temporarily in due to various reasons that was detailed to the openly of the new tunnel we're already facing a delay in the openly and it will be a welcome facility we want to make sure our buses operate in the same way they're operating now and go forward making sure it will be an effective cost facility i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> next steps so right now we're at the 65 percent construction documents that have been out for a couple of years and we're looking forward to getting to the 95 percent that is next month, and, secondly, we will educate confirming our commitment and then work with tjpa to negotiate with caltrain for those

agreements. >> okay questions ed. >> yeah. i guess on the cost escalating i assume that is part of the details what do they contribute to. >> we've seen the economic. >> we've been stuck at 65 percent design because for years. >> the bridge i can't talk to that but - >> good morning filling sweetheart program management team the reason we stopped at 65 percent we had to go to the caltrain pr process and seismic structure analysis that had to be done for the western post prom that was a long and bold project we've gotten through that and recently received the

approval for caltrain we're restored to go to 95 percent documents we expect in the next month or so. >> so this is we're talking 2019 or 2018 but meant to be done in 2013 those 57 years behind schedule. >> the bus storage facility was not built and operated as without the bus ramps to tie it into the bus center so the completion of the bus ramps is the key storage we have the bus ramps so it was intended to come online with the whole facility came online. >> i thought i heard otherwise so the main question the presentation i appreciate but the question was not dead heading it was clearly if we can

have buses not have to do that that's not the question the question how to mitigate in the near term where we'll be borrowing or stealing money from phase two to get phase one built or parts of phase one to push to a phase two timeline i guess the need for the, however many 40 something spaces is that a day one need a you current service or future service plan. >> in the presentation i've old how that helps us on day one the primary reliability insuring we have 49 buses in the midday at the terminal to insure we'll have the reliability on day one. >> the 49 phase. >> they could be.

>> would be or will be. >> i've not got the schedule but they could be used. >> okay. the storage within the transit center there is a 27 phase what about the 7 bays of other providers are there buses there. >> i haven't reached out but that's a possibility the 7 bays can be used. >> up to 34 and others bays within the terminal along the ramps. >> no we - >> we did a long time and the operation wouldn't work on the edges we wouldn't be able to get the busses around safely. >> okay including on the ramp i thought that was potential for space on the ramp. >> in the bus rams are not allowed to stage buses but there are a couple of spaces 3 buses

long in the entrance of the bus deck they can stage the buses by that's about it no showered room for staging buses. >> well, it does go seem like you can get up to 34 of the 49 not clear the 49 are all needed day one and other temporary options to look at the small number of the balance of buses seems like it is still something to look at the question in the long term probably the right place on the freeway locations can't be used for anything else the project make sense it is a question of timing we have a gap to close. >> just some clarifying questions can you remind me the doubt for

this item. >> $19.5 million is that the budget we're looking to might? >> yeah. the current budget has $1.5 million for the bus storage and the bus storage estimate is 19.5 so the revised is $19.5 million in that. >> and can you clarify the timing of the items in our next steps and i couldn't really follow the slide on the critical function with street access can i clarify for me what you're trying to make on that slide and the anticipating targeted dates for the next steps. >> sure the street assess slides

yeah so there are other regional operators that on the bus deck and they rnl assuming they'll use the bus storage facility street access the access on the third street that deadheads to muni goes from their yard in the morning and access the bus deck via a third street and via access point to get to the deck point if they don't have this access they'll have to go to treasure island that deadhead costs 20 minutes that's thousands of dollars.

>> okay. it is the same with amtrak and we d them. >> and then the timeframe or the target for you're next steps and phillip can talk to that. >> okay. so as far as timelines 95 percent we should have that ready in the next month or so mou with tjpa we've been talking with ac transit i think discussions are still going on in terms of agreeing it the mou costs and the big item is finalizing the caltrain lease there's discussions about what the lease rate ought to be i think those issues are ongoing with caltrain. >> does ac transit have money. >> so, yeah in the presentation i mentioned we've done some

calculations and deadhead costs we'll save up to 49 buses that will save the bs f. >> i don't hear >> you'll commit to that financial obligation. >> yes. >> you anticipate both the second and third items being done within this year. >> it will have to be done before we stack this to the board in september i mean it's up to the board if the board wants to mitigate it in phase one there needs to be documents executed in september. >> in september. >> one of the things i've learned in talking with the staff exactly what the staging does for us i mean the first

pull out you know the eater pull out in the afternoon that's not necessarily problem but the heaviest pull out the second pull out and if you don't have enough storage area for the second pull out because the busses haven't come back then if effects your sdajz most people you can't use the bus for a pull out it didn't work for the second round we want to open that with premium service this is revving bart. >> if we could after the board meeting get confirmation about the day one need what is the least commitment to get more

specificity about the day one need it will be helpful for the september meeting. >> how more specific? >> well, that will be up toy to tell us to justify the needs for the spaces especially with the connection that the operations savings coming from the savings the deadhead with the 49 buses day one, if not i assume what is left whatever level of certainty not make it up but jifz the lease commitment and the 49 spaces for the day one would be helpful information. >> okay. where we at that concludes the business before you today. >> that's what i was hoping we're adjourned. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, everybody and welcome to the meeting of san francisco full board of supervisors for tuesday, july 14, 2015 madam clerk call the roll. >> thank you madam president supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar not present be supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor wiener madam president we have quorum thank you ladies and gentlemen, please join us in the pledge of allegiance

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all thank you, everyone madam clerk any communication. >> none to report. >> colleagues, any changes to the board meeting minutes for by supervisor cowen and supervisor campos colleagues we'll take that without objection. those pass after. okay madam clerk call our 2:00 p.m. special order first order of business the populate between the mayor ed lee and eligible members of the board of supervisors they're being no questions from the eligible supervisors the mayor may address the board up to 5 minutes

>> welcome to the board chambers mayor ed lee and good afternoon board of supervisors and to the audience that is here thank you thank you for your time and attention singles no questions from the board i'd like to use my time to address two critically important efforts our efforts to build more housing in the san francisco and the murder of kate and as her family continues to impervious let's remember kate as they do as a position national young woman that cherished her family and friends and committed to her community and proving the world katz family has a page to raise money for the causes that were close to case by case heart our grief is made more profound by

the fact let me be clear she was tragically and needlessly murdering others pier 14 by a man that shouldn't have been releases from county jail and not in our city not even in our country with this tragic murder is a national focus on the sanitary city policies of san francisco and over two hundred other u.s. cities with some rhetoric around this murder has been unfortunately and irresponsible misrepresenting her values and dem monothe efforts what made this country what it is today as we remember kate let's be clear about what your are sanctuary city policy does do and not do

let there be no doubt our laws which have been around since the 1980s encourage your undocumented residents to assess puc and public education and report crimes and if they're a witness or victim reporting them without fear but our sanctuary policy was never intended to creating create a safe heaven to tear our communities apart it does not protect krinltdz our existing policies allow for cooperation with the federal authorities with criminals like mr. sanchez i mean i believe strongly we should cooperate with federal immigration officials when they

ask for pending releases for repeat felons including those deported on multiple occasions how some of the law enforcement leadership has chosen to exercise or ignore their existing authority remains a question of concern for example there's a policy in place today that prohibits this kind of communication within it the sheriff's deputies and officials in the case of repeat felons this policy is a threat to public safety this policy should be rescinded immediately supervisors to you i say thank you for standing strong in support of our values to protect the immigrant communities like those who politicalize her

murder and slander the city awhile much of the nation and certainly this city has been focused on this heartbreaking tragedy and event we are keeping focus on other critical needs especially housing today this board is posed to vote on the biggest affordable housing bond in this city in this investment it is historic $210 million housing bonds that will not raise property tax i want to thank uh-huh for your support and partnership this will help build public housing and speed up housing that is it possible to seniors and others will create a marx remedy and

honoring making sure that san francisco remains a city where everybody belongs with this bond part of the $5.5.5 billion investment that makes meaningful affordability in san francisco so again, thank you every single one of you i know we have our work cut out to insure it's successful package on that ballot supervisors i'll close and allow you to return to your agendas meeting. >> thank you mar for being here mr. clerk call 1 through 3 are the consent calendar vote of the commission. discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests roll call vote. >> on items 1, 2, 3 commissioner avalos

supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen councilmember cole supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 11 items. >> those items are finally passed unanimously madam clerk 4 and 5 together and item 4 the ordinance to amend the planning code for the fillmore transit district between bush and mcallister park street and places the fillmore district and item 5 the ordinance to amend the planning code to establish divisadero commercial street transit district along hate and farrell street and places the divisadero street their technical changes to various

sections of the planning code to make the changes with the code amendment and firmly ceqa and other appropriate finding. >> commissioner avalos. >> thank you. i voted against those items last week and will be in favor last week he was concerned not enough great affordability with greater density i've talked with supervisor president london breed from this area and she's insisting she'll look at the process hospital tomato misses the affordability and it is not i wanted to marry could happen i feel comfortable to support those items which i didn't support last week. >> thank you commissioner avalos not seeing any other names on the roster colleagues, can we take those items same house, same call? we'll take that

without objection. passes unanimously madam clerk call 6 and 7 together and item 67 and 7 were referred without recommendation from the land use commission and 6 and 7 both of the ordinances amend the administrative code for the conversion ordinance and 6 specifically internal revenue service requires the shorelines is on the listing and removing a listing once it's rent within 60 days on a calendar year and item 78 limits the short-term rentals of the residential unit no more than one hundred 20 days under circumstances with the short-term rental rental administration staffed by the planning code and the tax collectors office. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president

colleagues the san francisco chronicle repeated this weekend in a special feature about the short-term rentals that recorded what we've been saying for quite sometime that we have hundreds of units that are being taken off the housing market year-round because of other than and high-rise of incremental hosts that are simply disregard the current lay that is simply broken here are some of the highlights by the chronicle further data dive into 3 websites 3 hundred and 52 entire homes full-time hotels on airbnb there are another 3 hundred and 49 that are hotels for most of the year and over the 5 thousand airbnb listed in san francisco 60 percent of those legislators

more entire homes chronicle also found 2 hundred and 6 hosts that are offering 3 or more listing those illegally operated super hosts control 9 hundred and 93 properties nearly one in 5 of airbnb's listing here in san francisco in the mission 7 hundred and 89 units are listed and according the chronicle indicate up from 6 hundred and 81 listing last year making that by far the most important airbnb city a naibt neighborhood that is sgrrz for evictions the number of airbnb's listing has increased by 13 about his plus percentage and 5 thousand 4 hundred and 59 listing in airbnb in the city

and while some have left airbnb in the last year many new hosts have taken that place the chronicle says one chronicle hosts on airbnb and home away has landlord prefer to rent to short time visitors the dirty little secret owners do this to avoid rent control this shows that the current law as not an, an effective tool for regulation and, in fact, a tool that facilitated the conversion ever long term housing to tourist hotels during one of the worse housing crisis this is simply outrageous as you may recall our excessive environmentalist ted said on short-term rentals even in a short-term rental unit is lost

to airbnb rentals the impact is negative and now here we are logan at the at least 3 leonardo da vinci and 50 confirmed units lost to airbnb rentals alone the legislation before you and that i introduced with the support of supervisor mar and commissioner avalos as co-sponsors create the short-term rental law that actually works for the purpose that actually tries to protect housing by alexander real enforcement mechanisms that will sure this illegal activity reported by itself chronicle will no longer continue and specifically this thing legislation requires hooting platforms to list only regulated list and provided quarterly data to the list and we're limiting 9 short-term rentals to 60 days the budget analyst there are 4,

60 day cap leads to a reduction of airbnb units entirely focused on commercial units that is a unit that takes residential housing permanently off the the housing market a one 20 day cap proposed by mayor ed lee and supervisor farrell will lead to only a 7 percent reduction in airbnb unit leaving many commercial airbnb units urban touched which is what the being proposed today as i said on many occasions i support home sharers it has a place in san francisco but there has to be limits my law supports casual hosts to make ends meet many san franciscans enjoy and rely on this practice however, left

unregulated this industry will continue toes bat the hockey's we're facing by incentive tiger's taking housing off the market colleagues, i ask for your support for that common sense piece of legislation by voting you can help to make long term housing available to the san franciscans that need it and i hope we act in a meaningful way today and if we fail to act it will be up to the voters of san francisco to finally do what i hope we can do today i do have one small amendment to my orients if i may ask the clerk to hand out the copies to my colleagues but this amendment is actually, one that i originally authorized in october of 2014 over the course of the debate of

the original law this amendment is included in the marries owners to make sure that moving forward short-term rentals are not take place another a unit there there's an ellis act eviction in the last year we we will incorporate that and the residential unit has to meet the following conditions i quote in the document pr that the unit quote has not been the subject of an eviction pursuant to the ellis act and an administrative code section 37.9813 within a 5 year period prior to applying for the registry on november 1st, 2014, end quote with that i make a motion to amend my motion along the lines i've subscribed and okay. colleagues supervisor campos has made a