Skip to main content

tv   BOS Special Govt Audits and Oversight Committee 11217  SFGTV  January 12, 2017 6:00pm-8:01pm PST

6:00 pm
the sf and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek ww >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight for our first meeting of the new year january 12th, 2017, i am for our last meeting
6:01 pm
before a new committee structure the chair of this committee aaron pes kin joined by supervisor breed to my left. our clerk is major. do you have any announcements? >> yes please silence all devices cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated . >> thank you can you please call the first item? >> yes the first is to hear presentations from the san francisco municipal transportation agency on the city's on-street car sharing. >> thank you mrs. major. i called this hearing i have been contemplating it quite some time i called this hearing before the winter break to hear more about the mta's on-street car sharing
6:02 pm
program anecdotally as i was walking the streets of district three for the better part of six months leading up to the november 2015 election i not only saw more and more of these designated spots popping up. but hearing from the constituents on the north east county of san francisco. and wanted to do for the board of supervisors what has happened now on a number of occasions in the nuance transportation agency commission which is to one, get a presentation from mta staff about the program and two, ask questions that constituents have been asking me and see if we can work together to make sure this is optimized in a way that sees the benefits that the program does bring without the
6:03 pm
inconvenience to our residents. so, there are some demonstratable benefits we can quibble if the numbers are accurate. there is no question when cars are utilized more thoroughly by more different people that that can lead to getting folks to not buy cars and get cars off the street. while i might quibble with the magnitude of the numbers the mta presents i think that's a truth. there are other factors to take into account we have pioneered in the north east corner of the city. decades ago a residentual parking program in many parts of the city is over subscribed and is paid for by residents so they can park in most cases more than two hours in residential neighborhood throughout the
6:04 pm
city. the reason north beach has the a permits is because many decades ago pilot program became the first residential parking permit area in the city. we have the b's and c's because compluters would drive from marin and take the bus to where the jobs are in downtown. and there are nuances in the dawn of 21st century in the quote unquote sharing industries in the new tech world we live in where certain players play by the rules and certain players push the rules as they do so, in their disruptive business model disrupt more and more every day san franciscoians live's i will be asking specific questions about that. why don't we start
6:05 pm
by giving mr. andy thornly from the san francisco mta the floor. i know you have a power point. we will go through it quickly so we don't bore everybody to tears it is helpful then we will ask you a bunch of questions then i will welcome vice chair norman y yee. >> committee members members of the public i'm getting my presentation here. i'm wrestling with the technology maybe it's better if i close this and reopen it. hello. for heaven sakes maximize. let's start again. i'm andy thornily from
6:06 pm
the san francisco municipal transportation agency thank you for allowing us to share about our on-street car sharing program and help us understand what we're learning about perhaps let's go to the laptop and i will talk through this presentation quickly. to remind you what you already know the san francisco municipal transportation agency is the city's transportation provider and steward of about 900 miles of curb we're the folks with the unenviable job of refereeing how that curb is used for parking bus stops or transits . >> google buses. >> buses of all sorts. i like to park my bike at bike racks on that curb. and in charge of supporting safe sustainable trips we do that with muni but
6:07 pm
seeing how it fits together whether you drive bike or take a motorcycle. let me tell you about the car share pilot we have been conducting the past couple of year and dive into this. we will do this expeditiously to get to questions and conversation . >> when you say the last couple of years my understanding is the inception is five years ago. >> no actually i will dive into it. in 2011 the mta took up this question. we already have in policy i think the transit first and city charter says we will prioritize non-single occupant single vehicle trips the strategic plan is something we want to promote and expand in 2011 we under took an experiment
6:08 pm
putting 12 city car sharing vehicles in san francisco in conventional parking spaces with the condition that city car sharing should share data with us to see how the performance of that went. that pilot was small. 12 parking spaces by our estimate, 200,000. parking space in san francisco. that pilot was successful you could learn from parking space in 2015 we went to our board saying this is promising we're not ready to use it as an ongoing operational program let's do a bigger experiment so the mta approved a larger pilot that would take more than one car sharing provider try perhaps hundreds of parking spaces and we would not
6:09 pm
only test the policy soundness of this idea but logistical street sweeping and so forth to quickly review for public and others the idea of car sharing as you said peskin at the start of this extensive peer review academic research has found over and over again car sharing is a benefit by reducing private owner vehicles congestion and for all neighbors in the community. and relieving parking demand to the extent we can have fewer cars on the road. our board approved in 2013. in 2014 we got going without starting to place car sharing vehicles on the street. and since early 2014 this larger pilot has been in operation eeffectively two
6:10 pm
years. >> mr. thornily, supervisor yee has a question. >> yes. >> this is going to be in the presentation later, can you explain when you talked about reducing congestion and emissions especially emissions how do you conclude that? >> yeah. this isn't just the mta's notion this is research over and over again. the premise if we can make available to neighbors a car that multiple neighbors can use, presumably, multiple neighbors won't need their own car if five neighbors are using one car you have one car instead of five cars and other is certifications proceed from that. if there are fewer cars around there are four fewer
6:11 pm
cars congestioning the street. >> that's where i didn't get the logic. >> yeah. >> i'm just curious. >> sure. >> you can have five neighbors using a car. they will be using it at different times when they need it when they don't need it they have individual cars they wouldn't be using it either. so i don't understand the logic. how does it reduce ewe? >> you have to look at the particular of how cars are being used. to the extent that multiple users get to use a single car presumably that reduces the number of cars in the street second the pay as you go notion this city i'm proud to say has adopted users with fewer shopping bags . >> you presume it i don't snochlt how do you presume it? >> perhaps i can shorthand this
6:12 pm
by saying academic researchers all over the world particular already here in the bay area uc berkeley has a sustainability research center mr. shane and martin repeatedly done peer reviewed academic research to this topic they and other researches have found over and over again to the extent you provide car sharing to a community folks are driving less because they're using fewer cars every time they use the car they pay a little bit they're thinking about the use of that car just as we now when we go to the grocery store don't get shopping bags without thinking about it you are asked about it if i do, i have to pay a dime by making think ability every use they use less of it. same with driving people are thinking
6:13 pm
about how much they need and tend to use less of it. again, academic research we would be happy to share this with your office to show you where that thought is coming from. >> if you have that research it's not real long. >> yeah. of course. so back to this pilot at hand the framework for the pilot we launched a couple of years ago is based on a definition of transportation code of car sharing transportation - collect and share data with the mta. terms of as i said street cleaning that sort of stuff. this map we divided the city into three. so we can have primitive means to having these things in neighborhoods not just district
6:14 pm
three. if we left it to car sharing companies they would go where it's good. we wanted to try this out in the bay view. you have to put a minimum number of these things 15% of them in soern two at 15% of them in zone three. it's a very primitive tool meant to spread this around town so we cannot only provide this to all neighbors in neighborhoods but watch the effects of this. we had standard review and noticing process and we can talk more about that. how did we select the locations how did the review go? how was the approval. in the end, we qualified three participants to participate in the pilot city car share get around, and zip car. to go right to what we learned we had 200 parking
6:15 pm
spaces across the city. supervisor peskin walked passed them i hope some have encountered these 200 across the city sharing data and generating data for the mta what we found was not unexpectedly these got a fair amount of use. a right to one of the most important things we found over the 200 spaces we have been watching this the average of a car sharing space had 19 users using it. so 19 folks in the neighborhood. we compare that to the average u.s. car with 1 or 2 users so that metric is interesting to us we're curious to hear your take on that too. >> so andy, the period, the 200 spots went online when and the period of data you are sharing with us is for what period?
6:16 pm
>> the first of these was implemented in 2014 because of review and implementation delays we didn't instantly have 200 of them. by the time we got to april 2015 we had basically 200 of them in place up and running. for the sake of analysis, we have taken. april 15th to 2016 as a full year of data for those spaces. that is what we have been using to analyze the use of these spaces. they are still out there. the pilot is effectively done. we're bringing our findings we're sharing a preview here to our board of directors next friday at our policy and governance committee. our board of directors will then in a month or two take up the question of whether to adopt a permanent program abandon this idea or something else. so i
6:17 pm
want to emphasize this is not an operational permit program the spaces out there are pilot space if our board was not pleased we would undo them but this is only a piet lot not an operational program. >> i would love to let you finish but in so far as the original pilot pilot of 12 car share spaces over the period of some time in 14 to april of 15 or there abouts, gross to 200 spaces the list you gave my staff is now over 500 spaces. >> right. the list we supplied for folks viewing at home, at the start of this larger pilot in 2013, we asked any interested entity car sharing organization to approach us with their credentials and make their case
6:18 pm
for participates we had 53 to participate we had here's a box of imaginary pins in a google map where would you place vehicles n part of this pilot? we ended up with 450 proposed locations i should back up and say the pilot for the sake of ceqa was cleared for 900 parking spaces for the duration of the pilot we have an exemption as many as 900 spaces we started with 450 proposals the list your office received is the universe of 450 locations of which 200 ultimately came to be on the ground. i think that's a useful thing to look at i'm glad to have this point elevated. because the process of converting through the 450 resulted in many locations moved and retalked and abandoned. some
6:19 pm
came forward and had a public hearing and ultimately legislative implementation a few were moved or changed but possibly of the 90450 we looked at, 200 ended up on the ground. >> when you say legislative you are saying the mta commission approves each and every one of these in a public hearing. >> that is right. there is a public hearing as there is for any traffic or street change whether a stop sign or subway there is a review process we followed for this internal review cross agency review reck and park we post notices have a public hearing take it onto our board and legislative action for the curb use. >> when you say that a nearby
6:20 pm
utility poll? >> yes. we did what i'm saying expedition full process for curb this is nothing different we would do for a street change or approval. lit be in our full report here's a log of all of the hearings here's a log of the mta actions that resulted in the 200 sum spaces that went out there. >> it's a side issue i will raise it while it's fresh in my mind which is the mta both somewhat new and yet has been a long standing agency in the world of notice. i think and john ram if you are listening i'm paying a compliment to the planning department. the gold standard for notice is planning.
6:21 pm
i have to say as somebody who lives on filbert street when one popped up on filbert and grant yeah it could have been on a telephone poll every day i go home and get noticed in my mailbox because i live within 150 or 300 feet of proposed project for planning. the neighborhood organizations whether north beach or russian hill get the same kind of notice. i don't want to say with 100% certainty i will say with 95% certainty none of the neighborhood groups that are the clearing houses get that same kind of notice from the mta or at least as it relates to this program for what it's worth. >> your comment is noted and taken to heart. i share your frustration on behalf of the mta we need to do a better job
6:22 pm
everything the agency done. collin dilon is here. >> i see he's writing furiously . >> yeah we take it to heart. it makes our job harder to not adequately talk to the neighbors and it is within our interest to do that. we did want to have these things out generating data so we can come back to you and others on board to say here's what we learned. so we did strike a balance than it might fully have been. our program adopts is a robust thoughtful out reach process and your thoughts and thoughts of your constituents on that. before we take parking and change it. >> not to put too fine of a point on it you have proposed self selected spot that were
6:23 pm
widdled down to 200 with the year of data. after that, were adigal spots added? did that cap at 200, boom that's everything we got today. >> thank you for that question, yes in deed we stopped putting it out there because it's a pilot. when we got to last august or earlier we had a closed set. we had a box of spots to look at. yes, again, not an operational program. we just wanted to establish a minimum amount of locations to generate there have not been any new locations established since basically i guess it would be last summer. great question thank you for that. >> thank you. >> again to dwell on data before we talk about process and logistics to get to that. the average monthly unique users is
6:24 pm
a data point we find interesting for the folks at home sorry it's tiny we have a full report on our website next week of the 200 or so spaces these were the locations best performers for average monthly unique users it's impossible to see but some of these have 62 people every month using them which is remarkable here's a map of the city with the unique users per month. bigger circles are better you will see the big blue circles in the north east corner of town we have an average of 50 unique users each month using those cars we are seeing in the outer sunset we have cars out there used by lots of people every month which is what we're looking for. average hours of daily use the u.s. car is used
6:25 pm
very little. an hour a day perhaps. we see these car share cars being used of upwards of eight hours a day or more on average. we may say do we want a lot of people driving a lot? it goes to supervisor yee's question of substituting one car for another. it is academic research if you got a tool meant to be used by the public having that be used a fair amount by a lot of people is better than one car being used not much. again, keen to have your thoughts on that but that is the theory. >> andy, as to this map i realize some of these have multiple locations nearby this doesn't seem to reflect 200. >> yeah in some cases there are
6:26 pm
double. so we have 200 some spaces collapsing down because they're pairs. and just to interrupt myself, putting one car on a street has some utility putting two cars you have a network effect as i watched these things the double pods uses more utility a neighbor sees them that is interesting i can see that if the car is never there they get discouraged we have two for a network effect. >> so all 200 are on this map? >> yes. >> thank you. >> because of the scale it's hard to pull this apart we have all of this data for the public to look at. other things we found to remind everybody we have a full evaluation to bring to our board at the end of next week. some of the highlights as i said we have three car sharing
6:27 pm
organizations participating we have some of them here listening. >> you mentioned five. >> we had five approach us. two did not qualify enterprise did not qualify hertz like wise wanted to participate they did not meet based solely on they were not operating car sharing organization citywide at the sometime the pilot was launched. that was one of the terms of engagement. >> andy let me ask you this in the old days not that long ago, it was not legal for for a city under state law preemptive to designate a parking spot for any individual or organization. was there a change in state law that enabled this? >> ye there was. prior to the
6:28 pm
small pilot in 20 level california code was amended with the point you made. the evaluation of the first small pilot alludes to that. you are right. the code change allowed this. other jurisdictions taken advantage of this. sacramento is doing this. so the extent there is regulatory basis, it's there. >> can you explain these circles or rings where they have two colors? there is double rings like blue and red. >> that is a case we got as i was saying to supervisor peskin two parking spaces and here's a case they're behaving differently. one of them, because we made the performance tiered in different levels, this car is behaving this well, this car is behaving a little bit
6:29 pm
differently it might be a little confusing they're not behaving exactly the same we were gathering data car by car space by space for better or worse we aren't able to analyze the aggregate of those two cars this car has 55 unique users per month - those are the same people but we have worked with our partners to get a finer point the cars are behaving differently in terms of the data. similarly enough i would say the circles are grocery different on the edge of one of those tiers again, i want to knock this off so we can take questions and comments. again we had three participants of the five who came out us. one is get
6:30 pm
around a peer to peer car sharing organization. let me tell the public classic car sharing practiced 15 years is point a to point a there's a car stationed in a pod at a gas station or parking lot or garage. the member picks up the car there goes to the grocery store picks up the aunt at the airport and brings the car back to that point. the classic round sharing testing let's take a look at the peer to peer model. similar to a to a rather than a couple like zip car owning a fleet of cars shared my members the cars are individual's cars i own a car i don't use it that much the peer to peer is we will use your car to share and get
6:31 pm
the sharing benefits of that car used by multiple people and you can make money on the side. so this peer to peer idea has similarity to condo timesharing or air bnb and we might talk about that as an agency interested in exploring the benefits and downsides let's try that get around is one of the participant the finding here is there are differences a car share organization doesn't share it's own fleet there are factors to allow for. because this is something may be confusing to the neighbors we will talk about that as well. >> i have to say, i get flavors of complaints now you have clarified the zone three it's mandated to have 15% of the 200 spots and zone 2, 15%, that means zone one which is basically district three a
6:32 pm
little bit larger part of district 2 and 6 has 70% of the 200 spots in a smaller geographic area. so i now understand why i hear about this a lot. but i get two flavors of complaints. one is the hey, how come that spot was taken away? i have a residentual parking permit and i can't park there any more. and by the way, zone a and zone c we pay $111 a year are vastly over subscribed and i say yes i will hold a hearing on that we don't get to legislate what the mta does. the second flavor of complaint which is much more prevalent and
6:33 pm
vosiferous.? the air bnb analogy is very good. this board of supervisors i don't want to put words in supervisor breed or supervisor yee's mouth doesn't have a problem when an individual wants to rent their house or unit out when they go on vacation or leave for the weekend but we have a huge problem when speculators come in buy four unit buildings talk them out and turning them into 24 24/7 hotels it's analogous in so far as everybody can get up to four residential parking permits there is anecdotally i hear a lot about it folks that's a volume is money. i get four
6:34 pm
residential parking permits have four get around cars and run this little micro business which in essence is exactly like air bnb it's not just your 200 designated spots because get around has a different model i hear much more complaint about, that i'm delighted we're having that hearing at a moment in time before going to your commission for permit controls my response is, if you want to do this micro business of telling everybody they can use their residential parking permits for basically a commercial activity, then that's not okay and you cannot participate in the citywide program. i hear a ton of complaints about it. i also hear, although i have not been able to hear, get around helps people finance the purchase of their automobiles with this. that is entirely antithetical to
6:35 pm
what you are trying to do. >> right. we have worked with that point. on rpp and cars we have talked to each of your offices we will be happy to talk about the rpp program which is a 40 year old program 1976 as you note zone a area a the genesis the rpp -. >> nancy katz was the person who came up with that. >> yeah. it's part of our heritage of protected neighborhood coming out of the 70s something we're looking at as we evaluate how rpp has worked and how we can make it work better is that point. right now under our practice an individual who owns car four cars can grant permits as we
6:36 pm
talk to neighbors eksz tensively we think that is nuts one per person is plenty especially on russian hill. that phenomenon of cars come tog the neighborhood and getting four permits we're hoping to address that as part of the rpp side and part of this - conversation. the get around model because it takes them to where they are has a free floating system i can leave my car where it's parked and have a decal and help folks find it to use it. then we have a couple of fixed stations that to the neighbors and to others maybe cause legibility problems what is the difference? why is the get around car floating here and no in it's stall. that is
6:37 pm
something we learned from the pilot when we come back to the board with recommendations we are mindful how to do a responsible job of containing that. >> my understanding is, unlike the other two purveyors as to a get around the owner of that car, can actually have down time. no other words, it's not available to somebody to use at which point f they're in a designated spot, it has completely corroded the ethos of your program because now you have turned a piece of the public realm into a private spot for an individual who lives in the neighborhood. and that's pretty perverse. >> right. we take that point on the out set we established toward addressing that. a primitive tool to say, any one
6:38 pm
of these permits that is granted must have a car that is properly shared at least 75% of the time. now, that number was a bit arbitrary it is gross and doesn't speak to what part of the day that is tuesday at four in the morning? we get it that is not enough. that's a question we bring back to our board will have a stronger answer to the concern you are voicing . >> while you are talking about tuesday at 4 o'clock in the morning there's a third flavor of complaint i get from people who are upset having a designated spot and rpp residential parking permit issues but see something that seems to be inequitable and it's this some places it happens at 4 o'clock in the morning and some places other times of day which is street sweeping i can't
6:39 pm
tell you how much i agree with them when you see everybody has moved their car from this side of columbus avenue or grant or whatever street it is. and that one designated spot is not moved and pursuant to your program. and i understand due to the good information you have given my office that car share company is responsible for cleaning that space it doesn't matter. the what the person walking to work sees is the county of san francisco is giving prefertual treatment to a company. by the way when the street sweeper has to pull out it's not like they go up to the edge of the parking spot they miss three parking
6:40 pm
spots, there say fundamental sense of ineeequity the city in per suit of ivy tower concepts is treating - everybody has to get up at five in the morning and move their damn car except for this car sharing thing you don't and that sounds terrible to the public. >> one of the conditions of this pilot was if you have a permit you are permitted the car share vehicle is exempt from street cleaning but the company must keep the street clean and contact 311 and let us know. that is interesting andy but keeping it spotless with a toothbrush that's a valid problem we take to heart. i don't know standing here how we
6:41 pm
might that less politically tender or have folks feel less disrespected by that as a practical thing to the extent we have 200 parking spaces that have a vehicle that is doing this service it would be impractical to have the car share company come and some streets have cleaning once or twice a month or three times a week if you have a thousand cars are you getting a lot of empty trips. so there's a very challenge problem of balancing cars for street cleaning that it looks bad. we're mindful and keen to find a better way to address that. we're open to suggestions for sure. let me hit a couple more points here, things we found service reliability was degrated by theft and vandalism. as you well
6:42 pm
know curb goes offline because of construction there are permits issued a lot of them by mta pointing at public works coordinating those cloedures k be improved to the extent it's not well handles it's confounding for this program. you can't expect neighbors to rely on a car and it's never coming back we will need to address that. i know this body is interested in having better communication of neighborhood closures and parking. finally i will say this classic point a to point a car share models has changes and limits not least of which is ride hailing we call optimistically. for classic car share we have to be looking at
6:43 pm
the pressures on it and how far we can go with this model balancing it it's a curb balancing problem. parking access we recognize and have heard questions frshgs the public and other folks goshgs through this there is a program reduced parking supplied my neighbors own a lot of cars there is not enough parking now you are taking parking away that is a valid question. we think we have good answers to that, to the extent that one parking space is serving 20 or 30 neighbors it's a challenging conversation to have with folks we have to have a good and honest answer about that parking and how we're using it. again, as an agency, we're trying to referee 900 miles of curb there is not enough for everybody to have her own parking space so taking turns we have to talk to
6:44 pm
folks about that with respect and address that responsible. to your point supervisor peskin does it privatize the curb? that has got to be wrong. i would say i have thought about this throughout my entire life. here's 20 feet of curb. that car parked there someone is making money on the car may be owned out right. that car may be leased that car is probably financed the ownership of that private car is already a bit gray. my car had a crash. ii have a rental car the next month. what is the legitimacy of ownership relative to that 20 feet of curb. finding a respectful way that is responsible we are keen to that. the public private partnership is challenging balancing private interest capturing value and we
6:45 pm
must be responsible and hold onto the city's interest and elevate that. >> let's do a slight different take on that, which is not the for profit or insurance company the city. the whole concept when i started being a supervisor the residential parking permit was 28 bucks. that was kind of a long time ago not that long ago, 16 years ago $29 today it's 111. the rationale, ladies and gentlemen, was that is what it costs the city to run the residential parking permit program to buy the stickers and staff time and mailing. ewe wanted to have cost recovery for running this program which is for the convenience and livability and enjoyment of car
6:46 pm
owning residents of various neighborhoods right? to what extent does this program recover the cost of your staff time of painting the curbs of putting up the signs, or selecting all of this data is this fully cost recovering. >> yes. well first for public we are constrained in what we can charge [inaudible] so we have been asked or told by folks y don't you charge market rate for these permits? we say we can't our attorney's advice is cautious on that. >> i guess that. i'm talking about cost recovery, not money maker . >> i want today put that on the table folks listening at home we can only charge what it costs to administrator the program as a pilot we made a fair estimate what this costs at the out set
6:47 pm
we're current on billing from all the participants we did look at what did this cost as part of the experience we made a fair cost recovery along the way logistical issues the permit may have to get more expensive for the sake of administration - we have made a fair recovery of the cost of this thing over the pilot. we ran a pilot to gather data not so much on the policy stuff we thought was going to be good but on the street cleaning question on the curb question and how much administration question. as we take our recommendations to our board of directors soon we will be not only evaluating how close we came rather if we recommend the program, what is the proper
6:48 pm
price now we know what we know based on the experience. the price will have to go up because of the administration of more of these things and curb calls. we will share the data with you in terms of cost recovery now that we learned we can set a fair price we recommend going forward. >> right we don't want into google bus debacle we - the public, look at this go really a buck a stop? then you come back a year later oh, yeah we missed it and everybody was kind of embarrassed, laughing, so let's not make that mistake. in your recommendations to the full mta are gouing to recommend a cap in areas where rpp is over
6:49 pm
subscribed? >> that could be part of it. to pivot on that a bit the rpp going through this in particular, supervisor breed district talking about a new area area q there was a fair amount of conversation about here's curb under rpp control is it better or worse? take a piece of that and put car share under there. as i have been eevaluating data and talking to neighbors that the extent that rpp curb is a neighbor-sharing function. the on streetcar share i think presume defensibly another sharing tool we don't have people san mateo - i think
6:50 pm
is coherent with the purpose of rpp which is privilege and elevate the numbers for that curb. it's an open question as we come back to the board of permitted program that is the question is there a difference between rpp versus non-rpp. i will repeat. this program is about neighbor serving trip and service for neighbors for the extent rpp is the same impulse i think putting a few of these in rpp we will talk in a moment about curb equity and pivot to that now. >> why don't we do that? we have the city administrator that has to leave at live and seismic safeties -. >> the omta has the job of referrying the curb. not just
6:51 pm
for the folks on the block all of the businesses that want to use that curb. it's our opinion and sound policy that i think we have to allow for ald and balance those things and the neighbor who doesn't own a car owns one carver sus the neighbor who has five cars. the neighbor with one car owns a claim on that curb as well. the rpp tool is a way to say neighbors that own cars you get a privilege access to that curb neighbors that don't you rpp you are taking muni and composting and rpp does nothing for that. we hear that right away i'm being a good guy and i get nothing out of rpp. okay. so as we look at all proposals from all ideas
6:52 pm
inside or outside of the agencies we are saying we have to make sure there is equitable taking of curb. i invite you to test it with your market. that rpp over lay is an important question. from my opinion as a guy who works on streets, i think the idea of using some of that curb for car sharing for all of the neighbors is coherent with rpp. finally i want to elevate one of the most important points which is social equity access for disabled and low income users, this is a challenge this is a service anybody can use you can become a member of one of these car sharing organization that is interesting andy ii have a disability i can't use that vehicle that is interesting andy my family is challenged
6:53 pm
economically i don't have credit. this is something that city car share the beloved nonprofit had programmed to some programs to some extent that addressed accessibility and disability and financial hardship. city car share was doing that in a limited way with grants they were not practicing a citywide program as you may know city car share is get around has picked up their fleet and operations. we know this is a sensitive and important topic we don't have a great answer for it. we're not sure we don't have a good idea on how the mta can oblige an wheelchair in the city. we're talking with peers around the country with acade c
6:54 pm
academics how can we do aa job at all addressing both of these senses of equity we're aware of without saying we got a great answer here's how we're going to do it. consider finally next friday we will be presenting our full eval weighing to the mta board of directors public meeting please come. give comment there. and then february more likely march we will come back to the board of directors with a recommendation for an operational program. to your point supervisor peskin we don't want to say here's what eewe learned and here's what we're recommending we're granting a decent interval to have conversations like this and hear from the public and what we bring back to our board from this conversation and other
6:55 pm
conversations what a permit program would look like. and ongoing what we keep touching on with you and other folks is there are many other shared mobility ideas and services floating around our bike share system is getting bigger. hurray how does this harmonize with that. >> it might be getting bigger with blue go go from the paper. >> yeah yes sounds like more tech - from china. scoot electric moped service we will talk about not today. we want to harmonize and make sense out of all of these things and rpp and loading zones fit together. this is not just an isolated thing in a stove pipe. that is my presentation. happy to take more
6:56 pm
comments, questions or whatever. >> i think we should hear from the patient public. who would like to speak thank you for your presentation. one other comment as you are sitting down andy which is one of the things that struck me about this i don't have an answer for this either, it seems kind of a little backwards rather than the city saying here's where we want you to have spots, we had them basically say here's where we want spots. it seems to me given the size and knowledge that the mta and power that the mta has we should be in a position to say, we think we need one in this geneva sinty and that genre vicinity rather than throwing
6:57 pm
darts at a map. >> a quick comment, we are a large agent esea with 6,000 employees no dubt big budget. we're not in the business of car share in this instance to some extent to ask what would succeed and what would not to propose locations we did constrain to some extent and we shared with you what the general scope of the dartboard looked like we obliged them to those zones having runned the pilot we have a better idea now where service might be needed and where not. that's why the pilot has benefit you are right. at the outset we deferred to with guidance and oversight. knowing we did want
6:58 pm
them to get used we didn't want them going to fail. it is a fair point. we're always trying to balance how we use other people's exper - expertise. supervisor yee. >> were you planning to expand the numbers? if so, is it unlimited? >> great question, supervisor. as i said we're clear for as many as 900 we only go to 200 over a couple of years one of the things we proposed this for practical and/or cultural reasons should we put a cap on the number of permits? should we say this program will issue as many as a thousand permits and stop and reconsider? that's really important point in the totality should there be a
6:59 pm
maximum pool of these permits and particularity by zone, oh,, by this district census tracted down we wouldn't issue more than two permits per block knowing the political sensitivity but not wanling to limit ourselves it might make sense to have five on a block. interestingly, glenn park saying here we put four over here oz bosworth near bart that is great working with the businesses also. short answer, yes. should be there a cap on this? i would say there's a natural governor to this which is talking to the neighbors and going through reviews we got to 200 we had alliance for 900.
7:00 pm
that an open question we are keen to have your advice on that it's all on the table. >> one thing i want like to ask you as supervisor peskin was talking about notifications to neighbors and so forth, i would appreciate if there is potential spaces used for this in my district i can notify. a lot of times, we don't know about it then people call us and think we knew about it. and why aren't we on top of this? >> yeah. we have in fact olivia and i worked closely back in the day there were a couple of spaces out in west portal as we installed them we took them out. that is largely through conversations with your office. so we can and will do a better job on that. pardon me -. >> that was a discussion after the fact it was put there. >> indeed. we met with the
7:01 pm
merchants with proposals and so forth we ewill always do a better job and commit to doing a better job on advanced proposals . >> let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this item? good morning mrs. courty. >> kathleen courtney. as andy said, there is a lot of pressure on this car sharing. effects parking permits reworking on van necessary and polk and parking spaces happening there everything happening on crooked street and lum bard what is going on there. this is a very broad issue. from the community's association there are two issues we ask you to consider one of the designation
7:02 pm
and selection of spaces. the protocol that is used and also auditing the existing use. three years ago, we appeared as a hearing about a designated space at hyde and union. there was a hearing officer who heard the four requests. at hyde and union there are the 41 and 45 bus stops, there's a cable car stop and there are several merchants we sited we stood for the two merchants who said why are you planning on placing this here? the answer was, the company wanted the space there because it was a high visibility space. so, we agreed that somebody other than the company needs to
7:03 pm
look at and really judge why we're going to place something there. the second thing is the audit of the use as andy mentioned, it's neighborhood servicing get around. real quick; a letter i received from one of our members we don't have a car, especially the dedicated spots are a god send sometimes when we need to run for an errand we noticed that the designated get around spot on hyde and green is never available. it doesn't matter when i tried to book it it never shows up as available. so when somebody says the cars never get driven it might be because they're not available to the get around community i'm speculating here since i can only speak on hyde and green i have used get around many times never got a response they keep telling me
7:04 pm
they will look at it - during the week no luck at all i'm really not sure what is going on here but the car in that parking spot doesn't show up for me to rent even at 4:30 in the morning. two things critical the selection of spaces for get around or any car share and two auditing we specifically ask there be audit of this site at hyde and green. >> thank you mrs. courtney. testimony like that: you want to play by our rules, play by our rules, you want to abuse our rules, you can't play. next speaker, please. >> i want to speak about the rfrment - rpp's themselves i thought it was agreed with
7:05 pm
danielle steel there are four per household. >> she had 19. >> that was obscene that was taken away. all of sudden there were as many as eight get around cars i talked to him, nice guy, and he says how many cars do you have? at one point he said 11 i thought you could only have four. he mumbled off the next time i saw him i asked him how many do you have? four. why does he have four? there is one of him in the household he has a business with all of these cars he's only one driver why should he have four permits. how as to many are driving these cars it's not 60 or 20 per day or
7:06 pm
anything. most of the cars sat on the street for days sometimes weeks on end i would call the traffic meter maid and say this car has been here more than 72 years which means they come out at some point, put a warning on it and come back - the guy seems to know when the guy is going to come okay your time is up now and the car would be moved. those cars did not get used that often. in the meantime, there were as many as eight cars on the street. that meant on our street, between valejo between levinworth and jones people without garages had no place to park or schlep their groceries i have a visual display of get around cars on our street. and
7:07 pm
lucricia one of our neighbors says this truck has a parking permit it's there all the time. >> and it has a get around. >> it's not get around it's just the enforcement of laws. the other day i was driving around mta headquarters the block has 12 hour parking limits to their employees that is pretty good. it's the rpp that puzzle me shouldn't they be for residents? residents are not driving those cars. >> mrs. berke thank you for your testimony. i can see mr. thornly nodding in agreement are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item number one. please come forward. >> hello. my name is joyce
7:08 pm
fishman. i live on vallejo between levenworth and jones one day i came home i counted 4 or 5 get around cars parked only on our street we can't find parking ever and i was very distressed about it. i just wanted to tell you that to have four on one street is just too many. that is one thing the second thing is i know it was brought up recently, the neighbors be notified about these spaces on the street and let them judge whether or not they want 4 or 1 or 10 whatever. we have always been notified in the past and for some reason or another we never get notified any more about anything. thank
7:09 pm
you. >> thank you for that comment. i think i made a point about earlier in the hearing. any other members of the public that would like to testify on item number one? seeing one we will close public hearing. i will wait for the mta for their hearing and bring this back for more input between our body and the mta commission. one of the key points, let me take a step back to the way certain companies choose to do business. by the way, so we're perfectly clear not picking on tech i would like to start with the way the airlines industry used to behave before profound reforms in the early part of this new century in the old days,
7:10 pm
everybody wanted market share to fly to la there is load factor ie how much the airplane is full. southwest 15 flights a day. they were competing in planes that were half empty or more they realized this is a bad business model and should try to fill their planes up and we decongested the skies and the reason i bring this up is because we have uber and lyft and tnc we know there are 40,000 of them on the street fighting for market share when the optimal number according to academic is far below that. causing pollution, congestion, lack of quality of life. and we
7:11 pm
don't want that to happen in this program whether it continues to exist, which is within the purview of the mta commission. i posit to you that the get around model is actually a function of market share because the way they work, because they don't own the cars and they don't have to necessarily occupy one of these designated curb spots it is in their interest to get as many as possible driving the folks we heard from nuts and not leading the objectives of the program so i hope you will take that into consideration. this is not a phenomenon that happens with the disrupter tech community it's a long held practice in short term thinking with models many a year
7:12 pm
many of them become monopolies and worth their front in investment. with that, we will continue this item to the call of the chair. thank you for your presentation and testimony. we will quickly move to item two so we can hear from city administrator naomi kelly before she has to run. >> madame cler, will you call item number 10/28/16; continued to call of the chair. >> thank you. this, colleagues and members of the public, as you know is part of an on going hearing with a couple of objectives in mind. first identify what went wrong with the construction and approval process with the millennium tow we are which is a learn in how not to build on a landfill and processes for high-rise development particularly in
7:13 pm
volcanoable areas in the city such as our do downtown. in october i introduced two pieces of ordinance of the seismic safety zones to inform the mayor the department of safety and residential building in seismically volcanoable parts of the city as well as $250,000 supplemental approval from the department of inspections and management and the tall advisory committee to contract with the best minds available on this topic. tuesday of this week, i introduced legislation with regard to updating the department of building inspections record retention policy and finally, we have asked for a full peer review of the finalized hamburger report
7:14 pm
on the safety or lade safety of the 301. mission street tower. today's hearing is a quick update on three items number one the status of the peer review on the hamburger report. number two a follow up with the department of building and inspection on the notices of vie leaking issued to millennium tower for a number of violations of the building code and finally to hear from the san francisco public utilities commission to an issue i raised at last hearing do to dewaterering in that area specifically next door at the transbay site. with that, i'm delighted to see our city administrator kelly here and get a brief update here to get an update on how things are going and who we have retained to
7:15 pm
eevaluate the hamburger report and the safety and habitability of the millennium tower. >> hello good morning. naemi reed kelly city administrator - two big initiatives directly relate to tall buildings and the millennium tower as you noticed we have retained engineering consultants to review the safety of 301 mission and looking at the reports that were submitted to the city by all of the different engineers retained by the developer, homeowners association and more. we have retained as an engineering consultant rock ridge who is our
7:16 pm
geo engineer we have retained marco tenis as an engineer. and one of the academics in the field gregory deer loin from stanford university. they are working on this it took us a while to find an engineer that had not touched this project. ewe eventually found great candidates, to review the existing data provided to the city. some of those reports as you are very familiar with started reviewing immediately binders of information was the hamburger report the structural engineer ron hamburger from sgeh sage reports and many more documents provided to many engineering charts plates
7:17 pm
demonstrating settlement boardings core photos and other data. after reviewing those documents in december and actually going out to 301 mission and taking a tour of the building going up and down the elevator shafts and more. these consultants sought additional information to further clarify the information in the reports information from the tilt of the building prediction of future settlement stresses due to the settlement gravity earthquake on the support intotal of the building including grade structures and future or additional settlements. those were sent to salon jeffreys and [inaudible] on december 16th. as of yet we have not - ddi reached
7:18 pm
out to them recently and asked the information be provided to them by friday of this week. >> my understanding is they intend to provide that by friday of this week. >> excellent as soon as we get more information the consultants will have more to report on. of course we will get right back to you with more information on the safety of the building. i wanted to talk about we are looking works hand in hand with other legislation on tall buildings in general not just 301 but other buildings on different types of soils and certain heights and weights. that dove tails the uc berkeley research project - tall
7:19 pm
buildings in the sf we will pivot if they with can part of it look to a different contractor the peer proposal is largely wanting to go into these private buildings and do computer modelling of ten tall buildings and we want to go to a more focused approach current practice codes data assembled looking at how do we improve or building codes, administrative bulletins and peer review process. i think as you are going to talk later about dewatering how do we look at this construction means and methods and how does itm pact other buildings particularly tall buildings and pivot and look to eight earthquake safety implementation approach which you are familiar with that we worked on the last five years and started implementing looking
7:20 pm
at our private building stock and how do we look at improving that structure so we're more resilience. we are looking at contractors, that are independent to move forward on tall building working group to work on those issues in the future. >> and mrs. kelly can we be provided with whatever written scope of work these peer reviewers were given for our edification? >> absolutely i will get that to you later today. >> they i assume are under contract with the city administrators office. >> they are under contract with the city administrator's office. >> and the funds are with. >> the city administrators
7:21 pm
office. >> got it. and can we get a list of all of the applicants reviewed that were connected and ultimately were not empanelled? >> yes. i don't know if i necessarily have documents to that nature. more review in conversations and looking at backgrounds before i reached out to folks . >> whatever you have would be great. any questions for mrs. kelly? any sense of when assuming response from millennium in the next 48 hours when their work will be finalized? >> depending on the nature of how much data comes back, i'm hoping - ii have to wait and see how much data comes back from millennium and if it answered all of the questions we asked i would be hesitant to give you a time right now as soon as i have
7:22 pm
a sense of that i will be happy to get in touch with you to give you a time line. >> thank you madame city administrator. all right. why don't we move to department of building inspection i see mr. ron tom here on behalf of building inspection department. at the last hearing on this committee we confirmed that dvi had violators to take corrective action relative to the ramps that had been no longer to code and as a result of the differential settlement as well as water intrusion in the basement is one of the nov's so mr. tom if you can remind us about those nov's and tell us what the current status is
7:23 pm
relative to the status of correction of violation. >> good morning ron tom department of building inspector. we two violation issues both related to the ramps and handrails. the first ramps and handrails on the level - the second is located at the basement one level shared by the mid rise and high-rise and also at ramps and handrails on the second level. currently these nov's are under remediation the owners have been in communication with dbi scene yore building inspector for access and we have been advised
7:24 pm
that next week, we will have plans committed to correct the violation. and we will continue to closely monitor the situation. to ensure there is compliance with the conditions of the no v. the other item you referred which is the water intrusion was not formal notice of violation but correction notice issued for that and also for maintenance related items. as of yesterday, our plumbing chief building chief electrical chief and deputy director went to the project site to confirm the status of those corrections. so we have hangers, we have fire
7:25 pm
cocking all of those maintenance items part of the correction notice were addressed. the water intrusion is a little bit more complicated. they're in the process of engaging contractors to mitigate that and that process is a little bit more involved. it will require injection of materials to stop the water intrusion and subsequent to that they will be reparing the concrete spauling as a result of the water intrusion. we are finalizing a report. regarding those correction notices and we will be issuing that to you and your staff and other supervisors next week. >> thank you mr. tom. any questions for mr. tom or dbi? i have to say colleagues, i love
7:26 pm
the fact every time we hold one of these hearings the day before the notice of violation gets issues the day before the inspection happens we have to keep holdings these hearing to get these things fixed. thank you mr. tom sorry for my tongue and cheek comment there. why don't we move onto the most interesting part of today's hearing that is the san francisco public utilities commission. i believe tomo takashita is here thank you for coming. here's the manager of the public utilities pretreatment program. why don't we talk about dewatering what it is why it is important. mr. tom don't go away this may bounce back to the department of building inspection. as
7:27 pm
everybody has read or seen in the media there's a school of thought that the pumping of groundwater commonly known as dewatering, has accelerated the sinking and potentially exacerbated the pilting of 301 mission street we discussed at the first hearing months ago millennium by it's own admission in a letter from it's geo technical engineer in i believe february 18th of 2009 actually said their building had sunk far more than projected and would continue to sink due to their
7:28 pm
own more extensive dewatering on their own site. since that time the revelations of last building the building had sunk 16 inches far more than the four inches projected millennium has repeatedly alleged that has been exacerbated by the dewatering of the adjacent transbasin site. i know that is not the only site dewatered across the street mission street is dewatered as well. for reasons that don't have to do with the safety of buildings is monitored by the puc that's a good segue to mr. t's presentation good morning it is still morning. >> good morning supervisor
7:29 pm
peskin, supervisor breed, supervisor yee. my name is takashta manager of the program which manages the batch discharge program. i brought a short five slide power point presentation to guide us through the elements of the program. the first slide is the regulatory requirements, environmental protection agency requires san francisco to have a pretreatment program. under that program is the batch discharge program. san francisco public works code 4.1 known as a sue use ordinance pretreatment program to regulate batch charges so all of our treatment programs is one of 1500 approved pretreatment programs throughout the county. san francisco public works code is designed to protect the
7:30 pm
public health, environment, the sewage system, suer workers and the wastewater treatment plants the objectives is to preevent b obstruction, - and prevent violations. also to make sure all dischargers pay their fair share of sewer charges - the primary purpose is to protect infrastructure by regulating the quality and quantity of water introduced into the sewer system all periodic discharges of the sewer system must obtain a batch permit through our program. let's see who must comply? any
7:31 pm
activity that generates this type of periodic discharge into the system must comply. so examples are construction activities, well water testing, auxiliary water supply anything for nonroutine discharges we may ask them to install meters to regulate their flow take examples of wastewater to make sure they comply with all of our discharge standards there may be pretreatment involved if the results call for that. and of course pay their fair share of sewer service charges and any other questions you may have? >> so, with regard to the instant case as it relates to - why don't we start with 301
7:32 pm
mission street. the millennium tower did they obtain a permit? did they install meters? >> 301 mission street. >> this would be circa 2006 to 2009. >> i would have to review our data. that goes back 2004, 2005. >> we can follow up with you on that offline with regard to transbay, i assume -. >> yes. >> can you tell us a little bit about that? >> well the transbay footprint is quite large. there are several dewatering activities going on. permits contract ires they're all individually handled and we're in communication with them getting discharge data. >> and are you aware of - you
7:33 pm
say that the puc has the ability to require metering of discharge. >> correct. >> in the case of transbay slash sales force, are you aware of a meter monitor that discharge having failed for an extended period of time. >> yes i am. >> can you spike to us a little bit about that? >> we issued them a permit in 2014. shortly there after4 months later their meter broke. so we were in communication with them we told them to replace it or fix it. and that period of time had passed. we were attempting to e-mail and phone call getting additional discharge data. and notice of
7:34 pm
violation was issued after several attempts to gather this missing data which we have since received. >> if it was broken how could they send you data? >> they installed after we had finally communicated back with them they gave us a time line which i have and installed a meter after their initial meter had broken. >> what was the period of time where in the meter was broken? >> the meter was broken in july of 2015 i believe and when we finally got a hold of the project manager he indicated the meter was installed pretty much right away but again, we were not in communication with them after several attempts of e-mails and phone calls. we did finally get the information after the notice of violation
7:35 pm
and they gave us the total that had been discharged. >> i'm failing to understand how - did they extrapolate how much discharge? did they didn't have a meter it was a guess right. >> it was an estimation. >> lucky for you we didn't have large stormwater events and your sewers didn't throw because because we didn't have that during that time. >> they showed the flow reet rates and various that were changes and stop and go as well . >> and they paid you the fees according loor. >> -. >> that information is beingtallied up and sent to puc for financing invoicing . >> is this common occurrence
7:36 pm
issue of violations. >> no. we have a good success rate. this is a situation where we had to reach out to them several times and final issue a notice of violation which is unusual. >> who is the staff that handled that project for you . >> mr. brian cuin. >> is he here? >> yes. >> could we visit a little bit? >> good morning, someplaupervis peskin, supervisor yee, supervisor breed . >> thank you for joining us. >> i apologize i was not here that day. >> no problem. the water had been pumped by that time, so it's okay. so i'm in possession
7:37 pm
of an e-mail or a series my office obtained between you and and schimic construction going a long period of time. it's startling at certain points actually you tell them they need to stop discharges they continued doing it. ask you how they're supposed to fix their own meter. ultimately, the notices of violation stated they were barred from obtaining permits from the puc because of failure to comply with the reporting requirements and you estimated they were unmetered for a year-and-a-half. >> that is correct. >> how does that happen?
7:38 pm
>> part of the problem is the original engineer i was communicating with had left the schimic the company, so he was not receiving those e-mails. i think the last e-mail i sent was january of 2016 i believe it's probably in there. so we haven't received any response whatsoever with the tower when we began getting the public records request realized we had not gotten that data. i reached out and still did difficulty i found
7:39 pm
somebody who does work at schimick who promised to give the data and it was issued and the data was worth coming. >> the data has subsequently been provided by schimick and i believe nicholson construction is how many millions of gallons? >> so i believe and i double check this for sure, i believe from date of the original permit up through the end of 2016 about 4 million gallons that includes the meters part they know about at the beginning these last few months that were metered we require paragraphs of the meters so we know and the estimated values so about 4.2 million i
7:40 pm
think. >> and do you have how many millions of gallons were pumped through 301 mission street. >> i i wasn't with the department at the time. >> but that information exists? >> i'm looking for it. >> we would like to see it and more 301 mission street and any other batch to start. >> 301 was an easy project we have all that for you as well that is a subject of one of the public records request. >> do you look at dewatering in cumulative or comprehensive way or doing project by project because your interest is in the integrity of sewer system and discharge? >> we look at it cumulative to the extent that discharger a and b are going to the same sewer
7:41 pm
and a or b would not impact alone what the sewer can happen we would not look at that cumulative we would look at that yes. >> are there any other batch permits in that vicinity goes into the sewer main or force mane? >> a few permits were issued recently. i think it's 500 - i need to look at the map to be sure. 301 mission has been done and more online as the transbay gets built out. >> have you issued any other issues of violation . >> this is the first i have been aware of that dakeshda in the department for 30 years i'm not aware of this kiep of things we have this kind of difficulty a
7:42 pm
few phone calls and prods gets the information. so this is the first time i have issued a notice of violation of this type. yes. >> thank you. any questions from the puc? why don't we bring mr. tom back up here. so, mr. tom, let me ask you the same question, which is does the department of building inspection have - your interests are very different than the infrastructural integrity of our sewer system. does the department of building inspection have any program to either individually or cumulatively monitor dewatering and the impacts on construction
7:43 pm
or existing building. >> we do not and we have not. >> so, it is time for the city and county of san francisco and if i need to legislate this, we will to take a page out of the city of boston's book, which, while they have different soil conditions than san francisco, they have in our building heavy high-rise buildings in areas that used to be under water that are now filled lands and they are at the forefront of actually looking at dewatering monitoring dewatering not just from a utility standpoint but from a building inspection and safety standpoint. so i think it is time, as we slowly bring the department of building
7:44 pm
inspection into the dawn of the 21st century as we continue building these kinds of buildings in seismically vulnerable landfills of the city it's time for us to adopt a comprehensive groundwater monitoring system we probably should have done a number of years ago the puc is not looking at this at all through the lens of building safety and i got news which is that water flows around and all of these contiguous parcels are sitting on top of the same body of water whether it's the colma formations when you take it out of one site are you taking it out of the site next door regardless how well an secant
7:45 pm
wall is built. it's time to take those seriously. so my office will work to endeavor with your department and experts and the city of boston to do just that. >> supervisor, we welcome that participation. probably for us, lit be ground breaking. >> literally. [laughter]. >> the situation we have in our department definitely we do not have that kind of expertise. we will have to seek it outside of the department and engage professionals who have experience in this matter. we also want to look at holistically, how this effects a region, region not being san francisco itself and the bay area but the region of the local where the water is occurring how it impacts it with the water table how it migrates to the lower levels and how it's
7:46 pm
replenished and what stage it's terminated for a specific project and how it may wine up being connected to another project within the proximity and region of that site. supervisor we welcome participation and robust process we ecan be at the forefront. >> thank you for your candor and welcoming that idea that will take us a calendar year to do that i look forward to working with you and your staff. with that, why don't we open to item two to public comment. is there anyone that would like to testify on this item? please come forward, sir. mr. dobson. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i want to comment on administrator's kelly's comments where she was talking about a
7:47 pm
letter sent december 15th. to director hughey to shaun jeffreys it requested from shaun jeffreys a plan for complete stabilization of the tower that would include vertical settlement as well as the tilting. it's a request. keep in mind the december 15th. date yet the same request is made december 26th. by director. huey and request a complete plan for stabilization and timetable. i think what the department of building and inspection needs to be doing is more than requesting they should be ordering and come up with a plan with a timetable. the requesting period should be over given they did not reply to
7:48 pm
the december 206th. it did not reply to the september letter. there is no reason to suspect on friday we're going to get a plan for stabilization in light of the conversations i'm aware of between lending partners and the city and all of the papers i have seen. that would be my comment. >> thank you for that comment mr. dobson. very valid point. >> thank you very much. >> yes, sir?. any other members of the public that would like to testify? please come forward, sir. >> my name is andrew faulk i live in the millennium towers i'm not a public speaker. so i ask your indulgence if my points are not as articulate and
7:49 pm
succinct as they might be. what i want to say is i'm not an engineer and i don't fully understand all of the ramifications of the technical issues today. but i can tell you this, living in a building which is perhaps not seismically safe is a constant burden on me and my husband. i will say our particular unit cost us 40% of all of our assets which now appears in jeopardy. i'm not sure as perhaps you don't know, what is going to happen to all of the money my husband and i invested in our unit. also, i would like to say that living in san francisco perhaps due to building settling or even
7:50 pm
imagination on occasion i feel what may be a tremor. and each time i wonder if this will be the moment when i experience tons of concrete falling on me and destroying my life. we purchased in 2011 and it now appears clear that millennium partners new in 2008 and certainly by as late as 2009 that they were selling a building which was tilting, and si sinking - what was to be expected. and i would like to review the fact that when we purchased what was disclosed to us was things as trivial whether
7:51 pm
or not the marble in our units matched up. which i can't believe in fact they should have disclosed the building was sinking and tilting it seems to me, well i know, i feel defrauded and cheated by millennium partners and i feel cheated by their continuing callusness in regard to our safety and evasion of responsibility for what they did. clearly, they cut corners. i don't understand how they're being allowed to build any more buildings in the city of san francisco because they have broven to cut corners to such an extent their buildings are not safe and the people who invest in them, like i said, may have all of their assets put in
7:52 pm
jeopardy. now it's true assets are one thing as i said, every time there is a little movement building settling imagination i worry this will be the end of my life because of the callusness of a major corporation that has funds that i don't even know. any way that's all i have to say. >> thank you for your comments. any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item? seeing none we will close public comment. continue this item to the call of the chair. thank you to the individuals from the puc dbi who testified today as well as members of the public. and with that, madame clerk, could you
7:53 pm
please read items 3-8? >> eight tems 3 through 8 [reading]:" against the city and county of satisfy. >> mr. city attorney, we're go tog reconvene in closed session. >> public comment? >> yes i was going to say are there any members of the public that would like to testify on items 3 through 8 the litigation of.
7:54 pm
>> we will reconvene the government audit and oversight committee city attorney? >> the committee voted 3-0 vote to move items 3, 6, 4, 8 with a positive recommendation voted 3 to 0 vote to continue item five to the next meeting of the government audit and oversight committee and voted 2-1 vote with supervisor breed b in dissent to forward item seven to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> thank you a motion not to disclose. >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor breed. colleagues can we take that without objection? and that concludes our agenda. we are w
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants
7:57 pm
by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet
7:58 pm
and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said
7:59 pm
want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community
8:00 pm
pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at >> [gavel] all right. welcome everyone to our rules committee meeting of thursday january 12, 2017. i am katy tang chairing this committee. to my right is vice chair malia