that concludes my overview of the projects that we have in the eastern neighborhoods. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> i have a question. are these maps different? >> it's the same map but i cut it to make it larger on the powerpoint. >> that's perfect, thank you. supervisor campos, did you have a question? >> a quick probably dumb question and maybe it's not possible to do it. i wonder if there is a way to have a map thatten incorporates the various projects in the eastern neighborhood. in other words something that maybe it's not fobl -- possible to do that but to incorporate what everybody is thinking to have something that come piles all

the efforts the city has in this part of town. >> i think that's possible to do that. >> okay. thank you for your presentation. okay. folks, we are almost done with item no. 1. i'm going to ask brian strong to come and talk to us a little bit from the capital planning side of the house. >> sure. thank you. good morning members of the board of supervisors, brian strong with the capital planning program. yeah, what i can add i think most of the other departments have already covered the various aspects of infrastructure and what we are doing in the eastern neighborhoods. specifically you know the capital plan, the capital budget for the next year is putting about $5

million into if not all some of the eastern projects neighborhood like the streetscape improvement and some of it is a new program which we started with the street improvement bond where we are taking advantage of opportunities whenever we are doing work in the street that we are going to be putting in pedestrian bulb outs or other infrastructure improvements at the same time. we are also investing money in the pedestrian and bike safety improvements. some of that is being done directly by dpw and some directly performed by the mta. more generally, there is always been a difficult question that we have at the capital planning which is how do you balance the current needs with new growth and with

new needs and as i have come to speak with you all on several occasions, we are still really struggling just to maintain the structure that the city has and just in the general fund program itself we are deferring about $3.9 billion in capital projects that the city has really deemed as high priority, we just don't have the funds to do it. over a billion of that is to take care of what we own. part of the struggle in the planning committee is how to balance between what we own and how to address this new growth. the last capital plan is really we started to put some significant investments towards new growth areas and infrastructure around it and part of that is really responding to request from the board and from the eastern

neighborhood and cac and other individuals. so where the capital plan itself is looking at about $200 million $200 million in general fund investment over the next two 2 years and the $150 million general obligation fund recommends coming up in an a little bit less than a year from now, november, 2014. that sets the stage for deputy controllers presentation which we call transportation implementation that is the launching point for the mayor's transportation task force. we are expected to hear back from this em in the next month or so and looking how to incorporate these in the bond program and

the vehicle license fee proposals and so forth. >> okay. >> any questions? >> i had one for you earlier, but i'm looking for my notes. >> i think that was on the budget. i don't know if john, if you had anything to add. when he was up here it was how much specifically in the budget we have for the neighborhoods and specific projects. at the county level we are funding it's for the program projects and i can't speak for how much will go to certain neighborhoods, but it gets folding really into the presentation that john thomas was making a portion of his revenue for his program coming out of the general fund in the next year. we are looking at about $5 million for those programs. >> supervisor campos has a

question. >> it wasn't' question for mr. strong, but i have a question once the presentations were done. one question i had and thanks to supervisor cohen for putting this item on the agenda. i think this is a very important discussion and very informative. the overall assessment of the infrastructure need that is going to happen because of development, when was that analysis conducted and how relevant is it to all that's going on right now because there is a huge economic boom. so i'm wondering if someone can address that issue? >> sure. good afternoon, supervisors. the need assessment was done as part of the eastern neighborhoods plan

that was adopted in 2009. there was a needs assessment put together as well as the nexus study to support the impact fees and that identified the need globally and the impact fees because the impact fees could charge are really only a needs side and what is feasible to still get development. the impact fees could only realistically cover a portion of that. there was always the sense of the additional need than the impact fees. that's just the need to see new growth. the impact revenues also can't support existing deficits. so there is a general capital planning needs that we have citywide that brian eluded to. what we are seeing right now from a development standpoint is consistent from what we expected in that needs analysis and that needs

analysis is based on projected growth. what we saw was very little development at all and we got what is entitled or under review by the department or in some cases under construction of being built. we have a hot market now. the timing is an a little bit different than maybe we might have projected during the time of the adoption of the plans, but i would say over all, because the needs analysis is based on the development and the capacity identified in the zoning is more or less consistent. >> i just had that question to make sure we have an updated analysis of what the need is.

do you know the percentage of the need overall is covered by the neighborhood fees. >> we have at that time that it would kov cover you have to 30 percent. >> 30 percent of the need is covered by the fees. where is the rest coming from? >> it's coming from other funding sources such as federal grants, bonds, the sources that the task force presented, etc. the 30 percent impact fees is to help leverage the additional funding from other sources. >> okay. well, i do work about sort of how we address the infrastructure needs given everything that's been happening. the transportation piece is really important. i

appreciated the mta presentation, but if we are really doing enough to add service to this part of town which is seeing a lot of growth and a lot of development. so that's something that i think we need to do more of and explore a little bit further. thank you again, chair cohen for putting this item on the agenda. >> no problem. thank you. okay. we've come to that special section where we will take public comment. public comment is now open. i have one card in front of me, john decastro. if there is anyone that would like to speak, please get in line. >> i will try to be brief. john decastro with boosters. just one thing that came to mind when supervisor campos was asking the question, was my ceo

i worked for for many years in sales, he said #40e7 -- hope is not a strategy. i heard this a lot that hope is their strategy. one thing i saw from the presentation where they talked about only one 1 percent of the funding for equipment is identified for the munis, that strikes me very much a hope. that we'll get it out of federal grants somewhere. i heard that multiple times but i didn't hear a lot of identification of where that was coming from. my main thrust this morning is i know supervisor cohen was as boosters meeting last week and talked about the eastern neighborhood plan. i want it in the record about our article basically talking about the fact that entire building and mechanical systems should be

included nd build height envelope like what kaiser did propose to do although they were moved elsewhere. i think that's a good idea to try to stay within the height limit and not add 20 feet. propose at least 4 percent of the 4:00 p.m. frontages for commercial use spaces. there is development incentives that were on sale, we are ready to sail on the development maybe it was 30 percent. maybe we ought to bump that up a little bit. i will pass this up to the clerk. >> thank you very much. >> allison. i'm bringing a letter that i put na in the

record. potrero responsible advocate to bring appropriate scale, balance and community benefits to new developments emerging on portrero hill. we are concerned about the impact of thousands of new residents already in our crowded parks and infrastructure. the open space well below the average for san francisco. we are acutely aware of the deficiencies in the area around jackson parks and north of mariposa. this will put a substantial strain on the park which is already heavily used and suffering from maintenance issues and suffering a net loss in the neighborhood of recreational facilities. jackson parks consist of softball parks and places for families and picnics. the clubhouse is in poor repair,

often closed and inadequate as a community center. but yet with thousands of units targeted inform their area, there is only one area as yet undeveloped. this is entirely contrary to the portrero hill plan and one neighborhood that several needs assessment. many residents have complained about poor and in frequent munis service and i have gop -- gone to the website and planning department to ensure the development of complete neighborhood includes open space and open transit and streetscape improvement and affordable housing. before yet

another massive development. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello, supervisors, tony from the trail boosters association. supervisor, thank you for the hearing today. the problem is worst and there is a layout that hasn't been discussed yet. there is four gaps in funding that you need to talk about. one is that we are deficient in eastern neighborhoods. this was an industrial area. we don't have enough to serve the people who are there now and then there is the lack of funding in the priority projects identified by these departments and the priority projects and the needs assessment they did in 2007 because they reduced that to get to the priority projects and then there is the gap between all of that and the

over building. let be clear about the over building. if you look at the pipeline number now, there is 9,000 unit and nearly 5,000 feet of commercial space. that is as much as director ram says is expected in the 40. we are over built and very still in the fancy -- of the infrastructure. if you look, there is a way out. there was -- if you add up the values and the pipeline numbers now it's only $700 billion. that is $500 billion or more that wasn't planned and wasn't expected to show up flt that can go to

eastern neighborhoods infrastructure. i'm at home with an amateur with the spreadsheet. why am i telling you this number. that should come from your staff and you shuman should -- mandate this. >> seeing no other speakers, public comment is closed. >> just a quick question on the $500 million number given. is there a response from planning on that? >> what does the 500 number

refer to? >> property values. >> that's property tax revenue that has been identified. we haven't evaluated that. >> how much is in the pipeline talking about the 9,000 units is that correct. >> let me draw up a slide if that's possible. these are the numbers from our pipeline data base completed projects and projects through end of next year, we are showing 1400 units

and 300,000 square feet of non-residential space and residential space which includes so many -- soma. so there is new space, but also space that disappears because of the building that is taken down. that maybe the cause of the difference. >> i think we certainly need to come back to this issue at a later date and i would be interested to make sure that whatever property money, tax, increase comes in that it's invested back in the neighborhoods within the eastern neighborhoods. thank you. >> okay. well, that looks like

we can continue to move on. thank you colleagues for hearing this item. >> as you can see we have some work to do. this was a very helpful item. thank you staff for the presentation today. that is very helpful and for the residents, thanks for coming out. i hope to bring up this item so we can continue to discuss this. i would like to entertain a motion to carry this for another time. motion is carried. item 2. >> the clerk: item 2: [hearing - oversize vehicle overnight parking restriction]1310122.sponsors: tang; breed, cohen, mar and yeehearing to review the effectiveness and impact of the oversize vehicle overnight parking restriction pilot implemented by the municipal transportation agency. 10/8/13; received and assigned to the

government audit and oversight committee >> the clerk: sf 212341234 >> as we change the house a little bit, we are going to give supervisors tang an opportunity to give opening remarks on this item. >> thank you, i would like to introduce this today regarding overnight parking restriction. it prohibited these vehicles from parking between midnight and 6 :00 a.m. :00 a.m. certain areas. the purpose of this is to address the many concerns that many of the overnight vehicles are parking on the streets which are turning many of the areas into parking lots. this program applies to all types of roadside vehicles

which includes commercial vehicles. the sf mta worked with hope so they would offer supportive housing and resources for those who may need those resources. our hope is to have individual vehicles stored as long as they participate in the case management of the goal of securing permanent housing. on any given night, i used to see regularly about 20 over sized vehicles. on -- lincoln and see many of those, they include full physical if if -- prior to

implementing the program, the sf issued warnings using informational flyers placed on vehicles parked in these locations. since the flyers, we have heard positive feedback from residents. for that i want to thank my co-supervisors, breed and mar and supervisor's yee as well. and we'll hear from sf mta and we have captain here for any questions. thank you for your patience. duffy is here also. with that, mr.

yee.> >> good afternoon, bond yee. as you know this is a long standing issue of overnight vehicles parking in the city and we also previously stated the impact that were caused by them throughout the city in our original policy and proposal report. we have a number of tools to manage parking in the city and we use them judiciously and appropriatelly but none of these tools was adequate in effectively addressing the over sized

vehicle parking in the neighborhoods. the board of supervisors sometime asked us to take a look at the issues to see if there is any new options that we haven't considered to bring forward for consideration. based on the surveys we have done and also analysis with the conversations with the various stake holders, we came back with a simple parking restriction tool. that is to prohibit the parking of over sized vehicles longer than 22 feet or taller than 7 feet from parking between midnight and 6:00 a.m.. this includes trailers and other extensions of vehicles that you see out in the street. the board of supervisors adopted this tool as section 7.2.54 of the

transportation code last fall. the board of directors of the mta set the fine of $110 including the court house fees. because of the issues raised during the approval process for these restrictions, we committed to carry out a 3-month evaluation period for the pilot program before deciding on any next steps and including any extensions or locations requested by community members. this is our follow up report to you and you have copies of the evaluation report and we also posted the information on the sf mta website. the pilot locations reflected based on a few surveys request and recommendations from the board

of supervisors offices and the sf p.d. officers and sf mta and community members. because the overnight nature of the restrictions, the enforce ment is mainly carried out by night watch and p.d. station. the pilot location was originally selected to concentrate in two sf p.d. directs in ter very well and bayview to enforce the operations. we also consolidated the location extent so we have enough sample size in either location to be able to take some meaningful measurements and comments on the results. these locations were reviewed at an sf mta

public hearing in the june 4, 2013. i will show you the maps of those locations in a second. in cooperation with the office of hope and also the san francisco department of public health and the homeless outreach team, we conducted outreach to particularly house those folks in the pilot area of 2013 and also following adoptions of the locations. flyers were issued as supervisor tang mention several times in those areas providing resources where those folks can ge assistance from programs and also accommodations for their needs. i have with me, my

colleagues, captain curtis from taraval station and from better of hope and can talk about issues related to housing and process during this program. again, our parking control officers issued warnings for approximately a month before the regulations took effect on july 15th, and also along with information flyers. to my knowledge, we had two citations that were issued in error by enforcement folks and they were immediately rectified and dismissed. this is the area in the west side of the city comprising of pilot

area one. as supervisor tang mentioned it's concentrated in areas that are adjacent to open space, parks and reservoirs and places where there are no current residential frontage. the other area pilot is the eastern half of the city and these are a little bit different because some of them are concentrated in areas of industrial use, but there are no activity in the evening. from our 3-month pilot of before and after surveys, we found that the over sized vehicle parking restriction were very effective in reducing the over sized vehicle parking in those pilot locations. but there were some displace ments