interested in hearing it. it is a cut burden that has very little benefit. >> i have a motion and commissioner speaking to accept a motion to your amendment? >> yes >> which amendment? >> the language about payment conforming & >> but not allowing termination for a de minimis amount? >> do you want to amend your motion to make some provision for termination toward a de minimis amount? >> i am going to defer to the judgment of mr. von raven's

allies. not to attempt or around one thing by regulation that pervades the whole lobbyist sphere and inventory to be adjusted should be addressed on a general basis. >> i'll call the question on your motion to excepting the amendment to be as discussed. otherwise, adopting the language that's proposed for two 110 10, registration reporting. i call the question at all in favor, aye. opposed? the motion is carried 3-2. the record to reflect commissioner andrews and hur dissented. >> was their second on the motion or trackback for the

minutes >> yes. then, regulation 2.110 11, which provides for a waiver of $500 registration fee is $500 annual reregister nation fee for 501(c)(3) and 501(c) four, nonprofit organizations, any discussion of the commission? commissioner hur >> i think this is too broad. i think we ought to limit it to entities that file 49849 in the easy were 490 n that would provide exemption for organizations either file or reasonably intend to file that are, believe $500,000 or less.

i think the reference by the staff in a contact lobbyists roam may be inapplicable because were not considering employees of tax-exempt organizations as lobbyists get if you organization itself that is the lobbyist. so, i don't think we need to treat them quite the same as contact lobbyists. >> you would propose that the registration fee for 501(c)(3) who file form 990 n >> or easy >> i think easy is just for the for. i don't know. >> [inaudible] >> thank you.

>> say was a registration fee for 501(c)(3)'s and 501(c) four nonprofit organizations satisfy the fine requirements of form 990 n and 98 easy >> that's correct but not 501(c) four. i'll only 501(c)(3). >> secured something- >> if you waive it for 501(c)(3) who form 990 easy or form 990 n who intend to file. >> are you striking that

>> i want to strike that. i do not want them to get this registration waiver. >> discussion from the commission? >> so, is just the waiver is confined to those entities -forgive me-to those entities that are filing 990 n and 990 easy. is that correct? >> threats. because that's fine >> public comment? >> i just want to point out, there's a provision earlier you party accepted that charitable organizations that act is a fiscal sponsor to charitable projects are not required to register good responsibility falls on the project that point out because a services network

is officially sponsored by creative were to exceed a threshold ages and would have to register not our fiscal sponsor community initiative. however, hsn does not file a 990 community initiative does. so it appreciate making a waiver provision consistent with the fiscal sponsorship. so, if the fiscal sponsor files the 990 waiver will for the fee would apply. i hope that makes sense to >> is the official sponsor exempted? >> the point is that if a fiscal sponsor which manages hundreds of projects has one project that exceeds the threshold then you're only looking at the project expenses. you not look at their other 87 projects that don't even lobby. so, in previous conversation weave the commission has looked at this a little bit. responsibility

falls on the project and it doesn't make any sense to extend the requirements to all the projects sponsored by community initiative that of 90 projects. i think you has 140 projects and only a small number of them to any kind of lobbying. so you don't want to have the fiscal sponsor your sponsor will for reporting for all 90 projects punitively loving total when only one organization has met the threshold. that's been covered >> i'm very confused what this has to do the waiver >> what it has to do with the waiver is first to qualify for example the human services network technically does not exist. we don't file a 990s of your saying only 501(c)(3) that have a file and i 90 would technically qualified leaving $500 fee. we don't file a 990 because we don't exist. we

would have to register >> then you have to pay the fee. >> we are a project of a 501(c)(3). they are our fiscal sponsor. they handle all of our administration. they handle our payroll. they had our benefits. they handle accounting. so we exist as a project of that organization. so, if they >> you are suggesting under that example, the fiscal sponsor would not qualify for this waiver because i do not file it >> no. they do file on 990. i am suggesting the human services network has to register because we met the threshold that because our fiscal sponsor files on 990 that we would qualify for the $500 fee exemption that is consistent with the regulation you party adopted 2105 5c,

that recognizes that unique arrangement that nonprofits have between the school sponsored projects and projects not incorporated. >> are you suggesting the language we should insert in here is where we say 501(c)(3)'s filing form 990 easy or 990 or where there is our sponsors organization >> yes. where the fiscal sponsor files i 90 that the same $500 fee waiver would apply. exactly. it's a formality . it's up we do have nonprofit status but only through our fiscal sponsors. >> you just heard a good example of what is dark money in san francisco lobbying. there is no disclosure by hsn

or what their income is, what their budget is. how they spend their money. it's all lumped under the fiscal sponsor and is that he has just said there's about 90 projects under the fiscal sponsor. not one of which is broken out and revealed what they are doing specifically. so, if hsn is spending money on lobbying it's not known to the irs. it's not known to the ethics commission good it's not known to anyone. but if you go to the webpage to see what is the work of hsn, it is to be an advocate on changing city policies. they exist to lobby. yet, they make no disclosures that if you accept this without some fallback position that says i'm at a minimum, fiscally sponsored projects must produce

to the ethics commission copies of the forms of providing to the fiscal sponsor, you will then put them on the same playing field as those groups that file and 990 easy. >> commissioners, i know you've already made your decision at least for the moment on the previous section, but the discussion over what terms would qualify for an exemption from the fee almost seems like a de minimis point because $500 now becomes a lifetime registration fee for lack of any process or threshold to terminate as an

expenditure lobbyist. for the previous discussion, for lack of any amendment to your language, you know how the situation where once the 2500 or threshold is triggered you are in and never getting out. that's of grave concern. i would respectfully ask you to think about defining the circumstances under which an organization or individual just isn't doing the kind of expenditure activity that you're looking for, and therefore, allows them to terminate your registration and get out from this system of reporting and whatnot. then if they do it again they pay another $500 or thirst altogether waiver. the wave structure now your talk about a one-time fee, which may be or may be don't get a waiver, and then you're in the system for perpetuity, which is a long

time. i don't know what that threshold is. it's $2500 or one on her dollars were single month old over the course of three months, but it would seem you need to define some ways someone can terminate their registration at the thick but that's not correct mr. cohen. we had a long discussion >> that's not correct mr. cohen. we are long discussion about what termination is. >> at all activity. what i heard was a dollar. >> all activity defined as payments for political advocacy. you stop it for one month and you file a termination certificate and you're out of it. you're out of it. so the idea that somehow your never going to be able to live a life without being on

the run from us is simply not the case. the termination is as we talked about is a rather simple formality could then if you want to get back into it you can choose to get back into it. so you've listed what the process was. is. >> commissioner speaking i believe i understood the process but any expenditure of any amount continues to qualify. so when we recognize that spending 50 bucks to hire a bus to bring people to a rally then qualifies >> so you don't spend anything for one month you don't spend $50 menu file termination. you are out junk it back into it again until you qualify with a $2500 payments. >> there's a way to do that. which is to take a month of doing nothing and if that's the

way that organizations have to work toward its so be it. it would seem a little bit more along the lines of what we're looking for is to have a certain threshold that is when you exceed a threshold you to keep going and reporting and if you don't do that low-level and who cares. i nursed in the way you set it up. >> either makes you feel better i agree. >> lena schmidt. you are from the before. part of the grand jury process but i also should just mention that i sat on the board of the fiscal sponsor for a number of years. i want to talk about the process that the fiscal sponsor because i don't think that you've made a decision yet on the waiver or not. so, the way it works the fiscal sponsor holds the 501(c)(3), is the umbrella organization and basically does

the ministry of work, supports it, sometimes on hiring surly on training of any requirements that are out there. does all the reporting to the donors and also does all the reporting to any state requirements or to any federal requirements. that includes any lobbying that any groups under the fiscal sponsor does. so, the groups under the fiscal sponsor does have to report to the fiscal sponsor what lobbying may do. there is a process. as you all know the only find out once he. there is a record and you can build off that record. i think mr. bush said you can get copies of what they submit to the fiscal sponsor but there is a way to track what the projects you're doing during a year. they have to do it because the fiscal bonds sponsor is responsible for

reporting to the state and federal government >> commissioner spear >> can someone explain what- >> again i think she was just trying to be consistent with our decision on regulation where we talked about fiscal sponsors and charitable organizers predict that we save fiscal sponsors are exempt? >> fiscal sponsors are not sought for registering as lobbies. so that's what we are to get on c. now we said in the current visa regulation that were the motion on the table-we are going to waive registration fees for 501(c)(3)'s that file certain kinds of 990s. that sort of ties to how they big they are. she wants us to

clarify is that project up the school sponsors, they don't file any 990 at all. because of that the waiver can't be waived for project of cisco sponsors of the fiscal sponsor files and 990 already specified. >> but the fiscal sponsor might qualify but the project could be much larger couldn't it . >> i don't believe so. the fiscal sponsor is like a yellow organization for all these projects, which are kind of i do so most like 80 nonprofits. >> why would it ever matter? >> i don't think it would. >> if your project of a 501(c)

fiscal sponsor is theoretically possible you could qualify for expenditure lobbyist. to really active in getting people to city hall. you qualify under expenditure lobbyist. it is not clear under the current proposed regulation whether or not you as a project could ever get a fee waiver. but ms. lerman is suggesting you should get a fee waiver if you're umbrella group would file the 990 re: specified. >>. my question. does that fiscal sponsor necessarily have to be a smaller organization as the fiscal sponsor? silly ageism and of the world has to be smaller than its fiscal sponsor by definition? >> that's not true >> it's generally how it happens usually because if a project or would consider

program is like loosely affiliated-not even loosely affinity affiliated, the generally are looking for a fiscal sponsor because they don't have the size in order to keep it going. hr, finance from all the equipment drop in service. that's the role they play. i guess i just need to get clarity for waving organizations under $500,000 or under $25,000, what is the situation where a project or program under fiscal sponsor is $750,000. what happens? >> i don't know what that looks like. >> why don't we just make it- >>: make one other point. the many organizations that don't have the school sponsors who are under $500,000 who just run

independently. they run out of their homes. they one fte. many individuals do that. so we take care of them. who are stand alone nonprofit under $500,000. i'm not exactly clear what happens with the $650,000 program under the fiscal sponsor. it sounds like there's reporting that happens by the fiscal sponsor on the state level surly on a federal level ii 990 and schedule c and other things that are there. i guess the question on the table is, does the program over $500,000 that is embedded under fiscal sponsor is responsibility to file and or does the fiscal sponsor have a responsibility to file. i guess that's my question. >> why don't we say they've 501(c)(3) files the 990 world can prove its budget is less

than 500,000? >> i don't think we ought to be exempt-the whole point of identifying the n were only giving up for small nonprofit. so, if you don't file and 992 you can prove budget is less than 500,000 hours and went to share the documents to prove that then fine. >> just to be clear, these $650,000 organization under a fiscal sponsor, they have to do something. >> they would not get the waiver. >> they would not get the waiver >> they paid the 500 >> the registration reporting happens anyway. the $500 is waived >> how you amend the language

of 2.110 11? >> i would say give the commission shall waive the $500 registration fee in the $500 annual re-registration fee for 501(c)(3) organizations that file reasonably intend to file form 990 n or e letter z per work and demonstrate their budget is less than $500,000. >> do you want to move that? >> so moved unless staff thinks there's something that cause their project moved and seconded. >> moved and seconded. >> i will call the question. all in favor of the regulation to bring 110 11 as amended?

>>[chorus of ayes] kerry. 5-0. >> that concludes our discussion and decision-making in connection with item number four. i think we've lost much of our audience given the time. shall we do for item 5 the protection ordinance to the march meeting. i moved to continue to march. >> the only thing i will say i will no longer be here in march. i did work on this and then put it together, that he

can silly carry the water and knows all the details. >> can we call you back? you can sit out there and make public comment. we will give you 4 min. >> no guarantees. the commotion has been made we continue item number five to the march regular meeting. all in favor >> oh i will take public comment on the motion? >> i does one make a public comment about i appreciate what commissioner hur did working on the whistleblower language. it's grown its effectiveness from the last draft we saw. it's an important piece of legislation for the city because it holds people accountable for what they do and

it understands the same issue raised by the civil grand jury. and commissioner hur brought to his usual fine mind and looking at each aspect it much appreciated. >> thank you. >> knowledge send this to take their subject, as the former member of the sunshine task force i do want to thank you for your movement on helping getting enforcement through this body because that was long-standing and it was you that ashley made it happen. so i want to thank you for that. >> thank you for your work on it as well. >> thank you. item 6 is discussion/and on items- >> i think you need to vote on a motion to continue. sweet

>> we did not vote. you are right. i will call the question. all in favor opposed?. carried 5-0. discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. >> a biker just thank my fellow commissioners and staff and public for allowing me to serve on this body for the last six years. it's been sometimes fun, sometimes not fun. always interesting to learn from each of you and appreciate putting up with me. >> i was going to make some comments when we adjourned but we still have item number seven , which is a discussion the executive directors report come out which i will say was a very detailed and interesting report . particular, the information concerning the senior fellow

positions, which i wasn't aware existed but ms. pablum found out about it and ended the meeting and submitted those three applications and particularly, i be interested in the application for someone on the policy side with the idea that maybe sometime in the near future we could convene some meeting to have a general discussion about various statutes dealing with money and transparency and politics in san francisco. do you want to elaborate a little bit? >> well lit apartments were able to submit up to three submissions, and so we

submitted three in the second directors report it's a competitor process. i think you're less than a dozen senior fellows alternately selected but this a good opportunity to do a couple things. one, at the staff level to articulate what kinds of priorities we could really advance accelerate if we were able to have these kinds of resources and if we actually have the assistance of thing we could move the boss but specifically on public transparency and compliance. also, with our policy trying to develop our template faster to be able to vigorously look at our jurisdiction, and then also in the area of audits. the staff recommendation we think about how we can strengthen the template we use the timeframe we use them that something that could be well suited to this

program as well. so, we won't know anything more ugly for several weeks but if you do hear something you will be the first to know and in addition to the other and somatic to answer any questions. we did, of course as indicated last month submit the budget request to the mayor's budget office on the 22nd as requested by the mayor. we followed your instructions in terms of the content of the request, having it was helpful. we were able to look at some of the numbers and we find overall bottom line in terms of the flow of soda money for the it project, but again will have some conversations with the mayor's office and hopefully in the coming weeks and months and get back to you with further information. so we did submit the letter on separate 22nd to the mayor himself and budget staff to

help describe the priorities the commission had embraced last month to the blueprint for accountability we put for. i'm happy to answer any questions if you have some for me? >> were there any response to our- >> i would say i had a very energizing meeting with the mayor's budget staff. met with kate howard and other person in our office along with our analyst and i think there was openness to hearing about the priorities and encouragement we should look at the fellows program as well. i'm hopeful we'll have some further conversation soon but i don't have anything more to report at this point. >> in that regard, ms. paolo and i have been meeting with most of the supervisors and i think you met with a couple of them but up until then we met with supervisor canady with the last one we have scheduled i think we have nine out of the 11 that we met with and we

presented the budget package to them and universally they've all said we will support whatever you need. so, they seem sympathetic to the fact that the commission has not had a budget increase and they recognize that we need more resources to do what many of the supervisors agree we should be doing. so i'm thoroughly optimistic. turning to the next item, which is the approval of the minutes for >> i just want to make sure you want to make sure this opportunity for public comment >> i'm sorry. does anyone want

to comment on the executive directors report other than to complement it? then, the discussion and approval of the commissions minutes for minutes for january 25, 2016 and there is very little minutes . any of the commissioners have any corrections? i had only one. i didn't quite understand but i guess on page 6, where it says a motion moves, seconded and no vote that the commissioner i take it you meant when you say no vote, i never called the question? because i

think would happen is the was a motion that got eventually incorporated in the original motion. >> we can take another listen and clarify and bring them back next month. detect other than that i don't have any comments. any public comment? >> i think the reason why the was a no vote there that motion did not pass but then the motion to deny the permit waiver was granted was passed. >> i sifted both. both motions we are dealing with restriction. >> yes. it was voted but it did not pass. >> we will correct them and make sure they reflect that

action accurately. >> with that, we move for adjournment >> moved and seconded. >> public comment. hearing none, on favor of adjournment >>[chorus of ayes] >> the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> good morning everybody. and

welcome to the hamilton family residents and emergency center. thank you jeff for hosting us today. i can't think of a better place to do the signic ceremony for our voter, but i want to say thank you to your and your staff for working with us to end homelessness for a lot of families and continue to doing that work. today we are here with a number of departments that includes our obviously public health and fire department and emergency services, city administrator that helps me oversee the 10 year capital plan making sure our bonds are affordable, focused and do not raise property taxes as well as public works deapartment who helps oversee that very same goal and to a resident who lives right here who will talk about her experiences and

the need for more healthcare and also more facilities in the city. as i said earlier, this today is a opportunity to sign legislation that the board has successfully passed with my support to place before the voters this june a $350,000,000 public health and safety bond for consideration. it is huge win for our residents because this bond seeks to protect-to make sure we have necessary improvements to our infrastructure and healthcare and emergency medical services, it protects and expand melthal health suvs for those in need and particularly thoest on the streets. i will continue emphasizeing that we do this in a very responsible way. in all our bond and

particularly the last decade we have been successful and made sure they do not raise property taxes while we do this and the reason we are able to do this is because we havetony year capital plan staff and assurance that we have sth facilities that we work together with the 10 year capital planning staff, that makes sure we only present bonds that reflect room in the bond capacity that don't raise property tax squz fit into that. that st. the magic, but it isn't magic for finance people, it is magic we can present new thing for people to embrace in like the voter jz not have to raise property tax to get those new things mptd in this case i want to make sure people understand while we talk about the zuckerbering sf general facility we know we vanew facility that

reflects the larger bond in the history of the city but we are also moving all those operations into the hospital as we speak, we are leaving a building that is not seismically safe and we are snot interested ichb demaunshing the bity. we are interested making sure the needs the public are reflected in the ongoing use of the 1970's era buil we have ajaistant to the new hospital and how do we do nat? we need to make it seismically safe, we need to invite the services that we don't have in a new hospital as much as we have and reflect the ongoing needs that we have while ongoing with the leadership of ourpublic health department has been the conversation we need more mental health facilities. this is where the judges are asking for more

beds, the community asks us to take care of more of our mental health needs in the community and we want to use the facility we have and expand those services. at the same time, there is incredible need to make sure we work with our fire department because they are and continue to be the emergency response team that we have when ever something happens in the city. they have also informed us in addition to supporting more mental health facilities in the city, we need a ambulance response facility to meet the demands we have. we find in the community based fire station squz the stations that house the ambulances not to have the facilities safe enough for the operation to expand and want you to know they are enthuse astic because more and more as our fire

department and all of us are having a experience where knock on wood, we have less fires, we increase the calls for medical services and this is where i enjoyed work with our fire department to increase every facility that we have particularly the ambulance response and particularly the emt staffing that we increased over the last few years to respond to the ambulance calls and make sure we have that capacity. it just so happens that many the fire stations we actually have over all most a $600,000,000 need to increase and make sure we have seismically safe fire hours and can't do tin just one bond and keep the promise of having the bond not increase property taxes so we do it in a way in which we can identify what is the most critical and

respond tothat and this is what this particular $350,000,000 bond will do is help a number of critical fire stations particularly where we house ambulance squz make sure they are safe. we also want to make sure we respond to the ongoing need and i know media is here to talk about our ongoing efforts to house more homeless and make sure we have facilities that are transitional in nature as we struggle to rebuild and rehabilitation permanent house frg the homeless. while we do that the navigation centers are very success ful and people want more of that and this is where we will take the opportunity to place another $20,000,000 of support effort here and know the voters get it when they see and have a opportunity to see our navigation centers that we know these are more than just

shelters. they are gathering of all the support services we need to allow people to go back to their homes if that is their wishes so get the best service to transition them into permanent housing that we are building and we have places like hamilton and other places we are building but it takes time and a lot of money and we are do that bond after bond and done that with the $350 mill ,000,000 bond to find the land and make sure we build in an affordable way. we have many more ideas but these are the at buttes of the $350,000,000 bond we place before the voters this june. we don't have a bond for november so this is critical to have it to the

voter squz educate them on the bond. i'm happy to work with general hospital and public health department because they have #250i78 time and time again shown wrathe need is respond to need and authenthuse astic about the ways we built the navigation centers because pier 80 and 16th and mission are the examples of what woe can do more with public private partnerships we engage in into help the navigation centers become more than [inaudible] they are life savingsenters for people who shouldn't be living on our streerts and shouldn't be in tent encampments. we want to take them out but want to do it the right way. we dont want to take people moving from corner to corner, we want to make sure they are taken care of and have long term solutions to

them. even those that resist ourerts when they get into the the navigation centers they realize the humanity we do there is more than inviting in the long term. this is and will continue to say, this is the city of saint francis and never turn our backs in those in need. people come to our city or end up here for many different reasons without the social safetyinate net we are used to. we have the robustness in the neighborhood clinics and response and navigation centers and want to make sure you know our neighborhood health clinics are touched strongly, all most $50,000,000 bond because the clinics need the capacity to help with mental illness as well and this is a theme that we are increasingly

hearing and respawning effectively by talking with all the partners within the justice system or health system, the [inaudible] needs more facilities for this to happen, more beds and treatment centers and more professional care that our public health providers can provide, so i want to say thank you to the all the airjs that are here reflective of the bond program including the mayors office of disability too because they are out there helping us figure out not only facilities but services that we need along with public health. i have a special guest speaker today, someone who is living here at the hamilton family residence, her name is precious sharia, she a single mother of 3 children 8 years old, 5 years old and 2 years old and the sureara

family stayed at the hamilton famry residences for the past 4 muchckt months and needed the service of the emergency care. the good example of the kind of families we want to help but not just help. i know at some point in time when she knows her family is being taken care of, i know mrs. sharia will want to be part of that work force, the incredible workforce we are training people to get into the new economy on. let me introduce to you mrs. precious sharia. [applause] >> yes, sir. i lived here about 4 months. the shelter took me in when i was on the street and called every day to get in the emergency beds. i finally got in and then once i reached my room up stairs it gave me to

about june. my kids live in the shelter but they don't realize it is a shelter because they have good programs such as the children program, helping with the homework, they give a dj party on the roof and make it so fun by kids dont know they are homeless sometimes. i like the-they feed us 3 times a day so don't have to worry about that. the shelter has ups and downs, but most of all it is a plus because if it want fl the shelter i would be on the stroostreet and worry where my kids will eat or sleep or give them up. if i'm in the shelter my kids can stay with me. in the streets i wouldn't permit them to live on the streets so probably would have gave them up. i'm thankful and grateful. people have their different opinions about the shelters. some complain all

day but at the end of the day you have a place to stay and sleep and it helps you. i'm starbting chef school tuesday so i'm doing something with my life. trying to make something better and the situation. this is my first time being homeless and from the experience it will be my last because this helped me but i am glad i was homeless because it showed a different side of me i didn't know, the strengths and dpoles goals and think it helped me a lot. sorry. it had so many opportunities. they constantly post jobs or injrj you to do. you can only do so much. hamilton can only do so much if you dont want to do for yourself. me, i'm taking a stand and doing for myself so i won't be here and hopefully i will be a chef so i can cook for the shelter or homeless program. i will give back to the community as much as i can, i voluntary also. i don't have

much to say, i thank god and the thank the people that donate and make this place possible because i see the ups and very grateful and thank you. >> [applause] >> thank you precious and thank you for everything you are doing to improve your life and also take care of the children that you have. as i said for this particular bond, i want to make sure you know if i can simplify it it is 3 words, it about access to good care, it is about emergency response, and about navigating and 33 word i thipgs are reflective in this. i just 79 to say our public health department is incredible partner reponding to everything that happens in the city and next for tim episteen who is

director of sf children youth and families community behavioral health at our public health department to say a few words about how important the bod is to the care we want and access that we want people to have to our healthcare facilities. ken. [applause] >> first i want to say before i start speaking precious told us her cheern use san francisco general hospital mayor all 3 children use the hospital so the connections are clear between what we are doing today and our future and i want to thank the mayor and city for your support for this incredibly important bod for the residence of san francisco. today this bond will improve and expand access to services and medical care and mental hemth care in the community and community clinic squz san francisco general hospital.

it will prurfb or 24 hour psychiatric care that is so critical to the citizens of the san francisco to have a place to go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 14 community clinics will be able to build access to behavioral and minuteal health and substance abuse services in the clinics so when you see your doctor in the same place you can get the mental health and substance abuse. the funding will improve access and amountimately help us renovate and build a better and stronger system of care for the children, youth, families, adults and other adults in san francisco. we know that there is a tremendous need for healthal health and substance abuse care and the mayor mentioned. we also know folks will better utilize the services when it is

isn't stigmatized where they have to go to a different place for it. we hope public helths can partner with the cities to build integrated care and using the bond to expand the services. thank the mayor again and the city for your support and public health department is ready to move forward this with initiative. thank you. >> [applause] >> okay, well like i usually said it is time to go to work everybody and by signing this document it sigal ins we ready to talk to the public and got on with it. let's sign this so we can start work on it. everybody come on over. [applause]

>> >> >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local biz and challenges the san franciscans to do their shop and dine in the 49 within the by supporting the services we help san francisco remain unique and successful and vibrant so where will you shop

and dine in the 49 san francisco owes itch of the charm to the many neighborhoods people coma greet and meet it has an personality these neighborhoods are economic engine seeing the changes is a big deal to me especially being a san francisco native and it is important to support the local businesses but also a lot to over here it is nice not to have to go downtown i think that is very important 0 for us to circulate our dollars the community before we bring them outside of the community for the time we have one dollars in the community is the better off we are it is about economic

empowerment by apron ingress the businesses that are here. >> shopping local cuts down the cyber foot you'll find cookies and being transported the world where everything is manufactured and put on the assembly line having something local is meaning more the more we support our local businesses the more i can walk down to where i need to be. >> bridges contingency bye like west portal it is about city and san francisco may have a big name but a small city and a lot of small communities shop and

dine in the 49 highlighted that and reminded people come outburst and i love that about this city i'll always be a

>> for thursday, march 3, disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.

i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis and commissioner moore. >> we expect commissioner wu to be absent and an appearance from commissioner johnson today commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance number one at van ness street conditional use authorization is proposed to march 10, 2016 item 2 at order street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance until april 7th, 3ri78 item 3 at 440 de harrow a large project authorization is proposed for continuance until

june 2nd, 2016, i have no other items proposed for continuance if you want me to check those and opening it up for public comment is any public comment on item the items proposed for continuance come on up. >> hi ami jessica anderson i live in noah valley and here to talk about the de harrow continues he attend saint greg we're in discussion with the developers we've had meetings with them, however, to we provide them with a sunset study how to affect the light in light building we haven't here any sounds of accommodation or willingly. >> i apologize for interrupting you but at the

moment the only matter to discuss is the matter of continuance. >> can i leave the pictures for the planning commission. >> sure of the light we're fine with the continues and look forward to seeing you june 3rdrd. >> thank you very much any public comment on the items proposed for continuance i don't see any public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> move items as noted. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items 1, 2, 3 as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you under commission matters item 4 commissioner questions or comments and commissioner vice president richards. >> just wanted to bring up something i read in the new york times on tuesday more or less

it talk about overcrowding in new york city and how it is wrolg and shows the crowded employment on sleep leading to problems that endure throughout life new york city is experiencing the same thing has run away rents and definition don't kind of get done or not addressed i think society will pay for it throughout the lifetime of children in those crowded conditions you've heard families living in sros that is i think absolutely terrible and wanted to brought to your attention. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. a more positive note in studied from the san francisco busy time a prehuman resources you consulting firm

found that san francisco has the highest quality of living a survey out i have 200 and thirty cities unfortunately their rating was only number 28 worldwide so there is something about foreign cities that is lacking in american i'm not sure but the criteria are but encouraging that we we ranked higher than other american cities in 2015 and chicago 43 and new york city 43 place and the consumer goods and natural environment and public services, transportation, banking currency, etc. obviously whoever do the survey thinks this a good place to live. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on

to to department matters on 5 drorments. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners one announcement today, i want to brought to your attention a panel discussion next week on the issue of gentrification displacement the mayor's office of housing and county development is hosting a panel with the community development and the presenters from the center for community innovation at uc berkley on the urban displacement that is professor karen cpa he will and the urban displacement project a research and action initiative in collaboration with researchers at ucla and community-based organizations, regional planning and the state of california air resources board the project it calls to understand the nature of gentrification the bay area a

multi study those are folks that have become interprets the field i'd like encourage the members of the public and the commission to attend it is also includes anthony the organizational director and gore den chin the founding executive director of the community development center next tuesday the 8 at moufks at the xhaechlz that is one south van ness on the fifth floor next tuesday matrix 8 at the mayor's office of housing and community development one soto van ness on the 5 floor. >> commissioner moore can you send out an e-mail and let us know. >> exactly. >> no other questions move on to the past events of the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission

there is no brotherhoods report. >> good afternoon grirgsz aaron starr manager, legislative affairs first on land use was supervisor wiener's ordinance to allow existing bars to expand to the second floor with the conditional use authorization in but upper market that was heard on february 4th and recommended approval at that land use hearing the planning staff gave a brief presentation no comments from the members of the public and recommend approval to the full board. >> next on the agenda was the second duplicated file for supervisor avalos ordinance which requires the conditional use authorization for the removal of any unit the city, supervisor avalos and i'm sorry in was continued to the call of the chair supervisor avalos and supervisor wiener will be working on amendments that require back to the planning commission for our review and

recommendation also on monday supported by supervisor wiener own student housing several educational institution presented usf and sf state over the several months the supervisor has been working with the institutions on the need and plans for providing student housing the departments presentation staff discussed the need for student housing currently colleges provide on 9 thousand beds for the 80 thousand students the city and staff provided the historical that is two significant piece of legislation one in 2010 and one in 2012 both encourage the student housing and the protection of existing housing from conversion to student housing. >> staff provided an overview of eastern housing since 2010 and staffs cluksz conclusion we

will have a shortfall of approximately 28 thousand beds in the infrastructure are accounted for and staffs presentation was from the following by the - current the four institutions provide to small institution of beds 14 percent for usf and others to thirty percent for cca and hastings, however, the goal to provide housing for 50 percent of student body and during the public comment the action coalition stayed the city needs to investigate the lack of are interest from the developers and providing for housing the developer the panoramic incorporated developed most of the student housing recommendations a 5 year commitment when building instead of the 10 at the time climax supervisor wiener asked the

department to look at the changes to incentivize student housing at the full board this week supervisor avalos ordinance that increases the tdif by $2 passed it is sex offender and the mayor will veto this. >> supervisor breed ordinance that allows the projected plan the fillmore commercial district pass its first reading and to sdoern the paper also passed it's first reading and supervisor avalos ordinance that requires cu for the removal of for legal unit and unwandered units that applies to all districts as you recall this passed in the c-3 district a minor clerical it passed first

reading on a 4 to with two supervisors where r were about the packs to single-family home districts, however, supervisor tang pressed so forth for the intent so she'll looks forward to working with supervisor avalos and supervisor wiener on duplicated ordinance to address her concerns and finally at the boards hearing supervisor yee's resolution to address maximizing the inclusionary housing requirement at the hearing the resolution was voted for in order to lay the ground work for the june ballot and the amended resolution the board will adopt that by year and has a grandfathering clause and the clause and others city departments to conduct a go feasibility study and allow for middle-income units 100 percent ami for the board to set the maximum affordable units and to

approve through the city agreement from the inclusionary housing requirement this resolution then based the board on an unanimous vote that concludes my presentation. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> a quick one mr. star will you be able to forward the presentation on the student housing. >> yes. a power point kim has it but i'll get it. >> the future when you send us would you attach our presentations that would be fabulous thank you. >> would you do that. >> i'll do it for everyone. >> commissioner antonini. >> in regards to the legislation the trailing legislation you discussed i think that is trailing to an issue which would be on the june ballot if i'm not mistaken; is that correct? >> yes. something on the june ballot the inclusionary housing requirement out of the charter

and then allow to be adjusted the future yeah. >> but i guess the question i have is from the trailing legislation so not available until june 1st-800- how will the voters know the trailing legislation is not actually part of ballot measure but it is supported and kind of works with that. >> ballot initiative sets a 25 percent as a place holder and the board can adjust it the future there is something that the ballot initiate from my understanding the trailing legislation will be based feasibility study to see the appropriate nexus. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i think that's it thank you very much. >> good afternoon,

commissioners tim frye department staff to sharing a few forensics or things in the historic preservation commission the hpc met to review the design criteria for a appropriated usf research facilities near san francisco general hospital the location of the new building will be on an existing parking lot the reason to bring the arc into the mix for design review and comment the collection of the early 20th century building as san francisco general have been identified as a national registered district from 191 to 1938 the arc members reviewed the design criteria proposed o prepared and had limit comments on the overview proposal they feel the design criteria will

help guide a future architecture firm in developing a new buildings that fits within the historic district have questions about the massing pea how to relate to the historic building while the current proposal and massing sued is a low sort of boxy structure the arc members felt the building could be taller and skruptd and better relate to the historic district after the conclusion of the arc two items on the hpc calendar a landmark dedication for van ness street as the half jones building that is significant for the association with the marsh e mortuary circle industry a 30

report the commission felt addresses many - establishes significance of the building with half jones, however, needs a better finding the cultural significance of the building related to the motorcycle destroy the prudent person property owner is preparing his own information so the commission decided to voted unanimously to tennessee to the april 6th the applicant and the property owner should have additional material on whether or not to initiate the half jones building to article 10 of the code based on the current information 9 staff's recommendation the building appears eligible for the california register not meeting

any of the priority areas as part of its landmark designation program and finally rec and park department presented or gave an informational presentation on the condition of the mothers, recently rec and park was awarded a historic preservation commission grant to hire an outside consultant to conduct a condition ascertainment and schematic faebdz for the building located the san francisco zoo the building is significant and has been on the hpc landmark designate work program since flooifl it is vacant and suffers from a great deal of deferred maintenance the rec and park department showed the report identifies some immediate repairs that need to occur to the building and

short term and long term repairs the - at a total of $4.7 million likely the president of the hpc will attend the meeting on march 170 also over the knowing support in seeking grant funding or any other afs to help to rehab the building in a timely fashion that concludes my report unless you have any questions. >> appears no questions thank you very much. >> commissioners, the first item on your agenda general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each

member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there are no speaker cards. >> great, thank you. >> yep. >> hi. >> good afternoon. i'm july 4th i live in bernal heights you've seen me before i wanted to talk about reflections on engagement of the public recently the number of meetings right now for the public is completely overwhelming i wanted to talk

about the need for developers to show some respect for the public who shows up at those meetings and come prepared with information it is useful i you know talked about involvement in the affordable housing bonus program and their didn't end up being a meeting in district 9 the meeting he respect to in district 10 had materials from one of the coalitions that the developers supported on everyone's chair so i felt like that was a little bit out of bound we're coming to a commission meeting and want the information from the planning department i think also that community forms are basically at risk of being undermined in terms of their integrity and also - (inaudible)

i've been reading a little bit some one of those books that talks about the history of planning i have a greater appreciation of how the consultant groups came to being and i want to recall something that happened you know has colored by remarks from my personal recognize on february 29th a meeting of a community meeting group that prevented the groups like dpw to present their proposals to members he attended hopefully improving the cal station and on jackson park after the presentation the body put the project next to my sons school a vote it was deemed invalid one of the presenter neither fit the criteria for a voting member it

was one vote apart and the improper vote would have been decisive it demonstrates a lack of respect for the the time in the processes i call for a code of conduct for developers. >> and they're in the room. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> general public comment not seeing any, general public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards and at one point i know there is discussions around having certain formats for development meeting so people understand it is part of mayor's office of housing. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to your regular calendar item 7 the transportation

sustainability program aligned component. >> okay. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the board i'm sarah jones environmental review officer and director of planning that was great pride i come before you a exciting milestone not standpoint program effort to keep people moving as the city grows and an important moment for san francisco to step forward as a leader in making the smarter growth policies work

as you may know our preliminary purpose the alignment with the ceqa review by replying the level of service with the metric that captures car travel san francisco has been working towards this since 2003 and been an objective from the start of project in 2013 with the page of senate bill it ellis act was a statewide mandate. >> been with the planning and research in their creation of a statewide program that aligns ceqa the most important environmental law now a system going through another year still of the making process we would like to adopt that metrics in san francisco with the last january 9th substance was we're

ceqa allows the agencies to seek their own threshold and no legislation change is necessary why are we coming to you with this today rather than waiting for the state as san francisco's role and the planning department vision great planning for a great city you'll be here the ellis act reform is for new development that's try but not the reason this is such an important step we're here bus the vision and alignment it is absurd we can't make the students safer that is ludicrous we implement the plans that are years the making moving l o s aligned this as a aide policies promoting infrastructure and

streets to move for all before i pass the mike to the senior planners i want to take a brief moment to thank the many, many people that are part of this transformative effort first of all, thank you for john rahaim and particularly want to call out the environmental planning staff who poured caliber victor and greg that moved open to sfmta and rachel and others who are here and also especially like to recognize the efforts of bill former over and over that was the brains and wouldn't have been possible we wouldn't be here now

thank you sarah. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioner vice president richards and members of the board i'm honored to talk about something that numerous people in the crowd and elsewhere have been working on for over a decade about making sure we measure in environmental review actually regrets what the city cares in transportation that he and salesforce that's safety in providing a variety of opposition for people moving around and this, of course, is the reform before i talk and dive into the details i want to provide context in terms of environmental review the planning department generally processes 3 different types of environmental review documents on the left hand is the majority of asia casing those are exemptions awhile

negative declaration and irrelevance get for notoriety they represent a few projects the process this process would not change as part of the reform we're talking about today but the public will continue to have opportunity to weigh in on the environmental review process including the appeal process when we look at environmental impacts we're looking at 18 different tops and a transportation and circulation is one of the topics that again will not change as part of reform we're talking about today within transportation and circulation we look at a bunch of sub topics i'll focus on level of service and automobile delay and debbie from the planning department will talk about some of the other tongs

later so on the level of service what it is it it was created in the 1950s by the traffic engineers to elevate evaluate the highway capacity not to measure the environmental effects like today how this plays out is there is a letter grade that is assigned like during grade school from a to f a is good and f is bad this is a picture of a downtown with little no activity going on with a transfer engineer will look at this and say that is fantastic cars can move without no delay i'm going to give this an a from an urban life precipitation it is not a place people want to live or stay this is an f this is a picture of

market street traffic engineer will say how are cars going to move there are people walking and on transit and people bicycling how can a car move freely through the intersection this is an f from an urban life it is a sign of a vibrant economic place people want to stay and go to this is an a so look through this lens it is creates numerous problems for ceqa and first and foremost is didn't protect environmental quality the foundation of ceqa the reason for that is a common solution to improving or reducing automobile delay is roadways for people walking and increase speeds to unsafe levels on city streets and second it

didn't fix the problem that was intended to fix and this is because of the concept of induced demand you widened a roadway people are more attracted and it leads to important congestion or the commemorating the beginning except now important cars and pollution in addition it encourages scrawl because on the urban areas there is little to no congestion there so any vehicle travel you'll look at the level of service lens there are not going to have impacts and bad grades even though there are adding 3 three to four times as vehicle travel compared to develop in places like san francisco it conflicts with the ooej open regional and state policies intended to actually improve the

environment walk reducing emissions and providing for mobility option for people to get around. >> so for those last year limited number of projects or projects that reduce the automobile display we had a analysis on the city is often left with rejecting the alternatives to reduce automobile display by the way, e delay because of the space constraint we don't have the room to wild the roadways without door-to-door buildings therefore we spend time and effort counting cars at intersections without doing anything to try to reduce the vehicles the intersection the first place so acknowledging those problems significance legislation that sarah alluded to was passed in 2013 and that was california 743-d two things

first, it said automobile delay should no longer be considered an environmental effect upon adoption of new ceqa guidelines and an alternative matrix should be applied this is a long process the city was working on a level of service and part of transportation sustainability program more recently the state office of planning and research is responsible for updating ceqa guidelines at the start a robust outreach program like outreach from the matrix and released 3 documents between the two and three the city are we looking at the transportation sustainability program to break down the 3 1ri8d component and

at that time, the city adopted it recently and the state released their proposal in january when the public comment ended so the resolution green before i today is really an implementing and - change the state we feel confident the state will propose a alternative for the travel and voounl automobile delay will be removed from ceqa we want to move ahead of the state we don't know how long this process took longer we anticipated once the bill was passed and maybe another year. >> so just to remind you on the travel this manufacture measures the distance that people might drive it in private automobiles or taking

corrections, changes, deletions, taxis and an indicator of the environmental effects here the city we'll rely on the colleagues of the transportation authority to conduct a model run for some maps i'll show you. >> so what this change means impractical first for transportation projects it splits the framework on its head projects that are inducing automobile travel will have impacts to analysis the alternatives and mitigation for conversely projects that will not have significant impacts are things that the city is implementing in terms of improving safety and providing for mobility options so plus a huge positive change on the transportation. >> on the land use end the state is proposing you compare a project miles traufd to the

region the region means the 9 county bay area and many factors that effect the travel behavior and vehicle miles you go as much as density and diversities and frequency of transit and based on those factors the city is doing quite well expanded to the region the next 3 slides you'll show you a map and a table comparing the city hall to the neighborhood for illustration purposes that doesn't show well on the screen the whites are the belief average and below the thresholds the regional average is $17.2 million per capital per day the states set a told her 1 percent below that average

they're not satisfied with the status quo they want to meet the green house gas goals and here at city hall this neighborhood is one, 7 of the threshold the only red areas that show up on the map are treasure island which is pretty obvious to see and hptd the lower right-hand side corner and most likely those areas will not show up red if you take into account the land use and transportation the future. >> for office a similar picture will emerge the vast majority of city is below the threshold and here at city hall we're half that threshold. >> and then i'll delay a similar picture the areas that

show up red are slightly lee above the threshold a variety of land uses we analyze but generally stay within the same types of framework and analysis i've described and although rare other unique and substantially large projects that effect those might do new model runs to calculate the projects but for the vast majority we'll rely on the map to have less than significance finding. if a project exceeds the vehicles miles traveled then mitigation measures that will apply is transportation transportation demand management which was the project of our

informational hearing and shifts would apply citywide but we're more concerned about mobility overall in the city than looking at a project by project threshold basis so in recap that reform is a very positive exciting change for the city and environmental review and it will not effect the public's ability to weigh in on the review process or change the analysis and other topics including the others sub topics in transportation and jane will talk about >> good work commissioner i'm planning staff to follow up on reed's presentation in addition to the level of service to the

new vehicles miles traveled the planning department is the process of updating it's impact analysis to see the shift in miles matrix and align in our environmental documents as before we'll continue to analyze the project transportation related impacts on riding transit and people walking and biking and other assess as well as construction impacts all the remaining ceqa environmental impact report that we touched on will continue to be analyzed with the transportation impact analysis updated we plan on making the environmental review and analysis for relevant to the different ways people use the transportation network accordingly the transportation analysis is on bike and mobility and safety issues for all travel

the site circulation will evaluate the transportation and as needed it are are will have explored measures to address any transportation and circulation dollars that arises we're not giving up on the analysis only shifting a 34e6ks from the level of service the pipeline since 2013 as before we will continue to evaluate the project if payable city and policies like we did before and most importantly the environmental analysis will seek public input at key parts of environmental analysis people can comment on the scope of what we did the environmental analysis and we'll respond to those issues in response to common documents the

eirs the resolution from level to the service metrics is one analysis that was conducted to evaluate aside from the ceqa and transportation it will not effect others analysis or gentle environmental review and we strongly urge you to approve that resolution that will go a logan long way to the environmental impact for the cities policies that we've adopted for good transportation and land use planning thank you very much i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i know this very large project has involved a lot of agencies and departments and some are here so i said to provide that opportunity for those who want to speak i know that ed reiskin is here with mta

and tilly chang from the i'll let you folks organize yourselves. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners it is my great pleasure to be here on behalf of the transportation authority tilly chang like to express our strong support for the change in city's policy and pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. practice regarding the impact analysis 1962 ongoing acholic beverage effort of city departments and going back to 2003 our agency worked on the first study looking at alternatives to what has been 50 years of practice embedded the concept at a point we found to examine and the staff report to better align our city's practices and policies to

styling h style the review practices and to achieve more fiscal 0 focus groups for the city in multi stages thank you for your strong supports for the tsp today's aforementioned will be followed by a tdm ordinances we hope you'll be support our aim to bring this forward not only of the practice for the city to achieve our goals and aims but model the jurisdictions when the states are trying to do to have more sustainable community and thank you to the city team those particularly generations of staff that the planning department and the transportation authority and mta, mayor's office and sf environment i'll not name them all they're here and continue to other endeavors but want to recognize the deep and acholic

beverage efforts based and strong technical analysis and strong under pooinz to move forward to serve and partner in particular, the office of planning and research and they deserve our prediction for they're leadership and implementing this guideline at the state level thank you, again i look forward to any questions you have. >> president fong and members of the commission ed reiskin director of transportation i want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak and considering this landmark step forward in terms of how we evaluate the projects in san francisco my job as your director of transportation and working with the planning department, the transportation authority and others is to make sure that people have good choices in terms of how they get around the city and when i say

good choices good is defined by a number of city policies that are at play as much as the transportation element of general plan, the transit first policy which is insilenced and the city's compliment change and policies for affordability and accessibility and as we have a city that is growing we have anymore people who want to timely and work and visit here we need to make sure with we can accommodate to growth in smarter ways ways reflective of those what we love about san francisco, california remain so this change that here for your consideration today would allow us to better do that and allow us to think about the impacts of

transportation projects and building projects in a way that aliens better with that list of city policies and that's why this is so important and why i would strongly urge you to support this change i believe this which was about result in better analysis that will result in a better informed public and better public discussion and ultimately in better projects that will support the transportation system that will support the best possible way this is a great effort i'll join with tilly in commending the staff and the mta and ta and autumn the agencies a lot of thoughtful work and analysis and it is fully appropriate if san francisco takes a leadership role after the 743 was passed and ahead of the state so thank

you very much for your considers and it was an excellent staff presentation when they're talking about the traffic engineering prospective they're talking about 1950s how traffic jerseys not the traffic engineers at sfmta who are just as if not more safety conscious but have a much more modern and evolved thinking your traffic engineers will look at those fs and call them a's. >> thank you. >> i know that cheryl brinkman sfmta board chair that here. >> thank you good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners my name is cheryl brinkman i serve as is vice chair of the sfmta droeshgz first thank you for service this is a labor of

love and is a lot hard work i'm here to speak in favor of this change it it is step in the right direction it is our important goal a lion shift this is how the transportation sustainability program will will help us to meet the demand and this is key we have more people and more demands on the transportation network than before and at the same time our streets are not growing wider we need to make smarter decisions new to it san francisco ideas might not appear popular but are beneficial to the transportation system and increase safety for the citizens you have an opportunity to keep our people

moving and over streets safe for the millions of people so people will be more successful i ask you to adopt this thank you. >> thank you. >> hi good afternoon i'm from the to transportation program we promote the use of sustainable modes to align with the transit first policy in san francisco with the goal of reducing green house gas emissions and primarily did it through a behavorial change and education and outreach program to promote the use of sustainable transportation mode i'm here to also support the l o s reform the item before you today, this supports projects that promotes

the behavorial which was that encourages land use and option and density it will reduce the green house gas emissions since b m t reflected the miles traveled and that is one indicator of air quality and safety in l association s i encourage you to consider psa this resolution thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak i'm an epidemiologist the sustainability in the health a branch i'm exist to be here to support the early adoption of the transportation impact environmental review a change this has advocated for and

participation the city working groups on the l o s reform this is due to the fact we consider blt to be a better measure than l o s we believe this policy change will have population health strategic plan and health and safety over the years we've duplicated the negative effects of l o s the use of that and he environmental review supports the transportation system that helps not to capture the impacts of vehicle use with the diverse noise and transportation safety further l o s creates roadblocks with liveability like blocking bikes lanes and other things it will positively impact with the

city agencies like vision zero and allow for faster and more effective implementation of implementation of life saving opportunities and the long term the use of m t will encourage the transit and active transportation throb reducing the air emissions in conclusion we believe that city transportation metrics with the prioritization of human well-being and air quality and activity transportation we support the the department change that will advance the health of people that live and work in san francisco thank you for your consideration of this important policy change. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the commission victor wise from

sfmta commissioners as you very will know transportation and land use are connected and the state of california, of course, recognizes this connection through senator bill through the sustainable climate act the resolution is a key step in promoting this the demonstration of multi transportation and encouraging dpicht of diversity of ludicrously so the switch the level of service to million dollars traveled will bring bart implementation for the transit pedestrian and bicycle projects the urban environment having better choices for us all it allows sfmta to better focus on the resources our workers and visitors need and have been asking for more high impact

transportation and want those projects delivered as quickly as possible it allows us to deliver more and better and faster it will recognize that active transportation and transit promotions like better bike ways and transit ways and those are not increases in the city rather those projects will support our citizens and have the kind of development we want in the city i ask you to adopt the resolution and align with the existing policies in the city like transit first thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner president fong and fellow members the commission i'm manager the regulatory for public works my colleagues from other aide departments have presented a

convincing argument from l o s to the bmt we're in full support of the policy with the aligned city policies like vision zero and transit first at this point, i'll strongly urge to adopt this proposal thank you. >> hello july 4th from bernal heights and i'm so pleased everyone in the room that can make a decision to put a white loading zone and 22 caltrans station is here so, please all you stakeholders to make transit work we need loading zones at the 22 caltrain station no

loading zone and generally think about loading zones for bart and caltrain in general moving to the bmt is great and i would just is that as you look at developers proposals please make sure to add additional car sharing spaces and chavrg i think didn't count against brt and developers can provide bike membership and encourages the transportation and also projects really need to provide off-street loading one of the criteria the delivery and passenger loading for safety i live near mission and we now have put the red lane for the busses

and it has been you know an adjustment this first week or so what i'm a little bit afraid of is that the red lanes are encouraging speeding that maybe dangerous given the sidewalks are not compliant with the we are not streets so i think projects need to is it correct a little bit from their property line to allow for these sorts of red lanes i did already see a double lane but go through the red light on presidio they're moving fast and mission street has a lot of pedestrians and people still have to park and so it is a little bit challenging you only have one line of traffic open now making sure you enhance safety is a safety when you mutt u put in a bike lane or red zone

is important addition on valencia street a lot of ubers basically use it as a loading zone and the bikes have to go into the ongoing traffic so, please implement 3 mind fully i think there are long processes and short implementation like you didn't repave mission thank you put down a plastic thing the rain is, you know, the thinking inflation is absent worse please take your time and do it right the first time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is nourishing the executive director of walk sf and very excited to be here today to share our organizations