing the controller and the budget analyst are still with us with

potential changes to the particular items and asked we continue those two items to the next land use before i do that i open up for public comment to see if mop has come would like to comment on items 4 h woven woven or two a soft chime seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you colleagues may i have it motion to continue to the july 11th meeting. >> so moved. >> without objection that motion carries unanimously thank you all right. can you call items 4 and 5 together. >> ordinances accepting the irrevocable acquisition facilities associated with the

south bay and trust particle 14 p-26 dedicating them for public use and naming the park mariposa park bearing from the dpw welcome the floor is yours. >> good afternoon barbara public works two items the first is the acceptance of public infrastructure with block 13 in the bay i'll show you where that is computed streets in the facility of portion of channel street and el dorado north and el dorado south the project is krushg of infrastructure on the portion of the streets noted the developer requested the terjsz of - deemed the public improvements

with the approved plans and specifications the director of public works has said the project is ready along with that before i conclude we have a similar action which is the acceptance of mariposa park and that park is noted here in green whoops can't see it pardon me this is p-6 those public improvements are constructed in accordance with the mission bay park specifications and the director of public works issued a nose the project is complete in both cases the city planning has determined the acceptance of park as well as the public improvements as noted in the streets surrounding the area

are consistent with the city's general plan and 8 policies with the planning codes section and not to trigger any faster ceqa the office of the community has said the improvements are consistent with the development and plan documents we request the land use productive and recommend acceptance of public improvements i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> seeing no questions i think we'll go to public comment. opening up for public comment on those two items items four and five okay public comment is closed. seeing none here colleagues, any questions that you may have dpw or we also have staff from supervisor kim's office present as well as ocii to answer your questions all right. well colleagues a motion store

those two items? supervisor wiener can i have a motion without objection that - a >> madam chair they're out of committee reports. >> that's correct without recommendation. >> without recommendations referred out to the june 28th referred without recommendation. >> thank you without objection that motion carries consummating. >> item 6 the term sheet with brood with the hotel featuring the zoning and public parks and open space and the ancillary on seawall lots thank you court staff with us this afternoon to present. >> my name is ricky the development project sponsor are the planning and development of the port i'm excited to be here

today to report on that item i'm going to provide backward and then touch base on the highlights of the term sheet and then recommend i mean ask you're positive recommendation of this to the full board. >> do i have control over these slides. >> yes. you should have control are you having trouble. >> oh, there we go. >> yeah. i have it. >> thank you. >> the a former tenants in good standing the port entered into a leased with them in 1999 to use a portion of pier 27 and

29 for the theatre proclamations as you can see on the slide that's the old location and the current location is seawall 3, 24 i'll get to tie in a minute in 2001 the lease was maturing terminated to accommodate the america's cup and the construction of james r. herman terminal on pier 27 part of that combination was the theatreal satisfaction of the preconditions they'll negotiate a lease for the seawall 24 one of the conditions is coming up with a project design it is impartial with the location of that site that is the northeast waterfront historic conservation district the site of this subject matter is across from pier 9 with 4

lots seawall 3, 24 and 23 and 3 stopped between those two passages the need to for budget design that is comparable with the site location theoretical is a project that requires the entire sites of seawall lots and adjacent lots - and last year in may the port commission directed the staff to come brother the board to seek a waiver from the competitive boyd process we went through the committee and the board provided the waiver in may of last year to allow the port to enter into an n n a

the resolution that is adapted last year was that the port work with the port and developer work with the community conducted extensive outreach for community button input to make sure the design a k345sh8 with the development and one of the reasons for gratifying granting that waiver was the uniqueness of the theory california being an icon and 98 of the admin code to retain the icon in the city - as indicated a a hotel that we include one and to 2 homicide hotel as space for the theatre

for public open space total development cost for this project is currently at one and of 24 million of which the $4 million will be provided in quantity and the balance in equity no port funding for this development very quickly the highlights of the term sheet we're proposing a 50-year term initial term with an option for a 15 year term the reason for 34 year to attract buyer equity and allow for the amortization of the development with an lda a lease development disposition agreement that covers the period of construction and they will be paying the port $50,000 a year during that period and they will have 36

months to complete those requirements on that lda the rent structure calls for a base rent a percentage rent participation rent the base rent is a minimum base rent they'll unpaid pay the port regardless of how it is constructed i'll go into a little bit more details the percentage rent will allow the city and port to participation in the upside and special rents for the finance of the project for the city and port to get a portion of those proceeds during the entitlement process before we turn the proprietary no cost to the port because it will be paying the transaction costs the pier occurs involving

the time and the e n a as part of this that is in the term sheet at benchmarking to move forward and one of those exclude that he fulfill the construction on time and the port is not paying the rents but will complete the construction on time to need to make liquid dictated - the lease will be coming back to you for approval before it comes to you - >> as i indicated just to show the number as part of direction that the board of supervisors gave us we need to get an

appraiser and hire a consultant to make sure the port is getting a valid lease indicated on that slide the current represent or the proeblgd rent the port will be receiving is not lease or not developed and used for packing the bottom of the charged is indicating the rent during construction which is during construction the rent will be 80 or $90,000 and during the operation the needle is 9 hundred and 15 thousand the percentage rent is way higher in the package on this item to wrap up i'm going to quickly highlight the project benefits within this is a wonderful

opportunity to develop this site which will be architecturally fitting to the district a public open space that is privately financed as well as the construction costs and the maintenance of that park appropriated during the term of the lease it is currently one and 50 jobs will be provided up to three hundred and part-time jobs and that revenue it beneficial to the park the estimate is 7. $8 million that will be generated for the city for the one time impact fees and an afternoon of $9 million every year of the project as a minimum and of course the project will be meeting many communities ufos

and benefits and, of course, with the theory design in the city this is just a shot of their - of one the events back on pier 27 that concludes that presentation we do recommend that you provide a positive recommendation to the for the full board to endorse this term sheet thank you. >> thank you very much for your presentation colleagues, any questions based on that presentation that was given art seeing none, thank you why not go to public comment at this time i've got several cards that are in front of me just why don't you guys line up

first (calling names) all right. >> supervisors mike san francisco trades council i'll i couldn't the substantial little contingent in the northeast corner of room to show their support for this project one of the first projects that i considered had i took this position some years ago now back in 1995, of course, 2005 another project permitted for the same location in embarcadero and another hotel we didn't end up support that it didn't garden support and that project went

down but a real need to have the functions that absolutely need to be severed so for the port and city like the recession of the seawall good to see a viable project to come back for approval and we support that project i want to enforcement the proponents for their outreach to the community they've reached out to us early and often and done so to organization that have actionly been a.d. series and ask you to approve the project thank you very much mike next it bill. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm bill i've president of the golden gateway and the active president of the barbary coast

our members live smack date of birth next to the project and the folks have done a great job of an outreach one of the plans the designs are happy with the project will stay with the existing height limit of this location we hope very much you'll endorse the term sheet and wish great success to the development of a new magnet a new attraction for the waterfront i have letters from the vice president of barbary coast neighborhood organization for each of you i'd like to leave. >> thank you. next speaker a christen. >> hi thank you for your time and in the in the interest of time i'll consolidate what i wrote by my name is christina resident in san francisco over 24 years my privilege to build

my craft as a singing all over the with one of the greatest actors like jones bye he's and others today, i represent the many proefrmdz as well as 21 countries around the world for the contracts here in san francisco angle appetite for new cultural and exactly the modern form of theatre for the people in the audience they release they're not just observing a show but part of it being part of the italian community even broadway and embarcadero is perfect for our hotel and athlete the artistic nature it very important tourists and locals expect san francisco to have permanent venues 2 fit our

unique population and style i absolutely love san francisco and all the windfall performing opportunity but it is allows me to grow as an artist an good enough felt artists i'll asking the land use and transportation to recommend you come back to the wonderful waterfront we really have to have this as a permanent place for people from all over the world to come together in peace and celebrate life and love and choose and diner thank you very much. >> fantastic thank you (calling names). >> thank you, supervisors my name is lee if i may have the opportunity to digress i want to thank supervisor peskin and the board of supervisors for their letter of june 8th expressing their condolences attire the regene it

was seller precedent by your payment. >> thank you for that as far as what i'm here representing we support the endorsement of the term sheet and southeast 23 and 24 they've been good neighbors for many years on the waterside and have the opportunity to develop on the west side and look forward to their commitment to continue to be good neighbors as we know they've been in the many years 2, 3, 4 the past we ask for your enforcement. >> thank you. i'm an actor and singer and producer and dancer and choreograph for wonderful arts katie perry and madonna and michael jackson and

was in films in honors i've performed all over the world my experience has been by far the highlights my first contract was here in san francisco and it blew my mind really difficult to describe the experience 7 of being intimidate with the audience and hear people breathing and talking about while i'm spinning around it is a unique variety american variety tradition and i know of no others american venue that applies the diversity of artists gay and straight and american chinese and young and old and currently performing and our casts ranges in age from 13 to

83 with tony award-winning spitfire lillian leading the charge in this show i perform a physical trap he's - there was what woman is approached me in tears and seen her mother crippled and couldn't be valued at a certain age. >> thanked me i couldn't do when i do unless you have the philosophy that celebs women of age that's one of the many stories please help us come back thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. is deborah. >> i've been a designer and theatre artists for 40 years or

probably longer since 71 been part of counter cult and watched the city change not the counter kublt we're in a position to lead and everybody is looking to san francisco and seeing what is happening here it is on the top leading i'd like to suggest and hopefully continue to lead no to our support and belief of the arts and bring love and talents and fun and community back to the city and keep it in the city and thank you for listening thank you. >> the next card a (calling names) anyone else that want to speak please come on up that's fine. >> hi, i'm karen i've been a sfolth since 1998 i joined the circus a guest art and

purchasing agent and enjoyed many performs in san francisco and seattle i live and breath the artists i was in in front of and bind the scenes and felt the transportation that the actors have on audience as well as the unbeknownst bounded enjoy and cultivate of children leon skills and being part of this i'm irregularly the land use and transportation to support the sheet and recommend we come back to san francisco as soon as possible with the tents on the waft where it was part of multi use integrated hotel and project thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. community members i'm cynthia a research in fact, for the hotel workers union and here to support this

we support 24 as it went through the process and happy to support it we represent 12 thought hospitality workers in san mateo community and speaking on behalf of other folks as a union representative of hospitality 72 hours our concern when new jobs are created their jobs that lit out the working conditions for the hard working meaning that work in the hotels hotel developers have supported the good jobs by presenter no differences by the employers to form a union overseeing agreement are a double win they insure the jobs are good quality and guarantee they're free from costing labor substitutes they've worked with our units

and as such h such are setting an example we're pleased to support this and feel free to contact me if you have questions. >> anyone else that wants to speak on item 6 all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you colleagues, any last discussions supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair and to the members of the public that testified today. i think the gentleman point his finger on it years ago the previous proposal was remarkable controversial i was one of the people that believed we could have a project that worked at this site and it is delightful two years later we've come up with a solution it is with myly supported by the neighborhood, by local 2 and by the building trades i want to speak to the financial terms i believe that the port of san francisco and

its staff negotiated a complete financial passage in terms of what are before us obviously we'll see have a final agreement that will trail 24 and we will obviously look at being with a fine toothed comp this person an item that deserves our support and should send to the full board with a positive recommendation >> thank you. any other remarks all right. we'll see is there a motion? >> that's a a motion. >> that's a motion with a positive recommendation? >> yes. indeed. >> a motion with a positive recommendation to move forward without objection the motion passes thank you . >> (clapping.) >> all right. can we go back to item neuron ordering the summary strait as

part of pylon approving the troofrm to the rec and park adopting the appropriate understanding. >> thank you very much i want to recognize cassandra. >> thank you thank you good afternoon, supervisors chair cohen with the rec and park department i wanted to give give you a little bit of background on this item the protective before you will vacant approximately 200 and 6 square feet of pylon park which is under the - rec and park is a clean legislation this is maintained by the rec and park and stwrartd as part of pioneer park many transfers this to the rec and park the purpose of street vacation to allow for the installation of a small reechlt

kiosk the area is subject of many public hearings and was supportedcy the rec and park additional it has been discussed numerous times at the coit tower working group. >> flovbt the place to be vacated this is a community chosen location it is visible to the visitors of coit tower. >> the proposed kiosk will be 9 by 12 feet e feet and over

reeshlts this concludes my brief presentation. >> in the absence of our chair first of all, i want to acknowledge the work that rec and park has done over many years not unlike the last item that was off at the a rocky start but now a place into twitter are coit tower that has treated that it dpw era murals appropriately in the back of the passage of prop b and i think that mr. grim and his staff are doing a remarkable job and acknowledge that rec and park has worked with the surrounding community to find a better sites we've read in 2, 3, 4 mornings examiner not without controversy

that remains having said that, i think that fundamentally in order to achieve the number of different goals we're trying to achieve one of the preaccepts is this kiosk is fundamentally temporary and removable should this that experiment not work and banned in the future and rec and park or the termination of lease in the future and to that end i wanted to offer some language and i want to thank deputy city attorney lee for crafting it i've given to any fell committee members that provides a mechanism for the right-of-way, if you will, to revoter to the department of public works through the i am

position of an easement should in the future that kiosk be abandon or fall into disuse or terminate their lease agreement so i would subject to public comment madam chair and supervisor wiener like to add that amendment and with rec and park staff ms. casco and with that, i'm to hear in the public. >> great before we do that supervisor wiener has a few comments. >> thank you very much i'm glad to see that accounting just a quick thing what the the rational for converting this land back to dwp and other imagery paper streets. >> by the way, as my neighbor knows the telegraph hill is actually full of a number of

unimproved right-of-ways along filbert and greenwich and the notation is really to underscore the temporary nature and the suspenders god forbid rec and park abandon this provides another means by which the public works has the ability to remove the kiosk in the future should it fall into disrepair or use. >> i don't have a problem with the amendment i'm curious i have an example in dolores park where 19th street goes through that i've been i don't know if it is of a street we've been trying to get it vacated it seems to me it should be city policy when we have paper streets make sense to vacate the streets and transfer the property formally to rec and

park if supervisor peskin wants to proceed i'm fine but 23 this is the general approach. >> not to sound legalistic but the fee title will transfer from dpw to rec and park and under our chapter will remain are rec and park but dpw will reserve an amendment. >> thank you very much let's go ahead and go to public comment. folks anyone interested in commenting on item number one thank you. well. >> pardon my hat when i told my dermatologist she would you were loving people i'm a member of pioneer park project i was contributing a significant

amount of money to the park and glad the name is coming back into public awareness we do appreciate the improvements that is come from the coit tower and we're encouraging this to be approved mostly in the name of helping coit tower and the procession to continue their business i agree that the concession stand the refreshments stand is temporary i don't see with any problem with the removal and thank the gentleman for the long term that stewardship and many of the other neighbors in the area as well as their support for the restoration of the murals and the refurbishment of that iconic city landmark.

>> anyone else that want to speak all right. public comment is closed. >> supervisor peskin another motion. >> madam chair move the amendment that i've distributed and given a copy have to the clerk set forth on pam number 4 at the bottom subsection two subsection d into page 5 and then with that amendment and send this to the full board with recommendation. >> we'll accept the amendments and move 24 item as amended to the full board supervisors you lived with recommendation and without objection. >> without objection. >> okay madam clerk i think we'll go back to item 7 that's correct. >> yeah. >> item 7 a hearing on the federal management the flood insurance and to solicit input.

>> i introduced this is as the city administrator's office for the city and public have a coordinated opportunity to provide feedback on the fema flood map every 5 years fema reviews the flood map with local governments and provides accurate an accurate understanding of the sea level rise change to the flood plan insurance requirement as you can imagine this is incredibly important and fema has presented to the port and airport including the respective fell tenants and to inform as you as we gather input from stakeholders at this time i'll call up jennifer and then after

jennifer we'll hear a presentation from fema officials that are here ms. johnson. >> good afternoon, supervisors again jennifer deputy city administrators as you may know the city has been a participant since 2010 it was created 50 years ago for the purpose of reducing the reflex posed by floods dhout the united states but having flood insurance for property owners and businesses and participating jurisdictions in exchange of flood plan management as part of n f i p has a flood map for participating jurisdictions which show the special flood hazard areas fema is currently publishing a firm for san

francisco that includes the appeals process we're in the admitted of that appeals process now the preliminary firm has zones that includes the airport and mission bay and bayview hunters point and the candle stick point and treasure island once a preliminary firm final list this the city has the special flood areas to implement the provisions of the city flood plan in the administrative code as the administrative code the city mists has all appeals on behalf of the city and county of san francisco our appeal deadline a august 1st to that end we've range for foumd to present a finalization and the impacts of the impacts present on behalf of fema is curtis from fema and others we have

representatives from the airport and the port should you have any questions. >> fantastic thank you to welcome the fema representatives the floor is yours. >> i'm edward an engineer from the fuchld office here from oakland our study let me get our slides on the - >> there we go. >> as mentioned we're providing new information and in the form of it flood insurance rate maps innovation with the flood program i'll be briefly spanking about the mapping process it is part of an overall

coastal mapping underway but for the oakland pacific cost and all 9 counties separates projects providing flood hazard information to the bay and, of course, for san francisco the two projects come together we issued a combined set of flood insurance rate map paeblz for the entire open coast of san francisco city and county including treasure island and the airport as well as those panels are issued as preliminary panels november 12th of 2015 we started a 90 day public appeal period ended on august 1st, the standard period for all fema promotions that result in a regulatory flood insurance rate maps during the 90 day appeal

period staff from the community, from and from the general public comment can submit comments and appeals to fema an appeal a technical challenges to the elevation of the flood that will be expected during a one hundred year flood once that closes we'll review and resolve any comments and make changes to the preliminary 3457z before their final we determine what is effective for the flood insurance map and based on the current schedule anticipate that by november of this year we would complete that process of resolving the comments and appeals and issue a letter of financial determination to the city and county of san francisco indicating 6 months the maps will be final and effective if

you stick to that schedule that results if effective maps may of 2017 that schedule could slip depending upon the time of the appeals we receive i'll stop and my colleague eddy will provide additional information if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is eddy and i represent the flood plan managed branch in oakland and i'd like to address in the next few minutes is how the new maps modesty impact 9 constituents and the city and county of san francisco i think that is important to know that those are preliminary maps at that stage the information that we'll present is more information purposes only and it ranges the full gamete of

possibilities so keep in mind with that said i'd like to address two topics the first is how the new maps my impact the development and the new construction the regulations for the national flood insurance program with respect to building and development are embedded in the code of federal regulations 44 cf r and 63 want 3 and the california building code their regulatory those new maps will have some impact on new development and improvements done to those believes that are impacted and that impact can range from minimal for those buildings that are in low risk areas like what

we call flood zone x a low to moderate range of flooding all the way to prohibition on new construction in areas where there is the highest risk of flooding like the 3 e zones for locations where new construction is proposed for buildings entirely over water so the impact can range from minimal to relatively severe with respect to flood insurance and the financial impacts the maps are important because any buildings that has a federally backed loan in a flood zone a or v the special flood high-risk areas are required under the flood

disaster flood act of 1973 and the national flood insurance act of 1994 to have flood insurance so any of those buildings that will be proposed to be in a any type of a or b having a federally backed loans can have a mandatory flood it is optional in the low to moderate zones and available at a lower cost the range or the cost of flood insurance really various substantial depend on the level of risk so in 0 minimal risk areas where there is a low to moderate risk of zoning for commercial buildings and maximum coverage the flood insurance what range around $3,500 and

that can circulate to $24,000 a year for those buildings in the most hazardous flood zones like the e e and for residential property owners that range can go from low to 425 to a high of let's say $5,700 the flood insurance a based on the individual characters of each and every building we encourage the folks to talk to their insurance agents about the cost codify flood insurance for they're specific building and fema encourages autumn property owners regardless of their flood zone to talk with their agent about flooding 25 percent of the claims are out of the low to moderate flood zones and certainly x zones in the city of

san francisco where we would have situations that possibly the local stormwater and sewage system is over taken by the flooding events and if this event that flooding events meets the conditions of flood insurance those property owners will be deflected those opportunities available for property owners and the regulations and the flood insurance are really tint for preservation of life and property and to vote to limit economic impacts of flooding events that might occur within local communities as of april 30th 2016 two - one hundred and 6 of flood shiners policies within the city and county of san francisco

a thank you commissioner peskin your name on the list no thank you for your important information it is predicament to go to public comment at this time anyone wishes to comment this is item 7. >> landlord/tenant seeing none, public comment is closed. so colleagues thank you for hearing this item i make a motion to continue this through the chair. >> can you call items 8 and 9. >> items 8 and 9 resolutions urging the legislative for the housing approvals for the trail bill in recognition of san francisco housing crisis existing obstacles and planning and electricians to the regional statewide housing. >> so those items we are sent to committee from the full board

just a minute supervisor peskin and supervisor wiener will have i'm sure a few remarks i see commissioner stephenson's name and like to recognize him. >> thank you, madam chair as we are all aware in the budget process before the california states protective the governor has trailing legislation that would profoundly impact san francisco and other municipalities that currently have local planning laws that actually build much more on sight affordable housing than as provided for in the governor's by right legislation we attempted to take a position irregularly our stat logic delegation to either amend 9 governors trail bill proposal or if unsuccessful oppose it and the large project i originally

introduced has evolved no longer looking for performance based exceptions for the city and county of san francisco but more like mayor ed lee wrote to the governor on june 13th we're suggesting a number of very specific proposals i in an attempt to compromises or bring together the two different resolution one support by myself supervisor mar supervisor yee and supervisor avalos and supervisor campos together with item 9 sponsored by supervisor wiener have disdonated to both of - bring those two items together specifically like the governors bill to be amended with the support of our san francisco

protective delegation he particularly wanted to acknowledge senator leno that met wards to this matter but specifically like a prohibition on the demolition of existing hours a minimum bottom line for as of right approval for the inclusionary housing standards and a premium increase as determined by the technical analysis for the promotions begins construction between 12 months of their approval use it or lose it rather than a speech active entitlement and that major developments for local consideration approval as 3r0i9dz by local laws and with that, i will relinquish the floor. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair claernd those two items together i look forward to the discussion today

so i think when the governor first introduced the tailor bill to try to expedite the creation of housing in california regardless of where one is on the specifics of the bill i think we all agree the bill needs to be amend around the demolition issues so it didn't make it easier to demolish housing like the design review and so forth c but i think awhile some people immediately opposed the bill my reaction and the reaction of a lot of people was let's talk since it is opposing let's talk about how we can make that bill better and acknowledge we're in a deep, deep housing crisis not just in

san francisco not just in the bayview but various parts of california this housing crisis is streamlining the fabric of our state and in terms of who protecting, middle-income or working-class families are going to be able to continue to live here to not just those of us who are lucky enough to have housing and to be able to stay in the hours that is critically important but to make sure that the next generations is going to be able to come here and raise families here to make sure those of us who live here already if we have to move are actually going to be able to move it is a crisis of deep, deep deep significance to the future of this state and whatever you view in the governors bill i think that i personally and a

lot of us commend did governor for at least putting forward an idea to say the current states of affairs is not doing well in california with housing and that frankly are not doing good enough in san francisco on housing as evidence by the rents of $3,500 a month so after the bill was introduced supervisor peskin introduced his resolution and while i appreciate any efforts to raise those issues at the board of supervisors to have a discussion i have serious concerns with the resolution the initial resolution that supervisor peskin offend would put us in records an option to the tailor bill and in my view didn't acknowledge where we are

in terms of our housing crisis how we got here we need to do things definitely with housing that's the bottom line with me to do things definitely with housing the way for the last probably 50 years is not good enough and caused the problems we have today had you look at where we are in the bay area several million more people than 1980 and 200 thousand important than 1980 an comploitd population and when you have that kind of an exploding population you'll have an unbelievable expensive housing costs i have introduced an alternative resolution one that acknowledges the housing crisis that states the needs for more

housing that includes subtracted bloefrt but knows that is not enough and emptied below-market-rate housing is by itself not going to solve the crisis as critical as it is and seller certainly not solve the crisis for the marching by the resolution states the need to improve the process and also states the need to focus the governor's bill to narrow it to the focus of the heart of problem which is that when we have in various parts of california a zoning that allows for a certain number one number of units and density and height there are times when a process will force that number or that size down so have a parcel it is zoned put 50 units on it and due

to the local pressure end up with 18 units something like that that's the heart of problem that rezoning but the reality of the process is that you ended up with far too fewer units that impacts negatively both market-rate housing and subsidized affordable housing did resolution on the alternative to insure we have changes to the tailor bill not making easier the demolition of housing we're take into account the environmental and labor needs we're allowing for good design reviews is where we have well-designed buildings and that we don't have some of the really parolee designed buildings we've another times seen and making sure we have good streetscaping improvements and all the things we know go into good transit

oriented development i thank supervisor peskin for coming up with amendments and very much appreciate the merging or compromising the two resolutions, however, the amendments i've seen i don't think do that the legislation the amendments offend by supervisor peskin continue not to say anything about the need for more housing or the impede to new housing in san francisco those resolutions still puts us on record in opposition the resolution does as supervisor peskin mentioned specifically states that the current approval process still remains intact and says at the bottom of page 2 quote the improvements continue to allow for public review and local consideration as it is provided

by local law nrmdz didn't change anything the amendments that supervisor peskin is distributed they don't say anything about what i think is the heart of resolution i authored that is requiring compliance with locally adapted zoning in terms of the number of units and the height and putting a stop to the arbitrary reduction so i appreciate it but don't get to the heart of matter in my view not a true compromise i have specific questions about the amendments i don't know if chair cohen you want me to hold off but again, thank you to everyone. >> go ahead and go to public comment and then back to you supervisor wiener. >> thank you, gentlemen for your opening remarks i'd like to

open up public comment at this time (calling names) are you here oh, good to see you dennis (calling names). >> oh, excuse me - you're right. >> okay connie the brother has graciously offered me the seat my name is connie i'm one of the vice president of the san francisco labor council and today, i speak on behalf of the labor council we are the first thing i want to say all of what supervisor wiener said in regards to the housing crisis is there throughout the city it is a crisis and the bay area a crisis

and throughout the city a crisis nobody believes that more than working people in san francisco that continuing see people shoved out the labor council loves the agreements are standing in favor of supervisor peskin resolution and we urge the board of supervisors to a declaration 4 points that is that the governors proposed by right development proposal is a serious threat to all city's ability to protect the affordable housing imply collar jobs and small businesses and the environment number 2 the public's right to review and to participate in the development process and including the planning commission discretionary review is essential 3 the by right directly strengthens speculators to rush through the approval and

number 4 the by right policy weakens the city for greater housing affordable and protect the neighborhoods and i'd like to present this to someone on the committee it is signed by ace action chinatown community development center and human rights of san francisco, jobs for judges and economic development and the san francisco building and construction would you be able the south of market action network - >> thank you.

>> next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors that was a wonderfully diverse support and pride parade and today, i was cheered to read of the brave 4 hundred brave anti fascists that scatters the catalytic converter group trying to enter the state capital and this morning i was really pleased to see the vote of texas anti-abortion law urban constitutional and by right will not speed production of affordable housing it was a good weekend for the people but today, i ask that each of you support the advancement by supervisor peskin and his 5 colleagues urging the protective delegation to amend or oppose the boy right tailor bill the

resolution seeks to sustain your control over our land use prohibits the occasions of rent-controlled unit and protects the right to hire the inclusionary housing what is by right or for whom is by right for real estate developers and speculators under the cover it will allow the developers to build anywhere and occasion the rent-controlled unit and that's for whom by right takes for whom does it take it takes local allowing controls wow. and san franciscans that overrides the local jurisdictions and takes authority and taking away from the working class like the trans pacific for the national sort of try over the local jurisdiction by right takes a license to take

it is a taking please oppose that and support the supervisor peskin resolution thank you. >> >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors testing d 4 action the govern has good intentions but there was no community process he jumped into action that was without checking in with the rest of the state we've spent many years in deliberate efforts to guide future growth and to get more affordable housing in san francisco community plans like chinatown, van ness, eastern neighborhoods, have all been don't think community review and input what needs to go on in the rest of the state not necessarily hike here we don't want to

compromise support for existing hours support for our small businesses, retention of pdr jobs and so many other things we have to remember that the uc berkley report shows we'll not be able to get the rents down developers are interested in profit not building for the lowest common denominator we need to get our representatives in sacramento and their allies to amend or to oppose the trailing legislation most parts of california can benefit but not san francisco wench got a good process and a lot of housing not built and not being built because of lack of entitlements those are 14 to 20 thousand unions units that are entitled not the community process is holding up housing it

something else thank you. >> good afternoon with charm i'm here to support supervisor peskin measure for exempting san francisco and i agree with supervisor wiener it is we have housing crisis but i also want to bring up not only the housing crisis but displacement crisis and jurisdiction crisis and our communities 2, 3, 4 in san francisco that are standing to lose if they're not have community input and just another bone to the developers whatever they want without oversight or environmental impact and any input if the communities as an example i want to brought to your attention supervisor wiener that it was only maybe a year ago or maybe over a year ago thanks to your leadership the

corona heights was not having a moratorium on super sized homes because want community input and community opposition that you took the leadership and brought that advantage that benefits to that community so it is very important for to the community to have their input and have a dialogue with developers dialogue with the city and the planning department also i want to brought to your attention it was only a few months ago we/a brouhaha with the dpw and people in san francisco have's spoken as a result, the planning department since that legislation the property legislation the whole bunch of amendments that are going for your vote that are going to make that a completely different things we started off

with those are examples that demonstrate the city of san francisco is not the kind of place that fast tracking will work people will be opposing it and want to urge you to listen to your constituents and pass supervisor peskin legislation to the city of san francisco will be exempt thank you. >> good afternoon i'm sorry anastasia from district 8 we're here once again to consider the facts that one obtaining national supervisor has denied all the supervisors an up and down vote regarding supervisor peskin proposed resolution to declare our city

exempt from governor jerry brown by right legislation through consideration this by right tailor bill that didn't make it to become law and the attachment to the june 2015-2016 is seriously flawed and not the answer to what we need in san francisco housing policy it denies the residents the right to participate in shaping housing policy or have any input on community proposed by developers the convinces of the fast tracking without in sight and lacking community process involving all stakeholders will alternate the city of san francisco our historical heritage and would be disastrous please vote on supervisor

peskins xhpgs /* xpgs exception. >> hello boards my name is a 0 ross i'm a community activist with ace and also a community person that lives in the bayview i'm here because you know, i have a piece of paper that i can read off of i want to turn that over i want to speak from eye heart and sit down are supervisor peskin and his colleagues have a good issue will what needs to be done and supervisor wiener has an issue too what needs to be done we need to come together and speed up think outside the box and talking about what we can do jointly to make those things happen for our communities because it is; right we're at a point that housing is mrimd

limited for protecting and middle-income and more housing for those that can afford 35 hundreds a month for a studio and beyond let's sit down and workout we need to step outside of box and what had we need to do for firefighters and teachers we need to impact our community and the only way to do that sit down and work together per we have to come up with legislation to resolve those from outside the governor's office we need to have done here in san francisco we're our own leaders wiener knows and supervisor peskin knows the other board of supervisors know what we need to have done we need to sit down and work together to oversee and implement and make things happen because the only way to get things done is working together

we're all know that protecting and middle-income and workers in san francisco are having a hard time to live here the only way to work together i mean, we can't have those separate bills coming we're doing this and that - ross. >> thank you thank you. >> all right. >> next speaker. >> thank you. >> hold on turn the my case. >> hi, i'm a bayview resident and a residents you've seen my face i've asked the question by rights for who

this takes away this takes one way or the other away the community face we hold the developers accountable we see the inclusionary rights and the developers are more likely to provide affordable units based on the financial feasibility of their project but not based on the real needs of affordable units is it so really already shown that developers provide more affordable housing they will only when forced this bill didn't give that opportunity unfortunately, we're in a site for our residents to remain in the city and we can't afford we've not printed what has been created and basically what has been created is the pay to play ment outlet if you can't - it makes

me sad as a san franciscan you've not seen me i've given up and disgusted and frustrated with the democratic process ♪ country unfortunately, the people are at the top of being more prioritized then the people at the bottom i believe in my heart if something didn't happen definitely with our government represents for them to start representing the people versus the privileged class of people that are the minority in this country there's going to be a demonstration of resistance i'm just being honest i pray every night for peace but the only i'm ready to- unfortunately, there are people that are - >> good afternoon, supervisors

tim colen, san francisco housing action coalition. first want to express i guess my amazement that people are spending in 70 santa monica that hey we don't need the by right we're doing such a darn good job in san francisco that contradicts every position as well as i recall in the stayed rational for prop c the trusting and prop k and the affordable housing and mission moratorium prop a the bond and the most recent prop c it is certainly not what is discussed in the mission district we have a problem with affordable housing the idea of exempting ourselves with changes not responsive to what we're facing i know that is important to recall what governor jerry brown has said number one

localities the cities in california you don't get it not adding the crisis the city and number 2 not possible under any raechlgs of realistic economic somewhere we can subsidies our problem without disastrously flowering the how many amount of housing in that sense supervisor wiener has it right. i would hope that we could somehow reach consensus we will somehow keep all the local controls and achieve a different result isn't that a request for the status quo let's defend the status quo the governors is proposing something different i think he is the right of it we had better

start producing much more housing if we expect to have an impact on affordability the protective analysis office a bipartisan group and the reports tare putting out should be read at every level of government i think we support the by right proposal as amendment and a lot of very good amendments by serious housing and anti poverty groups that makes a lot of sense and easy to support but requires a dramatic turn thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors jim lazarus chamber of commerce as i've said before this problem in san francisco is back decades we down zoned our neighborhood and make it difficult to build within the zoning let alone we

can't pass out felt board legislation to allow a slight as as trade off for more forecast and point to our neighbors rightfully around the bayview and the state they're part of problem when the affordable housing on an old industrial sites next to go 101 the neighbors 4 problems and don't see the appropriate paths to create affordable housing throughout the 9 bay area counties every permit effecting housing is subject to an appeal which is not the case i building in any others city and county in the state of california we're not part of solution we have to change maybe we have the guts to look at our zoning district are lose and look at it what is appealable or not how do we fast track in every neighborhood in

san francisco the governor's proposal is a small step to deal with it on a statewide basis appreciate supervisor peskin amendment and hopefully between now and the board meeting supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin can come together on one piece of legislation that contains the immediate amendments to work in every city and county in the city and county of san francisco. >> next speaker, please. >> come on down. >> thank you i don't need to do any of this stuff the housing crisis was very bad when then mayor newsom did the sro project correct one do one storage lockers come on you guys can put those in every says that the city owns those are very, very beautiful homes i mean i'd like

to live in a storage locker like this if you can't get it together to use storage lockers to solve the homeless crisis then you need to look at it again those are very inexpensive they're beautiful homes you can make into a in his place was all the water on one side and make sort of like a submarine in world war ii i'll tell you what if i had a beautiful storage locker with you'll see metal fixing i can put it anywhere those thanks can, stacked sky-high in you canned figure out i've designed a storage locker designed they use for offices all over the world all you have to do is put me in charge of the housing crisis i'll form and committee and be the housing guy that does

storage lockers i'm not kidnapping i'll show you how to do it is easy and by the way, have a good day i like commissioner peskin a lot and supervisor wiener and the board of supervisors have a great san francisco day love you very much. >> thank you >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm the policy manager forever the mission development agency we are proudly now the housing vendors and getting seven hundred and 50 affordable units in the pipeline over the last 15 years one and 50 or so we urge the stronger support of supervisor cohen's to oppose or amendment it we've seen displacement and lost one third since the latinos and the displacement is rampant not only for the population but the

businesses that's we're asking for basically to be able to maintain the public review of any projects for example, a project the monster in the mission the hugest in the history of san francisco and that note to have any type of public review at 15 and the bart station is a serious serious problem for our neighborhood not only our the supervisors but how to produce its and transform the advocacy agency said if you build affordable housing in the transit centers you'll twice as likely for the use of public transportation and also luxury housing they'll emit requester emissions and good ridership this proposal proposes to do allows affordable housing 10 percent near transit as opposed to outside of transit centers we also want to make sure we've

developed over 15 hundred lecturer units more than that 46 of the 101 bay area cities in the housing element and we could use more review of that during that time you know we've seen the displacement of population and without public review further continue to have savior income inequality we urge you to support this legislation thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> supervisors michael of san francisco building trades council that will be loflg if the developers can be counted on to do everything economically feasible for the communities in which they build unfortunately, that is not how the system works as long as it works in a different way the planning the entitlement process is bad and

i'm not a fan of being up to 2 in the morning retaining the function and the california trades council has counted out in opposition to the governors always of right legislation and asked to join we've done see the statement you had distributed by sister ford earlier is one that was approved yesterday we would hope that the governor's legislation could be amended to appoint it is useful and acceptable we are not going to count on that as long as we can't we're in opposition thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i actually pleased to follow mike from the building trades we've not agreed in recent

months, but this one we do it is broad opposition to the governors right bill it was pulled from the state budget two weeks ago not only the building trades by the cal federation and teachers and hotel workers and the local council on the environmental does the natural sources and the planning league and the sierra club are opposed to this bill and statewide 60 organizations from los angeles to the bay area all signed on a letter housing grown-ups and others sent to the dpofrn two weeks ago expressing the concern of this particularly in gentrifying communities it is loud and clear there are serious flaws the other interesting thing that boards amazing in april of thorough passed a resolution oppose an identical

bill by an unknown assembly plan to all of you but gotten the governor the tune is changing is it so the same thing so it basically says it overrides local consideration over land use decision makers we ought to be concerned and a lot of amendments substantive and good things in the mayor's and supervisor wiener the la county and lots of cool ideas where you start from we support this and therefore having number league of women around the edges we oppose this this is rally california and negative exclamations we ask you to support it thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors katherine howard district 4 resident i guess you can say aim angle open space and parks person i sport supervisor wiener we need the public input that makes the process better if you eliminate eirs and others discretionary reviews it takes away our - how about wind impacts without consideration of this and turn the surrounding area into a wind tounld tunnel shadows boxing is an impact of the community and what about the space are not residents of new buildings i've seen plans that make a mockery of open space with the interior courtyard not a space people want to spend

time in the public process gives the project for a community at large but for the new residents about the projects please support supervisor peskins resolution thank you. >> calvin san franciscans for community planning speaking in support of supervisor cowen supervisor peskin it is sponsor for us to keep fundamental facts before us san francisco produces more than 100 percent of its bay area regional housing needs from market-rate housing we've done see over 80 years we produce about thirty percent of our regional housing needs more affordable housing we have a housing crisis in san francisco that is about affordable housing not the approval process we have over thirty thousand projects in the pipeline now

there are 10 thousand almost near being issued are under construction in san francisco not one major project has ever been denied by the planning process in san francisco tens of thousands have been empowered and built don't quite understand who the problem say we have figured out negative impact san francisco that in order to build housing we need matching transit and community that have neighborhoods serving retail and housing to be afford by the people that work here, a massive investment in transit all of 3 escapes governor jerry brown in his buy right proposal governor jerry brown buildings more in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny than the hard heat process of community building housing

and sustainable community support supervisor peskins measure thank you. >> hi laura clark grow sf we certainly don't deny things in san francisco but marked did art of delay we add years to projects and we all know this is a problem we've been chronologically underbuilding in the bay area for more than thirty years and people that point you to believe that is somehow unrelated to the fact that rent is high those are two very related facts and i see no, he was that we have the political will to create the housing necessary in - to address this on a local level and beyond that i see no evidence we have the political will to force the nearby endurances that operates in our main source of people that are

working and living and need that community to come and - we have the problem in san francisco where we have this south bay issue and marin a no to bart and housing if we ask for a cut out ♪ san francisco we'll have cut outs for every city if the bay area and never address this crisis i think you all know that is true additionally i think that if we prevented a big source of funding for avenue is not the tax and fees on market-rate we are going to continue to dig ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole thank you >> from the san francisco tenants union the supervisors amaze support a resolution to support this i

urge you to follow that and support the resolution that commissioner peskin where wrote the tenants groups are concerned about little tailor billions it reforms all that power and gives to developers i understand you're concerned about the obstacles but it is critical that we don't allow the crisis to be a cover for wholesale deregulation it is true that regulations are obstacles they create obstacles for big businesses trying to create money and the only way to protect the public good ideas like the housing stock and regulations are bad i'll see that but who makes the regulations work for us i'll

agree it should be you and me and this city and not governor jerry brown in sacramento and what that bill will do if we don't amend it the way that supervisor peskin is talking about we'll give up that local control for towards the state and towards those big business interests they don't have the interest of san franciscans in mind and not trying to build affordable housing but we agreed we need 25 percent i'll argue we need more and they're under cutting the efforts thank you. >> i will not repeat what she said are calvin i'm loving my community about having the checks in what kind of building

and what is done and is the developer following through an what we promised we as a communities have that role with planning in insuring the development is that done is done to meet our needs and given that reality and know our history knowing there are those speculators that will try to find any and every loopt to build what they want about profit only is not about those bricks of the frame it is we who makes them homes but the small corner store that is the news giver who tells us who is born and died they've got keys for those who or forgot full and, have their groceries delivered late at night if you're a senior those make up the communities and that's us not the governor

telling us how and what we should and can't checks and balances and who is lou gehrig to pay what having overheard a conversation on the phone in the local bakery it was one landowner with 5 buildings he's being trying to evict people saying listen she's on this paying 19 hundred i can get another thousand so i was able to get her out of there and hell if those technically i didn't will pay i'll collect 2 thousand a month ballets be realistic about what this market is not inif i believe this crisis exists -

>> thank you good afternoon. i urge to support supervisor peskin the notion a one-size-fits-all law should reemit public participation in 57 diverse couldn't with 39 people and the 8 largest economy is a direct transfer of those rights to a few powerful interest rate groups and the tech industry the state protective should amend or reject this legislation and our local city government of government and should amend or oppose we've adapted the policies with a higher minimums than the state measure will be a monumental step baurtdz that

will be an local government to reilly's greed item 6 concerning the developments on portland is an excellent example why the mandate planning procedures results in projects that are wildly appreciated instead of projects with broad recreation this will bypass and ignore the protection of historical resources to bypass and ignore this restrictions are prohibitions an small businesses and artists and to dispense they will improve the projects please move supervisor peskin to the full board with recommendatio thank you. >> hi, i'm terry with the building program and together without allies i'm here to give

support for supervisor peskin resolution there is a notion that streamlining will make them less expensive to build and it will lead to lower costs to build housing that notion is absorb it is the high represent that people are willing to pay if there's enough hi ended market those folks will charge what folks are ready to pay like tech workers there is a bill that falsifies the tefsh if so about big tech corporations and venture capital last week benioff salesfroce said his tech workers are looking for housing those are at the back of people of color and soma half of the

major advertisements are build there on the backs of the working class community that by right will eliminate all the issues by concerns of traffic impact and population change if we want to talk about population growth let's talk about population change through is growth over the course there will be displaceed. >> good afternoon. i'm with the council of community housing organizations i want to say i agree with you age on the need to do something different not enough to put forth an idea because it is a new idea when it results in nothing what does the by right bill it cuts the public process and two according to the laments it cuts the developers costs busy devil percent without

any additional affordability it increases the developers profits by 12 percent and 3 no guarantee with the housing will ever get built a solution that based on deregulation not on the real need of building affordable housing so what is is it we want in signing on to this community labor alliance opposing the bill what sideing with the resolution provided by supervisor peskin we want if you believe that what you want is increasing market-rate housing prozac production you'll be asking for an amendment you have to. >> the cu or lose it actually build a unit if you want to taj mahal and two if you buildings this puts forth affordable housing you'll have for on amendment that puts a value mechanism that additional profit give to the vendors by the by

right is actually results in affordable housing and if you believe that public process of the kind we have in san francisco is not impediment us from building up a backlog of 19 thousand approved units that is 18 thousand units went through the planning commission and the kinds of things they're waiting to be built then you will keep the public process especially for large projects we urge you to support supervisor peskin resolution to oppose the buy right bill thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors i'm here to urge you to forward the supervisor cohen's resolution to the full board my reason a frankly the governor's bill raises questions the first one buy right for whom

and second bow right and third what cost the first question the analysis by the displacement project using the same theology affordable housing is more effect and in fact, in some situations like - most of eastern neighborhoods is far more effective and yet despite of that we're facing a situation in which we'll be required to have market-rate housing the second thing is what by right the previous speaker mentioned that there are some 18 thousand units of entitled housing in the

pipeline market-rate not been built now - backlog has built up since 1994 why? because the entitlements themselves are valuable and can be splatsd and traded the trade the entitlements bills no housing of any kind it does increase the development well and yet the third reason at what cost a fundamental city has many speakers said requires parks, requires traffic that didn't deadlock and it requires neighborhoods serving businesses and removing the cities to have a negative impact on such items will have a horrible cost to the city thank you and please support supervisor peskin - >> good afternoon. i'm 101

with the senior disability action he urge to support supervisor cohen's resolution and want to say the public process and input are mechanisms that may be this better eliminating the discretionary review takes away the democratic process how it impacts our communities there are in the wind and shadow and traffic and population changes are very important issues on how families seniors, working-class communities, move to schools and work and pedestrian safety how those concerns will be addressed without public process and again that is for those are built in mechanisms in order to make projects better thank you. >> hi for sf bay area we're

enthusiastic about the governors bill and supervisor yee's resolution supervisor wiener's resolution protects you know it protects our occasion controls that is the most important thing about the bill a lot of speakers are confused the governors buy right explicit interfere with the rule 25 after the buy right if sacramento will still be 25 percent so if anyone told us the governor's buy right with the local bmr is not true and not radical if anyone told us that was radical not in touch are realty buy right is the way the rest of the united states does land use it would, different

than california but put us in line with the rest of the united states the cities have the ability to zone their own cities the governor's buy right if you're city decides the apartment building to be built so it enforces local control what it does is keeps a small number of opponents from derailing a project because of the labors and want a labor process agreement or their because their neighbors into custody the buy right we have to ask ourselves after 40 years of allowing one or two neighbors to derail the projects i want to echo what was said earlier testimony that a vote for supervisor peskin resolution amendment will be a vote for the

status quo we had 40 years of our current system and not profited us thank you very much>> i. lone district 4 resident i want to comment on the previous speaker i'm not executive director. (laughter) i'm opposing the tailor bill as currently drafted trail o-7 intent to eliminate the local control over in any housing and eliminates public comment and review but any real review by the planning commission, planning department and board of appeals and board of supervisors the tailor bill 707 creates issues for development in the coastal zone i'm asking asking you to cack in solidarity by including language to include the coastal zone concerns and

finally this bill is the governors nostalgia as the mayor of oakland when we were over rode zoning and fired his planning director to create housing i'm supporting the supervisor peskin legislation >> >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a resident from hunters point i hear everybody talking and hey power with you all listen to this i'm 56 years old and you wouldn't believe my rent is seven hundred and 88 and that's all i want to say. >> okay. >> is there any public comment

that want to speak please come on up. >> i'm a residence of san francisco and i'm here to ask you to support supervisor peskin legislation i believe in local control of our housing and land use because we live here and shop here and pay taxed i don't think that is fair for someone that far away like governor jerry brown even though he lives in oakland but as governor not the right to tell the local people what to do with their lands we live here the reason i'm opposed to governor jerry brown buy right but it takes away the right for quality of life and the environmental reviews an important the public comment

allows our democracy to survive and if we can't have control over our neighborhood what are the other rights to determine what kind of city and what kind of neighborhoods to have in the areas that have you the most influence in so, yes, i think that is really important for all the techies to have hours not having to commute between here and silicon valley know that ad a green house gas emissions but than the throw the baby out with the bath water i'm sure once they find housing they'll care about the housing environment in their city we've got to find a mill ground and make use of middle ground to mother displace businesses to accommodate those

high-end polling people does not side with governor jerry brown and support supervisor peskins legislation thank you. >> all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. at this time. >> colleagues i'd like to make a recommendation we send those forward to the board so they can be considered together i wanted to check in with any final remarks. >> i'm fine with our suggestions madam chair first of all, start by thanking all the members of the public that came to testify as well as individuals that have been in contact with mri my office relative to the subject number 8 on today's calendar and particularly wanted to thank my staff for their work on this let me start out maybe some of the differences between the two resolutions and i'm not trying

to be humorous and not make light but we're all entitled to our narrator how we got here there is not denial in the resolution that i've put forward that we are in the midst of a housing crisis many people like to talk about how we got here mr. lazarus talks about the rezoning of san francisco in the 19 san jose and people involved in politics that want to say the progressive board of supervisors 2000 i like to counter and remind them we've skoend and like it or not in the eastern neighborhoods and rincon hill the bloifrpt shipyard were the result of that expensive meeting progress that resulted in up zoning of the city in exchange

for more affordability for more density that is not new i also agree with the contention that there are cities throughout the state counties throughout the state including in this region not doing what they can and should do and one of the speakers spoke to a wide range of rebates that could be i will add to that in in cases it is racism and other cases it is legitimate issues of impacts on neighborhoods and quality of life by the way, let me say this not a loss on anyone in the room we will live in the descend it city on the seaboard and don't need a doctor as the mayor says the city bird is the crane we're building thousands and thousands of units we have tens of thousands of units in the

pipeline but very important as we engage if the business of democracy that we give people whether their cases are legitimate or spurus the opportunity to petition their government and have a say and as members of board of supervisors we precede over appeals as a judicial body we dismiss the spurus appeals and indeed last week as a result of that major project where a community-based organizations appealed a conditional use at 106 of market street just down the street in the tenderloin question ended up approving a landmark collision more affordable housing at one 01 hyde electricity it's precisely where the two resolutions part company i'm in receipt of an e-mail from spur

the planning urban research pro development think tank that raises the same thing that supervisor wiener raised which is on page 2 line 18 the resolution the amended resolution that is before us we've actually yet to amend includes a provision for an approval of major developments continue to allow for public review and local correction approval as currently provided by local laws we know in san francisco that process is actually helped us build more affordable housing we can quibble as happened ♪ community many times between various members of the board as to 40 percent is real or not and 40 percent is real on paper but in reality in the mid 30s i'm happy to have that argument ambassador higher than federal and state telephone and 15 and

higher than 25 happens because of the nature of those projects to be the subject of tough negotiations between communities and housing advocates and people elected members of the board of supervisors who want the right policy for san francisco i think that has to the simple ticks - look if you look at the things that the mayor and so forth in the letter of june 13th visually all the points that he has in the amended item number 8 but starts with a different tone the mayor says i write with overall support for the tailor bill but requests those key amendments that is simple

aromatics i think the - unless you make those amendments we'll treat that bill that was treated in assembly bill out of santa monica it is a pillow tactic the bottom line we need to get this piece of legislation right and important as i said before this was these items were sent to committee it would be nice in the city were speaking with one policy voice i believe that the mayors policy feel june 13th and the specific provisions on page 2 of item number 8 as well as the additional further be it resolved, if keeping what the words from the house of labor and not lost not often we hear

from a you think 23i9d house of lark from the building trades and seiu we specifically include in page 3 of the amendment some provisions that acknowledge that we should support competitive wages and provide apprenticeships we're to far apart, in fact, i feel like we're arguing over semantics i'd like to make a motion to accept my attempt to as best as possible peering those two resolutions together and if it is the will of this body to send both items to the full board they need not - they can go without recommendation and take that matter up at the for better or worse >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> supervisor wiener you have remarks. >> sure to clarify so

supervisor peskin your motion to amend with respect 0 your own resolution and put both without recommendation. >> thank you is a so a few comments and thank you to the members of the public for coming out and anytime we're talking about housing and land use in our beautiful amazing constrained city environment it is going to bring outs people's passions on all sides of the debate and the debate we should have this is the future of our city and whether we're going to actually meaningful fully address this housing crisis or put forward solutions not solutions and not help the situation one of the members of the public made a comment about it - we're building housing for

the tech workers and - that's not in any view what is happening with the housing we're building we have a growing population that started to grow before building much housing people didn't come here for that but wanted to live in san francisco and not gotten to together in terms of providing enough housing the housing weeed to produce in the city is for everything everyone who is in terms of who can move into that housing but make sure the people that are in housing today don't get pushed out there is so few housing with that lack of housing huge pressure on our existing hoefrt this is because we don't have enough housing that is what that boils down to

creating housing is not about new residents but making sure our existing residents can stay where they are i've heard comments about the governor's as of the legislation eliminates community input and again, i want to just to be clear when you look at my resolution i think probation officer peter coming down the pike said my alternative didn't say we sobers but work with the governor to amend miss legislation to actually honor zoning and allow for the number of units that are zoned while still having things like good design review and environmental and labor standards and locinclusionary t work with the governor instead of saying we oppose

and so there will still be significant community input for example, the community input that results 2, 3, 4 rezoning that is not line item local zoning controls and supervisor peskin is correct the board of supervisors has magnificently rezoning district rincon hill, etc. that all required a rezoning that was not up to the governor but rezoned we went through extensive process in market octavia, in eastern neighborhoods in rincon hill another treasure island and other areas as well as at the hunters point shipyard this is all zoning changes lennar and hunters point they had to get a massive rezoning so major community inputs a decade for market octavia decade for

eastern neighborhoods, of community input before this zoning happenings happened this wouldn't have changed o processes and that community button one iota we need to stood talking about the fact that the community process is probation officer with the - and the fact it will continue in zoning with what this legislation does go has nothing to do with with the major designing discussions earlier but once that rezoning with community input and give and take one once that happens we should honor that we went through a decade to rezone the eastern neighborhoods and in my district only val a 12 unit project 100 percent after that decade of progress and took 6 years to get that 12 unit project through

6 years and appeal after appeal after appeal and the board of appeals arbitrarily chopped it off eliminated the affordable units in the building why is that a good process and how does that hip our housing situation once with zone in place honor the zone and have good design review and local control over inclusionary and everything that that is laid out not changed by the governors legislation you you know the bottom line say we need to be doing things definitely i feel like a lot of the options to this legislation and the desire to exempt out san francisco and every city in california to, exempted out is really is just feels like more of the same and more the situation with $3,500 that is

someday 5 thousand average rent or 6 thousand average rent this is an opportunity to engage in a thoughtful dialogue with the governor to try to come up with a better system for housing ♪ california that's why i introduced the alternative legislation us i think we'll pass it at the board of supervisors but support putting both resolutions how the with no recommendation >> thank you. >> commissioner peskin did you have. >> i'll reverse my breath for the full board. >> that's a good idea. >> okay. so let's see we need to take supervisor peskin amendments and accept them. >> to his own resolution. >> to his own resolution. >> you have that madam clerk as amended.

>> thank you and -- excuse-me. >> i want to make sure i gave you the amendments. >> no, but i received e-mail would like to entertain a motion to move items 8 and 9 item 8 as amended to the full board. >> without >> puc madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >>

>>[gavel] >> i'm commissioner mark farrell. were joined by commissioner's london breed and aron peskin. i'll take a moment

to thank those members of sfgov tv covering today's meeting. mr. clerk please call the for some >> item 1 rollcall. >>[roll call vote]. >> we have a quorum >> thank you very much. mr. clerk, called unexciting >> before we do that with a motion by commissioner avalos to excuse commissioner tang. she might be back in a little bit. she's at a conference outside of our building right now. so second by supervisor breed. we can take that without objection. >>[gavel] >> could you read the consent calendar >> neck item is item 2, consent citizens advisory committee report. >> good morning commissioners.

there are four items i just want to briefly touch on today. item number six the k [inaudible] questions focus on great highway tree maintenance and second street project. on the great highway project any questions were deferred until this month meeting at which will have a broader explanation of what's going on with great highway project. second street ,, a lot of improvements are being made on the service level and one of the major concerns was what happens when the cover happens for the tdp a work. the csu told all the current work is being planned in disposal will be begun after that and cover work is done. item number seven transportation fund for clean air program. csu may have a lower cost ratio. if there

located in neighborhoods identified as being areas where populations are most vulnerable to air pollution. item number eight, the [inaudible] corridor electrification project could there was concern one of our members and vehicles would be ada compliant given the multiple levels of the train height freight door-this is a concern of some of our cac members. finally, item number nine the local transportation measured and expenditures plan. this short timeline of the now charter amendment is a bit of a concern. as was really do need for new funds. one of our members objected to new funds being sought for when we have prop k in place. i would like

to add on this measure, on the charter amendment, if the seconds the sections within it are little more fleshed out as they are, were in the non-charter amendment. you know what i'm trying to talk about. anyway there were two routes we could take. the charter amendment things are a little less fleshed out as far as the categories are concerned. so, if those categories could be a little more expanded upon that would be advisable. that's all i have >> okay thank you very much. colleagues have any questions? >> just one question the minutes noted those one members within absent. i don't know if that individual is automatically suspended >> that's correct >> do we need to replace that individual was the way that individual becomes on suspended or how does that work with >> i think that's on today's agenda. next agenda meeting. >> that's correct. brian

larkin is seeking reappointment buddies unable to attend the meeting today. so, consideration of his reappointment will be considered next. >> is that a function of the suspension requires reappointment? >> correct. >> okay. colleagues any further questions? thank you very much it will open this up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> do we file or continue this i'm? >> just next item >> next item mr. clerk >> item 3-5 comprise the consent calendar these items are contained considered routine can staff is not prepared to resent. any items may be removed and considered separately >> colleagues any questions or

comment on the consent items? seeing none, anyone wishing to comment on items three, four, five on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> will call vote >> on the consent calendar, avalos aye breed aye farrell aye peskin aye the consent calendars approved >>[gavel] >> please call the next item >> item 6 amended allocation of $6 million in prop k funds with conditions of probation and $75,000 in prop k funds rate request subject to attach the scope your cash flow distribution schedules. >> thank so much >> good morning the measures. deputy director for policy and

programming at the transportation authority. we have 8k request for over $6 million for consideration today and these requests are leveraging over $23 million with the non-prop k funds. as we are pulling up the powerpoint presentation i will continue. the request from the san francisco meniscal transportation agency mta is for rail state of good repair functioning, so the-this would be to reshape the rails for the optimal profile [inaudible] embarcadero stations. this will offer the rails to be in a state of good repair in advance of the light rail riding in 2017. it also reduces noise and improves rail quality. this project will leverage federal funds. it is a great highway below. this is a public works project and this was referenced in the opening remarks from the cac. this is a project to convert that you look down lanes to single bidirectional lanes in it would allow for the two

current southbound lanes create space or paving, if you will, for the south ocean beach multi use trail which the committee will see next month. that is a recreation parks department of public works the permit will be sponsoring a prop k request on behalf of. this project is for slogan skyline and to do the design phase of the project, the construction will be done by spring of 2018. the next the project is for street repair and cleaning equipment. this is one of three annual request you'll see today. public works is requesting funding to replace street sweepers that exceeded their useful life and now out of compliance with state and regional air quality requirements. public works is under a deadline to place these street sweepers by the end of the year and so we are recommending finance cost neutral strategic plan amendment. to advance funds in this category with a corresponding delay in funding

street resurfacing category without negatively impacting any projects. in keeping with the prop k. >> just a question on the. is there a plan to replace the whole fleet? how much of the fleet is this a part of? that needs to be replaced? >> i will ask public works representatives to come up and speak to that. these requirements apply across the board. >> will get to that in the presentation. >> okay so the next request is the public sidewalk repair. as a manual quest for prop k funds to replace damaged concrete around city-owned street trees. dpw prioritizes locations with accidents and complaints and excessive damage. all work will be done that this fiscal year. next request is for tree planting and maintenance. this is also an annual requested public works will replace empty

trees and anti-basins for about 375 trees. also, will stylish young trees and making mature trees around public rights of way there maintained by public works. next request is for the district 11 neighborhood transportation improvement program planning project as per the geneva and san jose intersection study. this is a prop k request per $100,000 in funds as well as $50,000 in balboa station stakeholder funds for prioritized project coming out of the balboa park station community advisory committee which this project does. it will 12 short medium and long-term regulations for the intersection in vicinity of the intersection including passenger access to muni oceanview. will be correlated with a host of other projects going on in the area and as well as other departments and stakeholders that we participating in various different design charrettes and

outreach that planned over the next year. the final report will be per next summer. it is for the local match requirement to federal one date. grant for the second street improvement project. using this project several times. this work complete streets including project from-to market and construction is slated to begin right around the turn of the calendar you. with a three-month duration. the last request is from the mta and joint request with the transportation authority for $150,000 in the program support funding. this allows us to work with stakeholders and the commissioner's office to develop the projects that have been eventually presented to you for allocation. i am available to answer the questions. as always agency representative's >> thank you. jim and avalos >> thank you. just a question on the sweepers. we are replacing verifies and what part of the fleet is looking to

be replaced and how much will this impact the overall effort on that? >> i did rachel alonso transportation finance analyst of the question i don't have the total size of our fleet with the right now. we are seeking prop k funds to replace five street sweepers. there's another 20, at least, we also need to replace which we diverting other funding to accommodate. >> grades. the other 20 that are being replaced, when those are replaced, his second cover the entire fleet that needs replacing altogether? >> that should. at least of the street vehicles. were trying to meet all the deadlines we can to minimize any impact on our operation. it is my understanding, is a citywide concern that central shop has been coordinating with the bay area air quality management district. >> grades. thank you. then the other one you might be able to answer the answer question i have around trees and sidewalks.

we also have two pending charter amendment that about addressing trees and sidewalks >> yes >> what is the amount-this is generally amount of money that dpw receives from the-every year >> yes >> so this is baby for--we have limits about how much we can did every year from pop k for treason sidewalks. is that correct? >> these two categories function in a truly annual manner so they get one 30th of their share with the 30 year life of the expenditure plan. on an annual basis. >> okay so what would that be in terms of our allocation? >> is equal to the amount requested is about 5-600,000 for sidewalk repair and about 1 million for trees. >> great, thanks >> okay, colleagues any questions or comments? will

open this up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> mr. koepp >> same house and call >> same house, same call without objection >>[gavel] >> item 7 recommended seven approval of the fiscal year 2016-17 transportation fund for clean air projects. this is an action item >> good morning. transportation planner. tfca is a program that seeks to improve air quality for vehicle emissions. tfca come up for for dollar [inaudible] to be administered to the county level by gauges including the transportation authority here in san francisco. for fiscal

year 16-70 we have $972,000 available for programs and projects. however, we see the application about $1.5 million. two applications were subsequently withdrawn for further project development we still don't quite have enough to fully fund our remaining four applications. to develop recommendations for the competitive program we evaluated applications based on eligibility screening among criteria required by the adjusted as well as local expenditure criteria that are effective in san francisco. the distinguishing each of tfca projects must be across a threshold which vary by project i get a local eccentric criteria which the board approves in february jobless prioritize applications and we look at factors including project type envisions reduced, readiness of the project given the district it sits on having projects keep their life span of two years. so, i hear the priority project type included in our local standards or criteria. this year we have 30 missions non-vehicle project applications as well as one alternative fuel vehicle application. so a funding

recommendation is based on the criteria and also informed by working directly with project sponsors. we are recommending fully funding the three projects and partially funding the fourth project. to go into a little bit of detail on the projects themselves, the gator past invitation project would help san francisco state implement new transit pass for students get the students voted to approve a fee to cover a muni class past as well as a 25% discount on bart. the project would cover the start across including providing the students with a cover card that's tailored to the project. that will be specific for san francisco students going to and from daly city station. as well as covering some of the technology we need to influence the project. additional funds would come from mpc four we programming the clipper card system and i can also be used to replicate this project in other locations. our recommendation is contingent on the project receiving approval from other partners. next emergency ride home has a long tracker of providing

reassurance to commuters who don't use car transportation option. in cases where there's family emergencies a change of plans, versus the normal commute. this year the program would continue from being solely employer-based to targeting participation by more individual commuters. next, the alternative fuel incentive program would provide a rebate for taxicab companies that purchase new alternative fuel vehicles. sfmta eight expect this to be about 77 vehicles mostly hybrid. also anticipating three electric vehicles which is unusual in taxi fleets as well as three accessible natural gas vehicles. finally, the short-term bicycle parking project would

insult 672 racks and locations where request for additional bike parking has been made. the proposed amount is about 71% of sf mta's request. we don't have the resources to fully fund all the requests in this project with the least cost-effective of the applications and it's also scalable project and bike parking can be funded via pop k. >> currently, where do these [inaudible] >> they're all across the city. i do not sf mta wants to comment. they're very broad and we funded short-term bicycle parking through tfca a couple times in the past. a lot of times [inaudible] around town be funded through this project >> mostly like emergency bikes? >> yes. small businesses and things like that. any other questions? >> colleagues, any questions or comments? we will move on to public comment. anyone wishing to comment on item number seven? >> supervisor, my name is nick just afterwards. i'm a director of the [inaudible]. i guess hereto come talk to in favor of

the data passed allocation out of the funding. i think it's incredibly exciting, 73% of the sf voted for this. the taken action into their own hands by imposing a small fee on themselves just to help make that transportation option incentivize cleaner and transportation options make transit more affordable for students and it something that we support overwhelmingly at bart and we think it's highly good program i could get rolled out another universities across the region. in addition, it's also particularly relevant at the state level because there's a bill 80-22 which overwhelmingly passed the senate but the assembly, sorry, which is in consideration with the center which take some of the greenhouse gas reduction funding and applied to subsidize student transit passes. this i think would be also a tremendous -this program would also help

with that discussion forward at the state level and provide additional momentum to that bill, which is supporting strongly at bart which i personally also will hope will pass. it thank you-very much. also, to tfca staff. are working with but were not always the easiest to work with and for the supervisors for considering this. >> just a question. how do we get the 25% discount four-was her never to have a much higher? >> we want to try and maximize trying get the discount as high as possible. it's going to be it 20 very depending on sort of the take-up of the discount. we i think muni and bart came to a similar place where we were trying to sort of take the money that we were going to be

receiving and apply it to generate the highest discount to the riders that were using it. i would hope, if maybe 80-222 passes we can make that discount larger and i personally hope that parts and look at its system more broadly to see if there's a way of doing a fair system which is more need space rather than just sort of everybody paying the same thing. >> then, are other states and uc schools looking at similar- >> yes. as soon as we started moving at sf state we started getting calls from universities across the parts this. we got about 57, berkeley is really excited about this. then the discount program with transit but they have not had discount program with bart. san jose state is also really excited about this because bart is going down to san jose and i think they're keen on it.

there's a bunch of community colleges in this of the fremont area which of reach out to us try and sort of put in place a similar style for them. we said that we want to work with everybody, but we remain to get this first project off the ground to show we can do it. then once we've done this will hopefully make it kind of a program which other people can opt into. >> is there any reduction to vehicles now travels the measured in this? >> it's minor staining that sf state has to do because it size under san francisco mandate, it has to do regular transit transportation studies. which measure the production as well as a bunch of other sort of related activities. they done one recently. coming out of that study, one of the main recommendations to reduce the mp would be to subsidize transit. so, that was i think

not to speak for sf state, that was i think would hope that the ball really willing at. level but is much driven by the students themselves who i think didn't need to study to tell them it was very expensive state transportation. this am sf state students to come in all the way from fremont, from pittsburgh, where it's just very unaffordable to ride bikes or that long of a distance. i am-i'm pretty sure that sf state follow-up study will be measuring similar types of metrics and will be able to give us an indication of what this program is working on the bmc metric. i think from parts perspective it something tracking bart used parts usage and hope we will see a real couple of taken that as well. thank you very much >> thank you very much. just a comment on item number seven. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues from unless any questions or comments can we take that same house, same call

? without objection so moved >>[gavel] >> mr. cook >> item 8 recommended authorizing the executive director execute with conditions seven party supplement to the 2012 memorandum of understanding that adopted an early investment strategy pertaining to the peninsula corridor elective vacation project. this is an action item >> good morning commissioners. my name is-project executive to the authority. i'm going to hear today [inaudible] from caltrans. the corridor elective vacation project is a [inaudible] it has three main components. when is the communication-based overlay signal system which is a capacity train control for safety and operation effectiveness. the elective vacation line from san francisco to san jose and the procurement electrified multiple muni buses. in 2012,

nine stakeholder agencies executed a memorandum of understanding which established a funding framework for the project. at that time, the project budget was 1.5. which was based on an estimate from 2008. san francisco chair was $60 million. in 2014, caltrans had a cost workshop and determined that the cost was larger than originally anticipated even though everybody basically new in 2012 that the plans were going to be increasing. then, later on, this year, they received bids for the electrification and the vehicle contracts. so, they're

still the things resulted in an increase of $755 million. that was worth mentioning, that amount includes 120 million in installation and $369 in contingency. which brings us to the item in front of you today. which is a supplemental mou to provide additional funding needed to execute the project. in this slide you see the items in red show with the major changes occurred. the peninsula corridor empowers board members that contribution increases from one 80 million to 249. increasing the contribution of san francisco by $20 million.

in addition, there was an increase of $113 million of the contribution from high-speed rail and also from mtc bridge funds. the mou has some conditions attached to it. basically, it's a commitment in lower than the mou than the funding is going to be reduced for proportionally to each one of the partners. of course, if the costs are high than the partners will reconvene and discuss about how to come up with additional funds. another condition was that as a precondition to this memorandum all parties agreed oversight protocol, which has really been implemented. it something occurring as we speak it as far as the program they have an agencywide goal for 12%. this year they intend to increase that get the arty submitted to

mta to increase the goal to 14%. on december 14, we adopted a specific goal of 5.2%. there some challenges like every project, has challenges, good in this case one of the challenges is executing the agreement to secure all the funding. for example, the state funding has been the rail authority, they're planning on getting it executed in july, june-july timeframe. cap and trade award in august and the one that usually comes at the end, the fta core capacity grant is anticipated for december 2016. now, that date everybody agrees and understands that its aggressive good fta understands is aggressive but doable it caltrans is working as hard as

they can to make sure they can meet that date. the other item is that the [inaudible] is behind schedule but the city bus is not of [inaudible] so it's not going to affect revenue service. >> question on the state funding and cap and trade and the core capacity. what amounts are those we can expect? >> the cap and trade, is back in the table here. cap and trade is 113. >> that's for one-time? >> one time. yes. >> then,- >> than the core capacities 647 >> six 47 million >> yes >> what's this chi sra? >> i'm sorry. the [inaudible] >> okay. that would be how much? >> that's the one 13.

>> cap and trade? >> it's next. it's together. >> thank you. if those don't come in, and those amounts, a respected to make more on rns? >> yes. that was not the right answer, was it? there will be discussions to figure out how to fill the gap. >> okay w requests to fill the gap? >> there will be a request, i'm sure. yes. >> [inaudible] >> just to add, there are high-speed rail bond funds from prop 1-8 approve several years goes about 70 6 million. >> okay.

>> crazy thompson would count him and give you a brief update on where we are on the system and we were going in the future with electrification. so the shows the ridership for caltrans and that's really been dramatically the last six years. we almost doubled our ridership. the slide after that , i think it's baby catching up is another way to describe the ridership growth that we've seen. so, our top trains in the northbound direction are experiencing over 100% of feeder capacity which means people are standing which is pretty unusual for a commuter railroad across the country. it's also unique for caltrans that it's a bidirectional commute. 60% are doing the traditional commute northbound. the city for the jobs were asking for percent going southbound so also is sustaining in those directions and with the slide here, using these ridership numbers are taking in the little ridership month. there even higher during the high ridership month. on this life, this is a picture worth 1000 words. this is just an average day on a caltrans

train. during the day where we have special bands like giants games is much more much more crowded. on the next life, we hear a lot from our writers but we also hear from businesses along the corridor. in 2014, the group of companies appear along with others created a caltrans coalition and really focused on making sure there's alternative the writers cannot be on the congested 101 and 280 freeway and if there's an alternative for caltrans and the ability to increase capacity, they're extremely supportive of that. they been strong allies with us on this project. so that's a little bit of where we are today. i'm speaking to the need of why we need to electrify and modernize the project to speak mostly to electrification project because that's the one that were moving towards not good the cpc once construction is complete and were already in the testing phase. but

this is a reminder of the area we are electrifying. it's between san francisco and san jose. that's it. caltrans owns. -south of that is owned by union pacific. the project discussion is the overhead wires and those of the compatible with high-speed rail in the future. electric trains were going to get is a 75% replacement of the diesel fleet. so we will have some diesel fleet left with this project, but i'll speak to the future goals to have it fully occupied with the service up to 79 mi./h which is what it is today, when please the number of trains we have per hour from five to six and when the best things we do would be the electric trains were able to stop and start much faster than diesel ones. so, for instance, we can change your entire

schedule is that of our "only making six ops in 60 min. with electric intake image 13 stops. soul will have a chance to we do how we move people up and down the corridor in addition to just having more trains on the corridor. as i mentioned, the bmx fleet service for internal period and will continue to serve tenant such as ace capital corridor and amtrak that currently rides on the corridor today. this slide highlight some of the massive benefits we see with this project. obviously once for gas reductions going from diesel to electric but what you may not realize such as reduction and engine noise from diesel trained to electric train. we expect to see an increase in ridership and also some economic activity from this project. on the is the two major contracts. as louise, detailed for the cost of them it's really been a two-year process to get to where we are today. when negotiating with two different firms. one could electrification infrastructure, so that'll be the team that put in the polls and was next to track and one for building new electric vehicles for our corridor. over the last two years we spent a lot of time on discussion about the new electric vehicles and there's in many different considerations we've had to talk through with key stakeholders, members of the public and the caltrans board.

some of them are listed on the slide here and into balance different elements on the caltrans such as bathrooms and bikes but also additional doors which was brought up as something caltrans wanted to not preclude in the future high-speed rail planning is by the blended system. on the next life, this shows in the design burden of two sets of doors on the vehicles. the not pretty operational when we first have the vehicles but in the future we could open them if we need to add high-speed rail station it would have some capacity changes with that but we want to make sure as much as we can to build an element that we don't need to redo anything later and give us more flexibility. with that it's really a recap of where we are. we finish environmental process which is a big milestone for the project we have the bids in now and want to wear these contracts next month. in july for the caltrans board meeting. that's why your vote today is critical for making sure we have the local funds in place to be able to move forward with this project quickly. we really appreciate the support we got

from staff from all the agencies we work closely with. with this schedule will be issuing a limited notice to proceed in making sure with all have those funds in place. several years of design build and testing and have the system in service by 2020. that's when will first get our vehicles in the last and by 2021. my last slide here is just that we know the explosive growth to the bay area really means we need to look for father had hit it's not just about this article what else can we do on the corridor to make sure we have as much capacity as can. so, for the bottom slide there's been a be a lot of activity the downtown extension from high-speed rail coming, the specific to caltrans, we do want it fully converted fleet. we went longer trains in the future. so we can get the capacity that weight since were sharing the corridor with high-speed rail. that's really the one way we can get the capacity and also level boarding which make the system function more smoothly and potentially help increase

capacity trends that are able to go up and down the corridor. without i'm happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions could >> just looking at slide 19 and you have the dual door option, is that just a possibility or is that actually was can happen? >> that's what's going to happen. >> how is it that we have-so there's different types of boarding and u boarding across the system or is this just about doing with high-speed rail stations? be dick is about individual can happen with high-speed rail. so, when the system is operational in 2020, the bottom doors will be the only functional doors. ill look and feel like the original vehicle up top there. in the future when we have a more defined high-speed rail blended system to know more about what the station could look like, will be able to make a determination went to most of

the time to open these doors and a practice, we will have to talk through what it means that people boarding at different heights and needing to transfer them between good we will have interior list output into these vehicles when that happens people make that transition. but this is a complicated discussion we had and we've thought this was the best way to leave us some options in the future. when we first get them it'll just be the bottom doors >> was there are to have the stations be uniform server don't have tool different dual door systems? >> data something that's been discussed as well. judge and has 27 stations, so it would not be the high-speed rail ones that would be affected would be all caltrans station. at this point in time we were ready to make that determination did that would be different cost opens the go with it but in the future where are able to look at that. >> i just don't want to be i mean, at some point maybe it 30 years from now will probably can one make uniform stations because were not making that decision now. >> correct. the reason for the dual doors is to allow for

compatibility for types of rail. high-speed rail plan and i think trains that have a floor height of 51 inches good pursue the caltrans trains that have 55 inches. the so, the dual doors allows for the train to look at high-speed rail station shared with high-speed rail potentially. transbay will be shared at high-speed rail and of course san jose. so, at those stations, there will be platform compatibility between the two systems. what happens in the future, we don't know yet. the platforms will need to be modified in any event to allow [inaudible] upper-level board. the level boarding his can be at 25 inches or 51 so that the whole system is at the same height, that is yet to be decided. if the cost of course associated with it. >> okay. thank you. >> it's just given that the

work right now is around modification notification. 27 stations, i understand your to make modifications to the stations, but it's easier to do the modification on the train itself which is a new train to deal with. two different types of boarding situations >> yes, that's exactly the point of having the two different doors could the future will be able to make the determination on the stations i. what height needs to be in place. >> okay thank you very much. colleagues from any further questions? why do we open up to public comment. anyone wishing to comment on item 8? >> good morning committee members. with caltrans offensive captain is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. we have about 5000 participants on the caltrans corridor from san francisco to san jose and beyond supporting stable

funding and successful modernization of caltrans as part of an integrated transit system in the bay area and we are excited to see the progress on the electrification project. can't wait to see the electric trains be able to carry more passengers, alleviate that crowding and support the transportation and incremental needs of the bay area. so, we strongly support this and urge you to approve this funding to of this project before. thank you much >> thank you. anybody else was to speak on public comment for item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> carly, unless there's any questions great at this same house, same call so moved >>[gavel] >> mr. clerk item number nine >> item 9, the roman of a potential local transportation revenue measure. this is an information item. >> thank you commissioners.

chief deputy of i cannot keep it short and sweet presentation. about eight slides. it's loading up. so, we did a longer overview at the board to look at this [inaudible] some updates to what has change it as you see the first lie there, would talk briefly about why were considering new revenues for transportation. with the new measure will fund and key considerations were thinking about as we put that measure together a little bit about public engagement. , i think as chris our coc chair reference in his remarks, if it is an obvious everyone to do we need revenue but the short version into that question is, our needs for transportation funding part feed available revenues. sacramento, washington dc,

candelas out and so many other jurisdictions in the bay area, in california, even nationwide were looking to locally control measures that we can rather than watch our infrastructure just deteriorate they control of our future invest in this type of transportation system we want to see. that said, this is an recent revelation that we've known about for quite a while. when we last updated our countywide transportation plan called the san francisco transportation plan in 2013, that looked at all operations and san francisco through the year 2040 and at the time we estimated $19 billion in unfunded needs, and among its many recommendations for how to use the money we have more effectively, how to improve project delivery. there also was a recommendation for new revenue advocacy, practically focused at the local level. following hot on the heels of the countywide transportation plan, the mayor convened a

transportation 2030 task force which was a subset need in smaller 15 year time frame. over that time frame came up with an estimated $10 billion needed through 23rd. when the outcomes of that is under the commissioners are very familiar with recommendation of a fleet of revenue measures that would take place over a series of years to fund $10 billion gap. that included two general obligation bonds. the first which the 500 million taliban was approved by the voters in 2014. the sales tax increase over have sent on [inaudible] and what we are doing here moving forward this year is trying to continue incrementing the recommendations of the plan and the aye. [inaudible] i mentioned briefly the can look to segment two and easy to bellsouth rainout. these charts show you if you can read all the numbers, the left is all the revenues anticipated revenues that allstate regional and local, there were forecast to be payable to san francisco

during our 30 year san francisco transportation plan period. the chart on the right is the same thing but that was for the regional transportation plan. the last one adopted in 2017. the big blue is local revenue. that is by far the largest source of revenue both in sf and the bay area. when i started here over two decades ago, the wedges were flipped to the federal and state wedges with the biggest pieces. unfortunately, the federal government has yet to been able to tackle the issue of the new revenue source for fixing the adult aspects was is the primary source of funding at the federal level. the state is working on it and i'm hopeful we'll get there but are not there yet. we just went through a cycle with attend state transportation improvement program where we took money away the way from projects. it's really not a reliable source at this time. so, as chris mentioned, we right now at the board of supervisors has two options under consideration for the november 2016 election.

the preferred proposal at this time is a charter amendment the list that was general fund set-asides both for transportation and homelessness. i'll talk about just transportation for the rest of the presentation but that charter is attached to the amendment is included as an attachment one in your amendment. the measure their for some reason the charter one doesn't afford the dedicated sales tax in the prop k stout. that one looks is included in attachment number two to the memo and it's not as though we're clear, that we know the intent is limited to about 20 to both pathways open while the discussions continue. to figure out which should make is very [inaudible] i will emphasize there's been a great deal coordination on this. the two measures are very similar in the key aspect which is what would get funded. both of them have six programs without talk about in a second. their 25 year revenue measures and roughly the math easy about $100 million a. the differences in it ministration and voter approval than happy to answer questions but [inaudible].

>> colleagues any questions or comments? okay. why don't we commissioner avalos-okay. when we move onto public almond >> i do couple more slides. >> i'm sorry. i thought you were- >> i'll ask a question out. there's been talk about what the buckets will be and the da version and the charter amendment version, and a key group i've worked with over the past few years has been transportation justice group, which involves a lot of community organizations as well as walk sf, community chinatown redevelopment corporation. i don't think that they're happy with the buckets that are set up and i think it was some new revenue that could be available based on an

understanding what the tax would be like in the sales tax were actually having a use tax which could be additional revenue. it makes a lot of sense i believe these groups being opposed, which is where they could be right out i'm a could spell the deathknell of whatever measure goes for could i do it important to be able to consider what contributions can be made to accommodate their interests. i also think even shading some of the buckets that we have already allocated could be something as well that could help move things forward to get clarity unity from them towards this measure. >> thank goodness a great set up to the slide. so, up on this slide and i'll answer some of your questions commissioner avalos, august 6 buckets for

programs of funds coachable and right now i said there identical the dedicated sales tax. your point is very well taken. i think it's conventional wisdom that to have a revenue measure particularly one that involves a tax increase you can have any real opposition but it's very important to get all the parties of table and get abroad and dbas of support for the measure. i think we can already see the influence which has petitioned justice coalition as you mentioned. these programs work together based on the 2030 and the countywide plan recommendations made of a heavy emphasis on state of good repair maintaining our system. but there are some additions. things have changed, even in the past couple of years, and one of those key issues is bringing affordability and equity issue to the forefront in transportation and really all sectors of our economy. so what here is already evidence of the influence of your work supervisor avalos and the commission is the addition of

transit service and affordability which is meant to take the sales tax and use it in ways that would benefit particularly the low income communities of concern in the city and will do that by providing flexible money for operations that support the sfmta eight with expanding service in response to state recommendations for muni equity framework core, intel budget years, when i might otherwise the service cuts, those funds could be used to prevent service cuts that can also be used to help maintain in future years as costs rose, for muni for youth seniors and disabled about that perspective. i'll briefly go through the other funding programs. the second one is muni fleet. our fleet expansion replacement when because good old but it's also basic state of good repair and investment in the muni system weather station or tracks were overhead wires. but the program is transit optimization and expansion. this is a combination of transit operators

and smaller and bigger project could for instance, this could include smaller bus stop type improvement projects were transit lanes, as well as planning environmental work and maybe early design for our next generation of capacity spinning projects, whether those goals are additional bus rapid transit projects, subway improvements or parts were countering grade separation or crossovers. the first bucket regional transit and system management is a priority to set aside up to $300 million for parts expansion cards any not bigger part cars but additional part cars to give us the incredible growth that. this is an asset made of alameda's san francisco in contra costa with the three-part county members and i can speak to that a little bit more later but yet is not matched by the counties

we could use those funds for other regional transit needs whether it's part stations are counter. there's also funding to work on smart system management which will give you to place. when this transportation demand management is the most cost-effective thing we can do demand raina. michael short will talk about that. but the next item. but there's also work to be done in terms of getting a continuous [inaudible] from santa clara of two or through san francisco. which would be a great way to benefit persons were put on a freeway system using infrastructure better at making transit vehicles operate more reliably. i guess they really like [inaudible]. the last two categories our vision zero cedar streets. i think it's pretty clear what that is. visions it was not adopted policy when 2030 was established it is a new program with that last but not least, the street resurfacing. i would add one feature in the charter to get a little bit to one of supervisor a avalos his questions. it allows the bad economy it gives the ability to

25% of the second category, the muni revocation category towards operation appeared i will note in the dedicated sales tax one thing we didn't written into the ordinance and the conversations, the recognition that there are several fun sources out there primarily local regional and state that are very likely to be put in place in the near term that would dedicate funds for street resurfacing. to the extent does come to pass and new funds are dedicated for street resurfacing, funds within this measure that would other wise go there would be redistributed the that is the largest urban. i think that's the last couple slides. the transit administration appear. it shows you the charter which agency would administer each of the different buckets up there.

i would just know for the transit vision zero, we would propose to administer those much like prop k which is there no open process where the board agency sponsors and the public to figure out in a five-year plan of what we can ran for the next five years based on what's right, what's has full funding. as i mentioned, putting this together isn't just about work and help ourselves and were going to forget washington and sacramento. there's a lot of pluses to controlling your own destiny. not the least of which is political funds are essential to prepare your project with agreement ready and competitive for the state and federal competitive grants that do exist. we do have attractive chocolate of leveraging each dollar per six times under prop k and i expect the same thing under this new measure and other were some comments may edit citizens advisory committee with that

prop k why do we need something us. i just know prop k with the success of our first transportation tax put in place in 1990. that was sort of in the early wave of counties across the state. a lot of now have gone to full [inaudible] because costs have not caught up with revenues contra costa is actively looking at the same election as we are in alameda did last election cycle. the last thing i would say on public engagement, is there is a webpage dedicated to this. were continuing update with the latest information you can access the charter and dedicated sales tax information they importantly, we will have an opportunity to sign up for telephone town hall that directors change and director the skin from sfmta will be there will to present on the proposed measure and answer questions and will have multilingual capabilities. last but not least, one sort of technical point in order to keep the pathway open for dedicated sales tax, we need to have a public hearing which was on a measure before the mpc can approve our expense are planted we will have a public hearing

the school board next week. i'll be happy to answer questions did >> thank you. just on the buckets, and the gap that has to be crossed with ugly transit justice advocates and organizers, i think those areas there could be improvement. potentially, regional transit could be decreased, especially if were looking at other counties not contributing the same as san francisco would. which could be the case. i think we should all going in equally. if it's less certain shooting i think we should just come down and i think the transportation agencies will need to make up that difference and we can relocate to other buckets. i think that would be important to consider. the ones

that i think are underfunded of the transit service affordability as well as complete streets. it says here compete streets. >> whoops. >> i know those probably wrong >> was not my intent >> that's a more cooperative approach. thanks. >> thank you much. i will say, commissioner avalos but matching funds i said is written right now that if the other counties are provided to be used for other things but it could be amended and directed to other buckets. >> grades. >> okay colleagues know the questions number slots? ticket will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on the item 9? >> good morning commission. my name is jackie-on the citizens advisory committee. we have special meeting last week regarding this item, regarding discussing this item and for

those of you who don't know, i was one of 55 individuals who wrote proposition b back in 89. i also reauthorized prop k years later passed by the voters. i been very involved in transportation in the city for the last 30 years. since 1986. another thing, commissioner -[inaudible] the other 9-5 and commissioner peskin's district in fisherman's wharf. so we can get transit back, get the transit system, [inaudible] to where it was before december 5, 2009 when it was cut off. when it was cut down. one of the things i mentioned at the meeting last week was that instead of mta spending money on green paint and red paint for the street, they should

think about using that money, and restoring services the my restoring transit services, bus transit services, to where they were before because as it is now, there was articles in the paper where the people that worked at fisherman's wharf had to take tech buses to get to where i can to get home because there was no service to them. people at fisherman's wharf were losing money and because the workers can get to and from work. they just the mta is only interested in those individuals that work from until 5 pm. they don't care about the disabled community, the people with the hotels, the people work at restaurants, the security guards, this senior citizens. i

am against this because the they pass a bond issue. it has to bond issues the last election. as it is, you're adding work on even prop >> thank you. your time is up. >> just let me say one thing. didn't have to go before the voters again in a few years even though it's a 35 year project. prop k. >> think. >> you still have to go before the voters. and the voters don't want to be taxed and taxed enough >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. actually, before we move forward since both the chair and vice chair absent scene we have a quorum, i will call this meeting as a member of this board committee to order. and we have to not make a chair? >> i nominate you.

>> i second that. thank you. without objection i will be chaired for the meeting unless someone who is chair returns. all right. with that, we will move forward with public comment. here is the chair. you can continue, ma'am. thank you for your patience >> i been broken district for resident. also a formal member of the transportation authority cac. i was at the small business commission when the mayor's deputy chief of staff did a presentation on this. the question was from one of the -from commissioner riley why so long, why 25 years. basically, he said that's what the number we came up with in negotiation. request from the commissioner was maybe look at a little lower window of opportunity.

they first of all set aside create havoc on the budget. we want our set-asides, and the second one is the sales tax. sales tax the obvious is regressive. if it's low income people the worst. so, it has sent and actually i do agree with the cac members. it gets have if you are how to send more you the general obligation budget now looking at a revenue bond. it's as across as a little overly aggressive in the fact the mta is approved incorporated this asset sales that's into the budget even though it hasn't been approved by the voters is a little questionable. so those are my concerns. thank you. >> good morning. i need 11 friends of caltrain and i

wanted to call your attention to an opportunity to potentially address in this sales letter, sales tax measure, the next phase of caltrans modernization that building on what ms. thompson said would be able to deliver work capacity and more speed than basic electrification itself. this thompson mentioned once your basic electrification with the train that accelerate more quickly, you can lengthen the platform and at longer trains to go to eight car trains, which gets you from six to eight as well as when the platforms are being adjusted level boarding, which right now with affairs it takes a couple of minutes to help someone with a wheelchair on and off which is important, but it means that makes the system go slower and can make transfers. so, santa clara county says a board just

incorporated that project, $300 million for that project into their ballot measure that's going to go on in november. this is something that is going to take all three counties in order to be able to deliver this project. san mateo county has already had a law passed to increase the sales tax window and is contemplating when to go and address to that. so, i would encourage you to consider this project to be able to keep up with the ridership growth expected in this timeframe. thank you >> good afternoon commission to minds chris park. i live on state street castro and market. i'm very concerned about this expenditure plan. it feels to like it's being rushed. i know i tend to attended a cac meeting where a cac member talked about this. also, it talked about this being a

placeholder on the agenda when it hasn't had yet been defined. this is a lot of money. it needs a thoughtful consideration get it feels like it's being rushed and as i work on van ness. i would then ask the rtm to give you some information on how that began. that began as i don't know if there's an overhead-but that began as something that was somewhere in the wood of 60-$65 million the feasibility survey. it then went to in the eir 21.93 to 136 nine then july 15 $159 million and more recently, it was proposed as $260 million to then in the latest spreadsheet, that the gmt project for walsh is now estimated over $300 million. so, these things get a life of their own. they cost a lot of money. then, recently, in the

may 9 small is this commission meeting there was a presentation by a lot of people from lumbar, dennis, caravelle mission, worried and it seems like there's all a lot to be said with a lot that's not her. i'm very concerned about this project and as it starts about it kind of begins that life of its own. also, i don't know if there's the venice prt project, this has been appealed by a group about concerned about the trees. if you look at this you see all the trees that may loss from the city with this project and you can also see three lanes of traffic on each side of those trays. now where are those guys can ago when this gets down to two lanes? there's not enough input on this bus. they say [inaudible] we don't get hurt >> thank you. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 9? seeing none,-are you coming up for item 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> that was in information i'm

so call item 10 >> item 10, transportation demand management would let ordinance. this is an information i'm >> good morning commissioners. michael schwarz principal planner with the authority. i am joined today by call the pain from the sfmta. she said with a integration manager and cory key from the planning component of the zoning administrator. we brought this dissertation sustainability program in front of you article a bit over a year ago. that other exciting milestone where excited to be back here and as a quick reminder the program is a three-part program that is a cognitive approach to managing the transportation demand caused by new development. so were taking it approach. if you can go to the ? it's a little slow catching up. i think most of you are from the with of three parts we can to last time we were about to bring forward transportation

sustainability which of the new impact fee on residential development as well as an increase in the nonresidential development and that got passed in november of 2015. in march of 2015 the second these can to pass which is consistent with the state guidance from senate bill 743 switching or from a level of service packs which is really looking at intersection and cartilage as a way to measure environmental impact, switching over to vehicle miles traveled as a way to better measure the entire mental impact of redevelopment. the third piece is what would be talking about today. this is initiated at the planning department on april 28. transportation demand management is come up a couple times today. again it's a way to manage the network that we have today. we know that we would be able to widen our seats were built within the city even if we did want to which goes against a number of different city policies. so

this transportation demand management is a way to focus best utilized in the system that we have today. while there is a wide ranging set of things that fall under this, this ordinance is focused on what can developers do on-site with her new development. so, to develop this we looked at a number of best practices from all over the country. but that literature review as was our own original research. i'm going to call carly pain to walk you through what the workbooks will entail. >> good morning commission could probably came from the sfmta. we are delighted to be part of this interagency partnership. so the transportation demand management ordinance is informed as michael mentioned, by best practices from across the country. it has three components, which i'll walk you through the first several. first, is establishing a target for each new development project to meet and the target represents reduction in driving

or vehicle miles traveled. from that development project. the way that the target is established is based on the number of parking spaces proposed for that project. more and more literature and our own research here in san francisco demonstrates there's a very strong relationship between on-site parking and driving. in that relationship is, if you provide more on-site parking, you will see more driving from the users of that site whether residents, workers, or visitors. so, the fundamental basics of this ordinance is the more parking you provide the more transportation demand management measures the project also needs to provide to offset were counterbalance that great incentive to drive that provided parking. the second component is creating-that a

project sponsor will select which ordinance, which measures, from a menu of options that the city has established to meet its target. we have identified 26 different measures across eight categories. all of these are included in the menu because of their ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy driving. these are based on literature review and best practices. these are measures that are under the control of the developer, as michael mentioned as a broader world of transportation demand management out there a lot of things that are agencies are doing but this is really focused on what a developer a project sponsor can do and subsequent property owners to affect the driving, the travel behavior of their residents and workers and visitors to so, each measure has been signed a point based on the relative efficacy of the

measure. for instance, at the lower end of the spectrum are things like real-time transportation displays might tell you as you're leaving the building and making your decision when a next muni or part is coming and how far the walk is, and also at the same time is there a bike share bike in the bike share part of a block away from you see to make an informed decision. family oriented transportation demand management measures that really support families in living more car-like work hard for your making more trips without a car. at the higher end of measures that are even more robust in and impactful but producing the parking supply, managing parking, subsidizing transit use and things like that. having this menu approach enables it project sponsor to meet the target, which is what we as a city care for, but in a way that is specific to that project. the market and demographics. the measures

become part of the project submittal and approval. so, cory chang, the assistant zoning administrator from planning is can walk you through an example of a project that leads to illustrate how this works. >> good morning commission. cory jeep with the planning department. thank for having us. i will echo that the entire tst process is been a great partnership so far between our three agencies did this carly said, i'm going to talk a little bit just how will this program work at the project level. i think when the most important things to understand we designed the program to be very straightforward and easy to use. towards that end, the first interaction that a with a program developed would have been online tool took them determined posix required target and the tdm measures available to that project. eliminate

version of this tool is already on on. the developers and the public can begin to test it out and understand how it will work. the idea that project sponsor will be will to use this tool and to think critically about this issue well before they ever summit any of their development application. were going to run through an example project in this scenario happening in the dogpatch neighborhood, which is very active with development and now. in this scenario the resident project 44 dwelling units and choosing to provide 12 offstreet picking parking space. that great a target of 14 points and they are there to code requirements that would automatically be considered tdm measured. the first being the code required by bicycle parking would get him one point and then unbundling their offstreet parking spaces. that would give them two points. so, right off the bat just meeting the code you're going to get three out of the required 14 points. that gets to the next

question how may points can up the ticket for parking supply? it's important to note the tedium measure for parking supply was designed to evaluate a project within the context of a surrounding neighborhoods. so, to get any points of this measure project must be parked at or below its neighbor parking rates. if you're at the neighborhood rate you get one point and for every 10% below the neighborhood rate you get an additional point for maximum of 11 available points. in this scenario, the neighborhood where the project is taking place the neighborhood parking rate is zero point six spaces per unit. so, with that

information, and knowing they're going to part 12 cars the project, again they have the three points from code requirements and because the choosing to target a 0.3 rate the neighborhood rate is 0.6, they would've earned an additional six points for parking supply. that would give them 29 points as a out of the required 14 points. so at that point they need to take more tdm measures to reach the target and we selected a few that may be common for projects. that would be multimodal we time signage for one point. doing nonrequired harsher parking for two points and certain family tdm for the final two points. that hopes this project achieve the 14 points that would need in that would constitute tedium plan. but if we were to change this project you would change the requirements of the project is located we took the same project but instead of parking 12 spaces, there are 13 parking space, that would change the

target from 14.216 points. so, we still get a certain amount of points for bicycle parking and unbundling their car parking, but they would need to do maybe some additional bicycle parking should do not get any points for parking supply because the parking at a 0.75 rate which is higher than the neighbor great in this scenario 0.6. so, again as i mentioned before is going to party at the rate you need to do more other tdm measures to offset that. in this case they could do the multimodal signage, even more per-share parking, even more family pdm and also providing their on-site affordable housing. which we give them the final point any to reach the 16 point. you can see the change in the parking provided for this project pretty fairly change the tdm plan for each version the same project. so, how the process work? as the project moves through the development process? again as we mentioned the sponsor would go online to use the tool just

to select the measures the work for the project and cement that with her development application. we would have city staff would review that and at the same time reviewing the project overall in terms of code compliance. the tedium plan would be submitted as a recommendation for conditional approval for projects to have to go to the planning commission the tedium plan would be a condition of approval and before the final building permit could be issued, project would have to report a notice of special restrictions on the property called in an sr word document with the tedium plan is required to be. we will also be providing this information online. then, this takes us to the next element of this program. as is the pretty robust monitoring and reporting component which is a little unlike what we do for most of our planning code requirements. this component is key to the tdm program to making sure were actually achieving the intended outcomes. the monitoring and reporting requirements are

divided into two specific climates. the pre-[inaudible] an inspection of the physical measures that would happen before the project receives its first certificate of occupancy and the ongoing compliance phase which includes require reporting by the property owners. overtime as well site inspections by city staff at bearing time intervals to insure selected tdm measures remain in place. than any project that are found to be out of compliance with the approved tdm plan could come into immediate compliance would be subject to the standard planning code enforcement procedures. another important part of the ongoing compliance phase is that we will collect information and data overtime until each tedium measure is performed and this will allow us to make informed amendments to the program over time to ensure its reaching maximum effectiveness. >> quick question. who is doing the compliance work? >> for the monitoring and reporting via budget positions

budgeted into the planning department budget. >> great, thanks. >> thank you. so, moving on to the kind of outreach is happened already and next steps. we've done a lot of outreach overtime. multiple community advisory committees development in the committee, transportation advocates, various boards and commissions and we held a citywide open house in them you dance. in terms of the full ordinance in the listed process itself, as we mentioned, was initiated at the planning commission on april 28. there's a scheduled adoption hearing for july 14 men after that he would move to the order supervisors for further review. that concludes our presentation. we are available and happy to answer any questions you may have. >> they given much. i know good work on this for quite

some time and received many greetings along what. appreciate your work on this. though, opposed? questions or comments on open this up item up to public comment it if anyone is here for item 10 please come for. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> doesn't information until we can go to item 11 now >> item 11 introduction of new and >> colleague, any introductions with seeing none, public comment is closed. on 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> item 12 >> item 12 general public comment >> good morning commissioners. and to [inaudible] worshiping the true heart to obtain happiness to stability, true self and true [inaudible] one must apply [inaudible] to attain the attainment of true happiness, true self and to [inaudible] with accommodation of wisdom contemplation, jelly achievement, passion compassion

for humanity [inaudible] and charity giving, one surely can uplift [inaudible] and personal life drama to obtain true happiness, to stability, true self and true way. [inaudible] leading to pain, instability, and false beliefs of the truth is a problem of misconception [inaudible]. having a true being upon [inaudible] one can uplift from tragic force to achieve personal wellness and because of our true self nature [inaudible]. when you look on bush the ultimate breakthrough [inaudible] abstract

metaphysics and [inaudible] as well as life pain, aging, sickness and death by means of contemplation for cultivation. supper citizens of two heart. [inaudible] to the final stage of quick success. thank you >> thank you. any other members of the public was to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> x item >> item 13 adjournment >> thank you. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>

>> the city of san francisco, ethics commission meeting for monday, june 27, 2016 will begin shortly. >> >>[gavel] >> welcome ladies and gentlemen to the regular scheduled meeting of the san francisco ethics commission for june 27 2016. i will call the