i have also asked that we continue to improve on the open space and parks that we have in district 6 with that fund as well. supervisor chiu said it. district 3 has one of the lowest parks and open space per resident. district 6 actually has the fewest parks and we have the smallest parks in the city. but what we have learned is increasing open space isn't always the answer because the city doesn't always have the funding to maintain these new parks. and now i'm hearing more and more to residents who are left to better fund and better maintain the parks that we have. so, i'm really excited that some of the fund that are going to be paid by hoa will go towards maintenance and capital improvement for the parks we have in our district. and i think that's incredibly important that we have really, really strong parks for the few parks that we have in our district. so, and also i'm glad that the developer is voluntarily paying the city open space fee

payment, calculated at the exact same rate that they would have paid if they were in the transit city district plan. by residential square footage and cultural institution square footage. i think those are also positive improvements and things that i support as this development moves forward. you know, the height is a tough issues for me. on a policy level i have not opposed height in general throughout the city and especially in our district. we have very tall buildings in our district and just east of these buildings we have, you know, increased entitlements up to 600 feet for the paless hotel, a thousand tarot for transbay tower, 700 feet for 181 fremont. i think what is hardest for me is we didn't have any opposition to those increases in height which had significant shadow impacts throughout the city. ~ in chinatown and union square. ~ palace

it's hard, then, to say not this building. why the transit center [speaker not understood], really across the street from the plan itself. i think given the fact that we are working on mitigation for open space type safety, it doesn't take care of everything, but i think it is certainly significant contribution to the neighborhood. it would be very hard for me to oppose the height increase for this project, but not for any other. and i think it is it' important because there's so much development in district 6 ~ that i'm consistent in how i determine policy. i do think prop k is a very legitimate argument, but again, you know, it's one that we -- we allocated more shadows for through the transit center district plan. and being that they were paying the same fees that they would have paid if they were across the street, i think that there isn't a distinct difference, then, between these developments. but it is a hard decision. we certainly know that members

of our constituents are very opposed to the height of this project, and i agree. a lower project could probably work. it's just hard to say how that would impact the benefits provided -- that are being provided to the neighborhood. so, i would be supporting this project. i will be supporting this out of the land use committee and at the full board. >> thank you, supervisor. do you have a view whether we put it out today or do it as a committee report next monday? >> you know, i don't have a strong feeling as long as it is finally voted next tuesday at the full board f. we forward it out as a committee report next monday, i'm for that. i don't think more discussion hurts, but i do want to make sure this comes to the full board next tuesday. >> thank you. actually, i share a lot of supervisor kim's perspectives as she's articulated, although i will add as i mentioned earlier in the meeting in terms of paying for infrastructure

and complete neighborhoods, having world class public transportation has to be part of that. again, this is -- my comments are not in any way connected specifically to this project. it's a broader issue that we just in many different ways, including around development, we persistently underfund transit and a disfunctionality in the city. i'm hoping over time we can correct for the sake of the future of the city. ~ dysfunctionality you know, i am -- i have been hearing about this potential ballot measure and i think i understand what it's about and i think as i indicate [speaker not understood] this morning i think a ballot measure is extreme and is horrific public policy. i also hope that over the next week there will be some discussions. and if there can be a compromise of some sort that folks can live with, that maybe no one is thrilled with, but

everyone can live with, that would result in peace in the world, that would be great and i would encourage both sides to talk over the next eight days. i do think it makes sense to keep it in committee for a week and then i will commit to all side that i will again as a committee report next monday so that it would still be able to come out to be heard at the board on the exact same day, i.e., a week from tomorrow. and i can keep it in committee, allow us to continue to exercise jurisdiction. if there is a resolution, great. if there is not a resolution, i would be prepared to put it out to committee as a committee report next week. and that's my tab on t. president chiu? >> my last comments and i definitely appreciate and agree with many of the comments of both supervisor kim and wiener have made around global thoughts on this. ~ part of my thinking about why i think we should bring it back to committee as we all know,

deadlines hopefully force decisions. and i think if we don't leave this until a 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. special order on tuesday, the right conversations i think we were hoping to have happen will not happen. so, again, it's my hope that people will be scheduling time in the coming days to see if there is anything that we can do to get to yes, i am prepared to be involved and i'm sure any of my colleagues to be involved in those conversations and trying to translate the needs on both sides, i do know a lot of conversations have already happened. i'm also going to say this. i know that there is probably not the closest and warmest and fuzziest feelings between the two sides, but i actually do think that there are very well intentioned individuals on both sides who will be negotiating in good faith and i ask for that to happen. i also don't think next week needs to be an exercise of how many folks can turnout public comment on both sides. it's really about seeing if we can get to progress. because if you can, i would love to be able to support

something coming out of this committee going to full board. if not, we'll see how things proceed and we'll have to make our decisions at that point. >> thank you. i will reiterate everyone has an absolute right to come out and make public comment again or bring other people with them. i think between today and also we had a pretty extensive ceqa hearing, i think we all very, very aware of the strong views on both sides. and, so, everyone is welcome to come out again. i know we all had today's public comment very much in mind. city attorney first of all to confirm, there will be no issues with putting this out as a committee report next monday or the following day? >> that's right. you can put it out as a committee report. >> even if there's tweaks or changes? >> sorry, it depends on what the tweaks or changes are. if the only issue that the two sides are discussing is height

and the height comes down [speaker not understood] without other changes out of [speaker not understood], that could come out of committee. i can't comment on what other changes may -- >> okay. >> and that will actually be the same issue, whether we put it out today or as a committee report. if we put it out today and next tuesday and make amendments before the board, if it were to require the committee, it would require continuance at the full board. ~ >> that's exactly right. >> and a reduction, simple reduction in height. if that happens, i'm not saying it will, would not require continuance? >> that's right. >> okay, thank you. mr. givens, did you want to make another comment about these? >> yeah, sure. early in the discussion before public comment, the committee was discussing different types of impact fees. and supervisor kim mentioned there's a total of $115 million in benefits and contributions coming from the developer here. and i just wanted to clarify for the benefit of the public

really that there are some development fees that flow from the board's regulatory approval i believe somewhere in the range of $17 million and there is a separate proprietary agreement between successor agency and the developer where the parties have negotiated for a number of other benefits and contributions that total approximately 97, $98 million, totaling 115 that the developer is paying out. just wanted to clarify that that separate agreement with the successor agency and the developer is not something that's before the board or requires board approval. >> thank you very much. ~ for that clarification. okay, colleagues, any additional discussion? then do we have a motion to continue this item one week? >> motion to continue to one week with a committee report from monday to tuesday. >> exactly. and we will agendize it as a committee report.

is there any objection to the motion? okay, then without objection that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item number 5 is an ordinance amending the planning code to add a definition of "significant increase in residential development potential" consistent with the housing trust fund provisions in charter, section 16.110; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan. ~ trust fund provisions. >> okay, dan adams from the mayor's office of housing is here for item number 5. why don't we wait a couple seconds. if folks could keep the conversation to a minimum so that we can proceed with our agenda. okay, mr. adams, i think we're ready.

>> thank you. thank you, supervisors. dan adams with the mayor's office of housing. i'm here to speak on behalf of the piece of legislation before you today that references a significant increase in residential development potential. and this is part of the housing trust fund package. it's one of the last trailing pieces of legislation. you will remember that among other things that the housing trust fund did, it established a cap or stabilized the fee obligation for affordable housing for the period of the trust fund for the 30, 30-year period. the -- those fees or obligations could be increased by an inflationary [speaker not understood] kinds of requirements are not allowed. however, it did provide exceptions to this cap and there were a number of exceptions, two of which that were significant increases in development potential. the first referenced project specific rezoning through an sud or [speaker not understood] piece of legislation.

and under those scenarios there was a definition for what constitutes significant increase in residential development in the charter itself. however, for larger rezonings, plan area, scale rezonings of 40 acres or more, the parties who were kind of key in negotiating the housing trust fund could not reach agreement on a definition of significant increase. and, so, what the charter did was it created and empowered a housing review committee, comprised of the director's mayor's office of housing, economic and work force development, and the planning department to come together as a committee, hold a public hearing, and determine a definition for significant increase in the residential development for rezonings of 40 acres or greater. so, the legislation you have before you establishes that definition. it is the result of a number of public hearings as well as a

series of meetings that we had with key stakeholders including representatives of affordable housing development and market rate housing development and the definition that's before you represents a consensus position among those parties of what is a fair definition. and i think our city attorney can speak to this more directly. the charter lays out a process by which the housing review committee proposes a definition for review and approval by the full board. it does not permit modification at the board level of a definition. it's an up/down vote should the board not approve this definition, it would go back to the housing review committee to be reviewed and resubmitted. this proposal before you does represent or was approved by the planning commission sometime ago. very quickly, the definition again is for rezoning the 40

acres or greater and this would exempt parcelses and projects that receive this threshold of up zoning from the cap. it would not require that additional exactions or fees be applied to the project. it would merely exempt them from the cap. and it wrotev -- the personal project would have to meet 20% or greater increase in developable residential gross floor area as measured by change in height when the floor area ratio limits are other use or use over prior zoning. a change in use permitted, permitting residential uses where none were previously permitted. or, and again it's an or, for parcels with an existing residential development capacity of 10 units or greater, it would have to reach the lesser of a 50% increase in residential den its over prior zoning or increase in density of at least 15 additional units. ~ densities so, that is my presentation. again, it does reflect a

consensus position amongst key stakeholder groups, and i look forward to your questions or comments. >> thank you, mr. adams. colleagues, any comments or questions? great, mr. adams, thank you for this. i do remember this [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> it was a very elegant punt to an expert committee. and, so, i think it ended in a good result. >> yes, thank you. >> so, i guess we'll open up for publicnt. is there anymember of the public would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> and now i believe we need to convert this into a motion, mr. givner, is that correct? >> that's right, because of the funk ~ sunset piece for this ordinance. the board has the authority to reject the ordinance and would do so by motion or the board could approve the ordinance if you prefer to do that. so, it would be an amendment to

amend the item into a motion, approving the ordinance. >> okay. so, can we then have a motion as described by mr. givner to amend item number 5 to convert it into a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> okay. and without objection? the amendment is adopted. [gavel] >> and can we have a motion to forward to the board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> without objection, that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, sly any additional business before the committee? >> there are no further matters. >> then we are adjourned. [gavel] [adjourned] test,

test, test, test, test, test, test, test >> thank you and good morning and welcome to the meeting of the board of supervisors neighborhood services and safety committee of july 18th i'm david campos we're joined by supervisor eric mar and later by the committee members supervisor yee. we have supervisor breed. the clerk of the committee and we want to thank him is derrick and thank you members of the

sftv staff (calling names) and for our staff from the city attorney's office. mr. clerk do you have any announcements >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic doblths. all documents shall be submitted n to the mr. clerk. thank you very much >> we've been joined by supervisor yee. >> item number one is for preventing bike theft in the city of is no. >> i want to thank supervisor mar on the committee as well for submitting this item that is co- sponsored by other and

myself. >> chair campos. thank you everyone for being here this morning it's actually been planned several months on this serious issue but i be given the data that shows maybe a thee to one bicycles stolen compared to cell phones it's worth to attention in our city is important. many have put their heads together and mr. fred has drafted an incredible report we'll be talking about a little bit later. but i want to say that bike thefts have been an issue in the city. it's been eating at me for 40 years when i had my bicycle

stolen in mid-school first year also in understanding how those steps happen is really important. this hearing is the best way to get a much better system in the city. i've been riding bicycles for 45 years. i used to live in davis california so i see in many ways how bicycling can improve lives and we're trying to increase this is a

the police department according to national studies undercuts the measures by many studies but like thefts have increased in

our city at a similar rate and that's been a tremendous increase so bike thefts have gone up singularly as well. if we want to address the bike thefts we have to address that in a significant way. my third aid peter i think it was a couple of months ago had a direct experience and he's been the main person in my office trying to put this together but his bike was stolen about a week after i called for this report and he getting got a close up look how his bike was recovered but how the system has debated

getting their bicycles back and his experience is similar to others we've heard from throughout the city that some police stations do a really excellent job of processing bike thefts and but many of the stations can learn from the best practices and could use support i think from within the department and the community. so a major goal from this hearing is to look at the best practices to share that throughout the police departments and our city. but the police can't do this all by themselves and based on our research i've also supported the creation of a new bicycle regulatory and theft outreach

program which we're hoping it approved in the budget. i want to thank the mta especially neil and mta staff. our planning department and the transportation authority as well that is working on many different bicycle projects but funding for important projects and quickly rolling out our bicycling program throughout the city. that's a key part to allow folks to park their bikes in a safe place. i want to say colleagues if there are no questions if we could have a few presentations from staff and we're asking the staff presentations to be as succinct as possible after the budget and analyst office presents the finding >> supervisor mar i want to

make sure that any of my colleagues if they want to make any introductory remarks. >> i'd like to associate myself with the issue. this is important especially because one of the things the information i've governor from constituents in my districts their bicycles locked in their garages are getting stolen. i want to figure out ways in which to address this problem in addition to all other thefts. thank you that for taking the leadership in this. like the residents my second bike was stolen out of my garage happened in october a few months

before any colleagues was stolen. i had it locked in the garage and other residents in my building as well. it's a very sophisticated method of bike theft for our building especially. and thank you. i wanted to say after fred presents the findings of the report we'll also have officer from our local police department and neil to present. i'm pleased we've been working with supports in our communities on bicycle theft so morgan st. clarg clare is a 37-year-old organizations it that's been working that the police

department. and i think sf save has been a tremendous resources. i'm going to introduce mr. fred >> thank you supervisors i'm fretting fred from the budget and analyst office. our office conducted an analysis at the question of the inspire mary looking at the return of stolen bicycles in san francisco. we've objected compute from the mta. we had exchanges about potential plans for the future. i have a couple of slides and i will start those on the other hand, and go through them

quickly. >> i think the slides will be up soon hopefully. >> are they not there? >> i don't see them - there it goes. >> so the first points and i think supervisor mar you hit on most of those the current share of all transit modes is 23.35 percent of all trips by san franciscans were on bicycles. it may not sound like a huge number basing but has grown by 2

thousand since 2005. most important it's been growing dramatically in recent years. and as you mentioned the goal strategy so to increase the share of all trips on bicycles by 2002. the steps we obtained there were reported actual in attempted bicycle themselves theflz in 2012 were 1 hundred and 15. they've come up with a measure of actual bicycle thefts that states that for every one reported there are on average four more not reported so so when you for about that in

you've known people who have their bicycles stolen they don't report it but that brings up to 4 thousand and 85. we remember through an experience to attempt to value those bicycles. there's a wide range to a range of low priced bicycles. but we came up with a figure of $4.6 million in value of the stolen bicycles in 2012. the rate at which the bicycle rates stolen has increased there's a 70 percentage rate reported by bicycle theft