explicitly the economic viability can be affected that is unfair and also not the spirit of board policy resolution that serves as an item seat for the legislation i urge you to clearly recommend to the board of supervisors that entitled projects be exempt from higher inclusionary raised irrespective of whether or not a site permit was issued thank you. >> good afternoon shawn rb a-1 item that maybe overlooked is the term sheet was approved at the board of supervisors 11 to zero supported the term sheet and much of the legislation today, we really appreciate i'd like to speak to the tone of this legislation what the legislative and executive branch and the are stakeholders participated at at

urban precedent level so many times housing is a blood support that's one where the tone and respect was outstanding for the most part of the items the legislation can be traced back to the term sheet line for line you can point and connect the dots it make sense but the biggest area of the concern what is called nicknamed the carve out the mission nc t and the soma youth zone we're not sure we're and why it is in there it is certainly not a part of term sheet the items significant there is no trail to follow it undermines the mission controls and contradiction the eastern neighborhoods the individuals follow the lead of planning commission and planning department and the board of

supervisors during the emeralds rezoning they tell you where they wanted housing and how much pdr we need and not and where they wanted the pdr to go this so-called carve out contradicts the eastern neighborhoods rezoning and undermines the mission controls and not part of term sheet adopted at the board of supervisors with an 11 to zero vote thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners mission recipient working for mission and office of economic workforce development and finally we come today, i that being asked to provide more affordable housing and i think this is a good thing

because everyone has to put responsibility on part of solution and we are all happy we're increasing the inclusionary housing and i still there are many things to develop i think even the private developers have more inclusionary housing from the mission we have been fighting because we have been displaced because a lot of pdr has been cross and the jobs for our people the blue collar jobs like the union people to be supporting and more affordable housing in the mission we don't want to grandfather the mission we support the special recommendations for the neighborhood corridor and the pdr and because we have seen how

they have been crossing those places and providing jobs for our people and thank you, commissioners and continue the conversation i hope that voters in san francisco supporting the increasing inclusionary housing. >> thank you. >> call a few more names (calling names). >> teresa imperial has spoken. >> if your name has been called please submit our comments. >> if no one else will step up lying vascular cuss i want to speak to a glitch the trailing legislation

i don't think that essentially grandfather our commissions approval that needs to be corrected the trailing legislation the second point i want to talk to the grairthd the carve out for the pdrs it should be discussed what was lufrmd into to trailing legislation it should be taken out the 33 percent in lui fee for projects over one and 20 feet that carve out is something that can be addressed and not part of this trailing legislation so we're in favor of producing affordable and market-rate in san francisco that's a way to address the housing crisis we have to get the numbers right if

we get them wrong it causes a down turn in affordable housing because affordable housing is linked intairment to the market-rate housing if you start to choke down the market-rate housing your eventually cause the democrat nutrition of production that's all i have to say thank you. >> i'm chair as you may know i very much oppose the charter amendment i can't someone was building 3 thousand units i can't produce at 33 percent affordability i verified those numbers more affordable housing providers and 3 market-rate developers and 4 contractor i can't do it maybe something else can this trailing legislation that was supposed to bring in an

economic feasibility and grater the existing projects i would the planning department did a great job i'll strongly support they mentioned recommendations without this trailing legislation that really works you can have a danger of shutting down housing there are load of people that don't think on work i urge you to correct the approval of grandfathered promotions with they mentioned entitlements to go back for example, our project anothers 350 van ness we closed one and $45 million loan and suddenly all you our entitlements are at risk that will make san francisco a very, very, very did the place to do business and crack capital for new business

i'm concerned about our own project that is not the way to solve the affordable housing crisis and by the way, market-rate are down and supply actually works most people are giving them free that is working give it more time thanks very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, tim collin on behalf of the housing coalition any main point to strongly urge to support planning department staff excellent recommendations the basic reason is that you've heard again and again we've heard by the terms of what the charter amendment is supposed to do and the trailing legislation proposes to do which is to build more affordable housing there is such a real risk it looks like a real risk that achieves exactly

the as opposed to opposite we'll produce less affordable housing that is a shame in particular, the points we want to make is you can't say do the geography graphic carve outs on the projects as mentioned one bloo block away one level and another block another one and as shawn said earlier this was not part of the discussion that led to the term to the 11 to nothing board of supervisors some plan areas already contain hours impact fees and with the inclusionary burden because of in lui fees is counterproductive to what we're doing and the inclusion on buildings over one and 20 feet at a time when we're trying to get more height and density on to existing lands and in areas there is already the

van ness sud let's build it higher and treat overseeing projects definitely there are consequences for taking actions like that and certainly projects that are commission approval have to be able to move forward we have going to improve the building climate so we can address the housing affordability or not we understand that the legislation like this is intended to balance the competition but seems clear if our prospective that many on the other side i will say stopping housing projects is a desirable goal for in their view of what is good for san francisco killing projects market-rate helps the city and we can't understand that but it is a persistent view there it is on this side we're

trying to say let the projects that are gone this far and try not to be more harm at a point we need more housing thank you. >> male good afternoon, commissioners peter with the carpenters, however, i'm speaking on behalf of actually mike secretary and treasurer with the construction trade council has asked me to read this letter to commissioner president fong and commissioner when the basic trailing legislation to the inclusionary housing charter amendment was being worked out and then embodied the resolution proposed by the supervisor yee and then approved by the board of supervisors two of the principles were grandfathering of projects currently in the pipeline and the fall back and additional affordable units from

the grandfathered projects i understood from the start of the discussions the intent of both sides to insure the grandfathered projects were not made infeasible by the new requirements we the building trade rate you are relationships historically and understanding with the developers of the potentially grandfathered projects definitely from one another some will use only union labor but some this as they can get away with we've existed the discussion over housing to achieve other ends and in indeed true and those developers most decline to ignore the needs and hard gains of the workers are those at least inclined to serve the community in which they

build we restrained ourselves the discussion, however, we felt it was important in this board and important to focus entirely on the question of housing to respect the principles and understanding at which bodies have arrived early on i'm disappointed then and from returning from ireland and the centurion to hear that issues not all part of those understanding and unrelated to questions of housing were not part of trailing legislation we ask that you accept the staffs recommendations in support of legislation that has the drawbacks of the inclusionary housing independent in location or in height we also ask that all projects the entitlement process and

especially not inclusively they mentioned pipeline projects and grandfathered in a way that self-treason they mentioned feasibility with respect michael thank you. >> i have the letters. >> leave them there. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john with the partners a 20-year recipient of the soma i'm in support of the planning department staff recommends to uniformly apply the grandfathered position we have 3 projects consisting of 4 hundred units the pipeline and under the current legislation supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are proposed not receiving any gratifying we've been working on the entitlements for the 11th hour and we have been working on them for two years and expect to be back in

august and october one project is carved out one and thirty feet down van ness you've heard morgan talk about from the neighborhood association and raise your right hand this is not the 5 m or the seawall that has the density bonuses for the affordability be requirements we've worked with the neighborhood and respected they mentioned requests to stay one one and thirty feet on the van ness corridor we have pdr in soma district and the dog patch district g again with all due respect we again pay less for the sites because of pdr use the soma project is surl or currently a parking lot that gives me the employees one parking attendant not jobs adapted

i urge you to request the board of supervisors to make changes to the trailing legislation so the grairthd are applied to all projects regardless of height or location thank you. >> fernando. >> good afternoon, commissioners jake i'm here for the 363 street on october 2015 this commission approved our project within the special use district that has been identified under the grandfathering inclusions before you today the planning department has recommended modifying that as a condition of approval to insure a fair and uniform grandfathering provision are included they support and encourages the members of the

commission to do the same we ask you grater this project as the a.d. a application over 3 and a half years over the january 2016 deadline used to determine the eligibility for grandfathering other projects across the city we're concerned that carving out the soma and youth sud from the grandfathering provision will negatively impacting our project and the neighborhood with the inclusion will result the delay or complete eliminations of the project from the pipeline due to the increased financial burden the soma youth and family sud was to occurring more affordable housing and protect and enhance the health and environment of youth and families the 6 street could use this help approving that amendment could cause our project probation officer remain

unbuilt or force long delays any reduction the number of new affordable units will leave the community underserved this aspect of the draft legislation will cause great harm to the communities we've been working hard to bring to the city it is important to acknowledge there maybe negative impacts many have been identified and addressed by the acts of this commission please help level the playing field by modifying the provisions to include the soma and special use district thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is fernando with the council of community housing associations or organization i'd like to address two specific provisions

you've heard about and the other about the small sites acquisition provision in the this as well, this should be considered further first, i want to remind the folks under a california law we can pass no fees and impositions all the way until they mentioned invested or have a building permit what will be on the ballot before voters in june is a ballot measure that doubles the inclusionary housing for any project not entitled the item before you is a very general recuse expansion of that not from entitle but back to grandfathering a large number of projects but not all of them i think that is what should be considered we're not talking about a carve out but grandfathering projects not in the n u m u from a ballot

measure in june for voters as far as the comments about what is fair and principles i think you know what was passed a resolution by the board there will be a consideration around how grandfathering would be done what date and geography and as long as you put down a particular date ad geography whoever is on one side of the geography will say this is fair and others on the other side will say not fair within the legislation there is an opportunity for developers to provide affordable units through acquisition of existing buildings i know that is very important extremely important that that project that proposal, thoroughly in line with the current small sites program with the mayor's office of housing

and community development they have underlying and strict provision how one can do that we've been studying this since 2009 two years of a program that works it is for this be in line with what we already have if we're talking about acquiring buildings offsite we're not providing overseeing units onsite we must be clear we're using the offsite percentages not saying i'm going to provide 12 percent of my units or site and build more 12 percent that are onsite there is as equalization that is important and finally for any kind of acquisition it is critical there be no displacement of existing tenants the presents or in the previous few years thank you very much.

>> good afternoon supervisors john what to carve out represents obviously is the real interim controls the mission needed but you refuse to approve when that matter was before you a a few weeks ago everybody the room and hall and the building and the city knows that under the current interim controls the mission the cu this pdr to be adapted after ringing our hands and saying you wish you could do better you'll approve this is for gone conclusion people know that's the problem you have no criminality credibility in the mission we have come to you repeated for generations instead

what we you will know is you're the development commission not the planning commission you're the development commission and approve every single one of overseeing projects you may post a few more square feet but it it will happen that is happening you know it when you see the carve out that actually is an enzymes it will come you to and be adopted by the board this is clearly and temporary provision what the final percentage the mission and other neighborhoods is not known today we've all commented to this feasibility analysis that will be done sometime the summer this is really what's going on the planning commission can't say wait to developers no a crucial

neighborhood to the city character and essence in the neighborhood many say what's going on when you see this you should realize it is a vote of no confidence and in this department, of course, that's what's going on i'm sure you realize this is just the beginning of a very, very very contentious year on development issues in san francisco and how this commission is failing to deal with that adequately. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and others commissioners will from workshop one my company designs and entitles develops projects in san francisco we have two hundred units we've gotten approved the past year and another 200 units had been before you in upcoming year i think this policy is

misguided i believe that the issue at hand not about destroying the character of san francisco neighborhoods i think the issue is really about whether we'll be a city that promotes new hours or whether we'll be a city it gets bogged down in politics that keeps new housing from happening i believe this policy causes high renters and greater displacement from existing hours and i strongly disagree with the intent with that said, i want to talk about my projects whether this is fair or not but i do think that carve outs go against the intent of all the discussions around the legislation there will be graisht it should be evenhanded and last thing i

strongly support of planning department staff work and thoughts i hope you'll support them as well thank you. >> hi sanjay sf renters federation the grashthd part of this legislation is supposed to be based on fairness and feasibility and in this ken text fairness that is exactly what the controversy is tomato fairness means that nothing it grandfathered the current and future projects feasibility, however, is a meaningful term and there's no evidence before you no evidence that either the graisht regimes before you are based on feasibility at all feasibility is not determined but when you put in our

application e.r. the zoning you're in feasibility is determined by the other policies income from the lot and so regime based on feasibility will have to go to and say that lot is making this amount of money and how much under 12 percent you don't have that the shorenstein project is a great project they can favored more than 5 percent not at three percent at either of the options in front of you neither of the options are truly based on feasibility not fair to you or the planning department staff for you to make a decision on the grandfathering legislation in is short term it is based on feasibility you know it should have been crafted for you to make smosh or something up to send to them i'm reminded of the

saying a fair to plan didn't constitute an emergency on my part i encourage you guys to feel that way the failure of the board of supervisors to give you enough time if constitute an emergency on your part it is perfectly responsibly unreasonable reasonable for you to return a message if you want a grandfathering regime you can't make a decision or you don't recommend it yeah thanks thank you very much i really don't think that either of these are feasible. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and ms. rogers has some opening. >> thank you, commissioners for indulging me i want to paint the picture for a second and let you you know that the department has communicated to the sponsors

at the highest level we appreciate what is happening on effort to try to maximum mass the production of colleagues, can we take that without objection? and establishing some best practices to make sure that the feasibility study is done on a regular 3 year increments and the legislative branch can evaluate and make sure we're maximizing affordable housing as noted that is a very fast moving piece of legislation the intent from the legislative sponsors and in cooperation is to try to get the ordinance before you and acted in a certain place so the voters know the outcome if they pass this chartered amendment that was introduced on tuesday of last week and the report before you is produced on thursday of last week so as such we've been scrambling like everyone to get things together there was missing

information the report and have some additions calling your attention many people talk about which the carve outs and those areas where there is no possibility for any grandfathering they'll see the highest fees happen immediately doing some preliminary work looking at the pipeline of 3 of the categories the zoning district that were discussed those 25 hundred units that would be immediately struck with the higher fees are the proposal before you that includes the zoning district we're looking at and trying to get how many buildings will also be the one and 20 feet and more units there i do believe we'll have the numbers by the time is goes to the board secondly, we want to acknowledge the department appreciates the phasing how long we've been in

the pipeline it is certainly harder to evaluate to hire fees the process the proposal before you does acknowledge that and i wanted to follow up on one items that aaron mentioned owe recommendation 11 not the report on that one we would like to recommend that anyone that has a planning entitlement they've been approved by the commission or been approved by the department those projects should, exempt from any higher fees they've been approved by the planning department and as people said the california state law no specific grandfathering investment or provision for them in this ordinance they'll an subject to the new fees of they're just you know they've been under review and approved by you more than a year ago if

they don't have the building permit they may have to pay the higher fees i think that the minimum from supervisor kim described what she wants to do for the projects i believe we can ask april but looks like it will be lost them into the grairts provision that applies and what is different about what the staff is requesting we are asking for the projects to just be solicited that the non-inclusionary housing that's my last major point i know that is a lot of conversation about pdr and the process of pdr we had preliminary numbers that our recorded that look at the pdr housing and looking at the agreements eir that anticipated a loss of up to 4 about the $9 million secret of pdr space

and currently amongst the promotions the city has a approved since the adoption of lands and if you approve all the pevendz projects in the pipeline we'll see a loss of which pdr square feet that is anticipated by the eir i wanted to let you know a more detailed hearing next week about the eastern neighborhoods plan and get a more nonprofit study i'm waiting for the commissions responses >> thank you very much. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i may have more questions but first an announcement then one particular question with the sponsor as well as staff my announcement i'm chair of the board of the san francisco housing

development a nonprofit housing developer and time to mention that they're able to take advantage of the site acquisition program that is run by mohcd which this legislation touches on i want to make that known and the city attorney didn't prevent me from discussing this legislation today at all and we're totally fine there so i want to start off i think other commissioners have a lot of questions i don't want to hog that time i want to talk about the analysis so much of the changes that may happen in the future sort of a 3 year period as well as what we're deciding bank think information we hope will get but us out of an economic crisis so april your representing supervisor kim's office how do - how will the

supervisors westbound utilizing this report it seems like there is a lot of information that is going to be packed into this report but not clear what specific use that will have and will this be addressed here. >> april supervisor kim's office are you asking about the future feasibility report that is and so forth in this ordinance to be due january 31st, 2016? >> so looking at the trend yes july 31st. >> sorry july and thereafter every 3 years to try to get the how the supervisors will use the report what's part of progress and getting a sense that will be informing decision and specifically to help the

question we are setting percentages for the inclusionary program varying by different numbers of units and things like that but what will happen the feasibility analysis suggests a number that is either lower or higher you know will that be take into account. >> sure i appreciate the question because i know that a lot of the conversation largely has been around the graisht provisions of this initiative ordinance but this ordinance came forth because of the agreement that was made at the board which the charter amendment was forwarded to the voters 11 to include the feasibility study and analysis to address the future increases to the inclusionary increases or decreases to the inclusionary program and part of the

legislation is savings account for the time period in which the feasibility study will occur every 3 years as well as a formation of a technical advisory committee that will be split been the mayor's office and the board of supervisors to advise the controller on the feasibility study and set forth the scope of work for an independent consultant will be hired by the controller's office and according to the legislation the feasibility study will the board will consider the feasibility study as it relates to increasing or changing the inclusionary housing percentages the future so the charter amendment actually does one really basic specific thing this is to take out the inclusionary

housing cap that we currently have at 12 percent out of the charter and revert the setting back of the inclusionary requirements back to the board of supervisors as it was previous to 2012 and so in considering changes to the inclusionary requirement and affordable housing requirements moving forward we would consider the analysis done by the feasibility study the first thing being january or july 31st, 2016. >> okay i think what would be helpful i understand this is you know part of a large discussion; right? you can't necessarily especially given the opportunities for different requirements and different zoning district areas and neighborhood i don't understand you have this is

different than the feasibility study but that would be helpful for the public and the voters and for everyone really if they were a stronger connection to the feasibility assessment even something from the supervisors want if they are different than the feasibility study requirement for haven't or something like that right now it is a very tenuous connection between the economic feasibility study and changes that the supervisors might make the future. >> i believe there is a section in the ordinance related to report to the board that is also included in our memo to the planning commission that states that the board shall review the feasibility analysis as well as recommended periodic

updates to the city nexus that will in evaluating the negatively impact of the housing market and they'll review the feasibility analysis within 3 months and consider the legislative amendments to the inclusionary housing program i believe that is on - actually, i turned it magically to the right page on this page 24 section b so that described further the boards review of the feasibility analysis in setting back forgot future inclusionary housing requirements. >> okay. >> okay. he feel like i've made my point i don't want to budget committee labor but i see other commissioners that want to turn to staff with one question

and come back later so the current ordinance doesn't real have a very strong role for the planning department or the commission in even the production of or future analysis are discussion of the connective feasibility analysis so could you tell me you know your thoughts on that and if there are suggested changes to the process who is the most helpful particularly for the planning department what is the best way to integrate the professional capacity into the process of creating a feasibility analysis right now it is not as well-represented as the ordinance is written. >> thank you, commissioner moore's planning department staff we are going to be cooperating with the controller's office and i do have reason to believe that they'll work well, we've provided and done feasibility

studies like the affordable housing bonus program so we kind of been there it and providing him the work we've done so i'm not concerned with our ability to participate and advise the feasibility study did departments recommends did, however, ask this commission have an opportunity to produce an ordinance after the feasibility report is produced so you can recommend the inclusionary rate i think will produce the motioning most inclusionary housing we've had that recommendation and supervisor kim has a new proposal for how the report will work for the board of supervisors and it looks like it removes the references that are there for the commission you might want to take into account on page 2. >> that's why i asked the question first of all, the planning commission having the recommendations for the board of

supervisors had they mentioned that most review and the report was stuck out and the supervisors office i would definitely propose we find a way to integrate the professional planning department staff and the commission back that process as part avenue motion our staff recommendations has that and it works i'd like to make sure this is something we discuss today. >> if i may commissioners, i have one small sort of recordkeeping over packet doesn't include a as i understand ordinance i have the signs ordinance right here it has - stacey's signature for recordkeeping. >> okay. >> any other comments

i'll join commissioner johnson and her questioning about april thank you for explaining the process which i fully understand i think that commissioner johnson question we have this feasibility study this is great how can you use them and the benchmarks to making change what are the factors going to be if it were a weather report and will we wear shorts or not there's not a clear line of what that is and when we receive the report the board of supervisors gets the report what they'll do that them i think that as further step if you - yes. >> i appreciate that and again, i think that is for the legislation is seeking to set forth the ability of the board to make the legislative changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance i concur with planning

department staff regarding the professional expertise of the controller's office as well as the mayor's office of housing and the planning department staff will be part of the development of the feasibility analysis both for the one upcoming in july and ongoing i think that is key part of this legislation is setting up a very taxi but an attempt to have a transparent process in identifying the appropriate inputs to the feasibility are and in recognition that the analysis also reflects not just the feasibility for a development project but looking at projects scale neighborhood and other different inputs and factors that related to how we

take into account the feasibility ongoing of our inclusionary housing requirements and that's also set forth the details in the legislation we will, looking at a feasibility along a range of criteria. >> okay. and more details are coming about that i assume hsa as it gets fallout along maybe this is a fruition because it is a calibrated piece and this afternoon we're getting changes we're in the right direction but as one speech said as part of legislation to say that a quote/unquote i'll think about that a little bit more we all need to think about this a little bit more emry rogers. >> thank you, commissioners some of us have been asking about the so-called term sheet

e.r. the resolution that was approved by the board of supervisors last person who handing out a copy of supervisor yee's resolution 160166 we kind of laid the preliminary ideas of what is the ordinance before you if you want to compare between that resolution and the ordinance you now will have that. >> okay there is one follow-up question i'll allow commissioner wu to ask please. so on the questions of the process with the feasibility study i want to be clear any changes if - at the moment the board of supervisors gets it and analyze any proposed changes need to be legislated the question maybe if there is a role to play before any legislation or comes out for review. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think that

all of us agree we're looking for ways to produce more affordable housing but it has to be a doable situation because we have to look at this situation carefully because the more affordable housing percentage you're required to be inclusionary the higher the cost of the project and at levels of 25 to 30 or 35 percent oftentimes becomes very, very expensive and someone like eric son that built any projects that are quite large he can't do it at 25 percent we have to be careful as we do this and you know know that we do hear a lot about prop c but what is ignored prop c was as compromise there

was other things like the 12 percent that lowered the inclusionary and the housing trust fund yes, i did. >> one and $7 million in housing revenue and created many unions i think things are working in some degree with or if we produce more affordable housing without subpoena preying housing being built that's our job i welcome the fact as a commission where a project it appropriate we approve it we're here to do housing i think everybody said we need more housing we built a certain amount of housing in san francisco but not enough cities recycle seattle have a better effect on housing they've built more housing per capita has to do with with the bogged down process and it takes forever to get things done with we pass

rules we change but one speaker made a very good point he talked about this legislation parted one is setting the grairts clause and certain percentages and also, of course, a ballot measure that the context in which we're working and parts two and three establish a nexus and feasibility study due on july 31st that have this year and establishes a study group that analyzes the first is act first and study second that's how i lead any life you have to know what you're doing i'm not - i don't think the process is right but it is what it is so we have to do as well as what we're faced with so i think the first

one we have to look at is many speakers have brought i think that staff a supporting that projects that are entitled by us or te board of supervisors or by the planning department staff before june 7th of 2016 would be deemed approved under the rules at which hair approved therefore they will have inclusionary prrlgz or percentages bans the percentages that were in effect when approved and depending on where they are the city if other teetered areas there are affordability requirements will be dedicated by what is in place if so expo faxing to laws they're allowed in the starter until permit issues are fair it doesn't make sense and discourages people from building that is very important i think the percentages that are

suggested go in terms of the grandfather for onsite are reasonable for projects that fit that profile because there are small increases i think most of them should be able to manager and the increases for the in lui or ought are high i want to see those lowered i'm not sure that is realistic but inform force the projects to do onsite the proportionality of the onsite is much higher than relative than the onsite so that is important i think the carpenters certainly got it right we have to eliminate the carve outs doesn't make sense i don't know where why they're proposed we spent many years with eastern neighborhoods and what we did we established these m u m zones

and demarcated those areas that were sweet spot to keep the pdrs where anyone else is loud and other areas pdr is encouraged with other housing and areas are encouraged go most of m u m u have left we're changing policy in mid-stream and what ann marie brought the most important thing of the 5 million square feet of the square footage of pdr we anticipated would be converted to other uses in the eastern neighborhoods we'll only converted less than one $.5 million and with the less projects that will be only $3 million so we certainly have well within the kwiedz of eastern neighborhoods we are doing things as we intended them to be done and producing some new pdr spaces so i think to

clamp down on the m u m u doesn't make sense and having the higher affordability levels for hire buildings doesn't make sense and the building community will sustain me the fact as you get past a certain height the building is more cost because of the building type and the higher knows are more expensive per square feet than the lower ones that flies the face of reality and in terms of mission nc t we have carefully crafted mission controls that some speakers if that like we gave them consideration and providing provisions where projects especially the larger ones are encouraged to protect pdr and to add more affordability and to make sure that they displace no housing units these will be take

into consideration and benefit a lot of the concerns that are in there so and the same with the soma youth and family zones higher tiers of affordability in place for those areas and somehow maybe jeopardize by the carve outs planned we definitely need to have no carve outs and as poiptdz the carve outs were not part of term sheet and also on state law i may need more answers from staff i think state law takes precedence if a developer opts to do the higher density and return to the higher percentage of affordability the state law will take precedence over anything that might pass locally is that true ms. rogers

>> that's correct. >> yeah. so i think that is - and then finally a couple of things i currently hope and would support getting those carve outs out of there and supporting staff positions with the addition of projects being approved that are all right on old things from the legislation says nothing about the u m u in terms of pdrs replacement i mean in the mission controls we've talked about the pdrs replacement that is allowed and encouraged this is kind of silence on that also the numbers of affordability have been somewhat changed we've dropped down the ownership down a little bit on the low end to percent if 90 and dropped down some of the moderate percentages so doesn't matter but we need to know we're not exactly comparing apples to apples and apples and oranges

but i'm in favor the staff position on the legislation and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> okay. he was next in line i'll call upon myself in 2014 i was in front of the the land use committee and as a private citizen he stated wow. here the housing boom and i think we were stuck on the affordability rate with the development is crazy and people are making a lot of money why not index the amount to pay in terms of benefits and affordable housing and other things to the economic reality and prop c understood was a companions not a grand passenger bargain and in a different time and era he hope we don't come back to a 5 year crisis that

hadn't seen something as severe in the prior 85 years from what i understand is a compromise is incredibly fast coming last tuesday it was passed the report was generated and i spent yesterday trying to understand this term sheet was in public comment now i'm looking at the term sheet what did the board of supervisors intent what was the agreement i heard that is a damn good vote i read in the paper the mayor was on aboard hey we're in the city of cooperation and the mayor supports it i think he as i understand it he agreed with that yet a lot of confusion from and smoke the room i'm trying to see through and politics i'm starting to matthew maid the entitled projects percentage look like

they're not grandfathered i think that perhaps what is said and not being said the intent of this the term sheet to repeat two hundreds units we lost if 12 to 14 between the enact time of prop c let's take the 200 units we lost i'm having a hard time about the 200 unions from the grandfathered to 12 to 14, 14 and a half the table and yet it was not in there i want to see the project by project 200 units was it the intent of the board to include the 200 units it said that the grandfathering is not limited to certainly criteria

perhaps not an intent not to exceed fwl from the pipeline i believe to two hundred units so staff i'm looking for at some oint where the 200 units will be produced from if you have that legislation. >> i think the legislation is better for the legislative sponsors. >> was the intent to try to reach some of the 420th century hundred units including from the ones entitled and we worked with. >> advocates and developers developers on the 200 count and you know the idea just the high-level to take into account at 12 percent the current inclusionary requirement and our increased affordability requirements and try to make up that difference we came up with 200 units there wasa discussion

about 200 units i'm reluctant to say the methodologies we're been trying to work with the planning department to kind of scrub the data of the planning pipeline that exists it is you are best kind of thinking in terms of how we capture those units and so - >> do you think that is reasonable rereverse the engineering number based on the projects here's the ones that have the environmental application before this data and they add up to two hundred maybe we'll get more than 200 this seems reasonable reasonable to me. >> we tried to make assumes go based on the previous pipeline declaration of onsite versus offsite kind of a really i'll

say - >> i'm sorry didn't mean to interrupt the concern if we leave the projects in there that he may not get to the 200 those projects may not happen so may not happen so before i decide on including the projects i'd like to see how we get to the 200 and i'll respond how it relates to our memo and how we relate to the entitled projects our thinking was really related to the projects that are coming through the commission after we - our intent to put the charter amendments on the ballot our first attempt was december 15th that was the deadline for charter amendments so i think there was a series of projects that california forgot today that had entitlements

approval prior to that date so i think working with the planning department staff and taking look at those projects that are effected by our higher inclusionary requirements you know, i think that those projects then would be subject as it stands currently; correct? to our grandfathered provision percentages. >> so entitlement prior to december 12th from the entitlements that fall what about off the table. >> i believe it is - thaeshgs. >> morgues it didn't specific for entitlements all the projects the pipeline that haven't perfected or vetted they mentioned entitlements would be subject to the new monuments in the draft ordinance will be based upon they mentioned date

of the e e submission so they'll have some level of graisht because they'll have been submitted earlier and but not exempt and have, in fact, higher requirements than what was approved. >> okay. so when we went from the 15 to the 12 percent in 2012 i thought the rational what they filed the environment application this agennot. >> - very unusual to have an already approved project subjected to a new law the past may have been a few minor like

requirements without be fiscal impacts we pulled those projects back after entitlements but not that i'm aware of of the fees that are imposed after something with an entitlement. >> in lines two and three on the term sheet a grandfathering accuse to consider the fairness and feasibility where i'm at whether this entitled is included where do we get to two hundred units how does that add up they don't get us there i'll have to look and say is that fair and the feasibility, in fact, those projects may not happen the other the elephant in the room we've talked about the pdr space conversion to office the department is doing an audit

of the pdr space to see what is converted we ask do for m u masturbation scheduled on the advanced calendar i'm trying to understand what changed in the environment in terms of the impact of the loss of pdr when the eir from the eastern neighborhoods shows we're slated to losses more than we have some draufrt happened what we're trying to achieve including the u m u into the discussion with the displacement and certainly neighborhoods i'm open to that but i don't think the whole a geographic carve out of the u m u certainly i'll support i'm trying to understand that was brought by other commissioner the height is that one 20 or one

30 and the impact i'm open to anything that has a good sounds like public policy rational that maximize the affordable housing and we'll talk about more the details by the other one commissioner johnson brought in helping guide the study or the initiation of changes we sat through the contention of the avenues where the commission role was taking away and we had folks stock exchange they mentioned feet it seems it runs counter i'd like to hear more from the commissioners and talk about some specifics i'm assuming. >> commissioner hillis. >> first, i of the to recognize and thank the commissioner gilman and supervisor peskin and the mayor's office for bringing this

forward it is positive we've not heard a lot about the percentage going forward i know the 25 percent that is extremely cutting-edge in that we are proposing to increase the inclusionary from 12 to double 25 percent about the grandfathering celebrating the fact we're moving in a significant direction providing more inclusionary housing and tackling the issues for the middle-income one to one and 20 percent level the approval we see those developments happening and the market perhaps cools hopefully it continues this and we'll see the projects coming forward at 25 percent we may be in a position in the future we're reducing that percentage or percentage because of feasibility when we do the feasibility study every 3 years we should tag it to be at the

middle of the market if anyone can predictability we reduces it if 15 to 12 and now the market is kind of at its peak and increasing to 25 percent and hopefully keep it at 25 percent but at least gives the board and policymakers the ability to change that percentage and hopefully change it bans an analysis of what is happening the market it is our typical task you take a you know one unit building where units are selling anothers 8 homicide thousand dollars and i think $80 million if you do the math at 10 percent change in market values we have a $8 million fluctuation sales price nostril uncommon pluses and minuses but leads to affordable housing or

less the ability to do less inclusionary housing so it is an evolving science we'll have to adjust it going forward we've seen in new york and other places trying to get inclusionary housing has been difficult so we commends ourselves we spent too much time talking about the moratorium or washington distracts on the issue of providing more inclusionary housing i want make that comment i'm glad we're here discussing that on there is kind of different levels of grandfathering and carve outs i want to take them one at a point the grandfathering is kind of when you're entitled at planning approval it could be something

that is appealed to the board that approval will not be commission approval when you're planning the entitlements which maybe at the board of supervisors; correct? you have a cu that is appealed and it is going to the board will that be the dated our appeals are exhausted. >> are you referring to the grandfathering clauses. >> yes. >> those are bans when the environmental evaluation application. >> so when it is submitted is the first trigger; right? >> right. >> a project that was approved one came up aaron's project in hayes valley that has received planning commission approval i'm not sure it was was appealed but not received it's building permit. >> right. >> it will, subject to the grandfathering rules.

>> yes. 12, 12 and a half or 13 and a half. >> they mentioned subject to the existing laws. >> correct. >> the projects have been before you they've already been evaluated by staff they've gotten they mentioned i know approvals from us so thankful set they mentioned financing and ready to go but haven't gotten they're building it is slightly unfair to change that after that. >> when we reduced from the inclusion from 12, 15 to 12 that came back to actually get the lower percentage so if it was entitled at at 15 percent it came back to the planning commission to get entitled to down to the 12 that was the existing - and i believe all projects that have to come back to get the higher ones i could be wrong. >> i was wondering from the rule was rays to the 15 is that

the entitlement. >> yeah. so i think you're right i agree with staff we should be consistent at this level. >> i phone in a assistance from staff housing staff kate connor she said that inclusionary ordinance walking by was before you someone wanted a reduction to the inclusionary requirements that the boards passed they have to come back before the planning commission and you have to reprove ensue otherwise the approval shadow at the higher means. >> so i agree with the recommendation of staff on that on supervisor kim's memo ma'am, i don't think so the two on this i think that

came up a little bit. >> i believe that's the issue we are discussing. >> that's the issue. >> so let me just be sure i have the number 2 it is related to the date of entitlements and here you have to appeal to the braid. >> right. >> so the legislation currently makes reference to projects that have received a demonstration agreement or a voter approved project by january 2016 so that's where the current claefshgs how to deal with those particular small set of projects so but for projects that are that have received entitlements

prior to the passage of the charter amendment basically they mentioned - what this provision says they'll be subject to the grandfathering provisions of the e e percentages so 2014 for example, projects approved before 2014 projects will be 15 i'm sorry - prior to one one 2014 the inclusionary will be 13 percent. >> say you receive our entitlements you're planning entitlements but not get a site permit. >> we've taken the speakers that came before the commission today so projects for example, that were approved in october prior to us putting forth this charter amendment you know that came in that 12 percent that

have they mentioned site permit how we've drafted this .2 the memo they'll be subject depending on when they received the e e application less assume it was prior to january 1st, 2014, they'll, subject to the 14 percent point given they've been approved at the 12 percent i think what i want to continue to work on through this process as we go to the land use committee is to think about and take into account projects that have received planning approval or come to the commission between the times we have drafted the charter amendment which the urban forester date is the 2016 and so those are the projects

that are have even under stood our intents to raise the inclusionary housing requirements so i think that that's kind of - i think where we are in terms of our consideration of the nexus consideration of legislation i understand the staff position is to and i think - spur letter to you all they mentioned position is to exempt all projects that have received entitlements prior to gin 7 and what i'm saying we're considering a different date i want to this reiterate our intent and talk about increasing the inclusionary requirements accompany the nc t and pdrs and the soma use and family zone and

try to so forth kind of our policy thinking around it i think that we say attempted to put together this legislation in a short amount of time trying to balance all the issues as it relates to the pipeline of prongs that have submitted application i definitely appreciate planning department staff to help us get data and try to have a really policy rational for some of these provisions that we put at least in this version of legislation and so you know, i think that just thinking back in terms of the planning process for eastern neighborhoods which custom natsdz in the final adoption in 2009 i think supervisor kim related the two main goals of the eastern neighborhoods was to identify areas where pdr can be

preserved and grown and to increase the affordable housing and the eastern neighborhoods you know theirs different policy guidelines that both the region and the board have passed prior for example, our abag housing goals and so forth is 47 affordable housing that is needed for san francisco we passed in 2014 prop k that so forth 50 percent of affordable housing and 12 percent or 17 for middle-income so you know, i appreciate you recognize we're attempting to do that some of that here with the interim requirements for middle-income increased percentages so this is our attempt to address that the

interim while we pursue the feasibility study and analysis so for those areas you know how earlier to the eastern neighborhoods goals we're looking u m u the pdrs loss is that was the goal of eastern neighborhoods plan, we're looking at places where the eastern neighborhoods process they're determined to be higher inclusionary affordable rate and in particular the soma youth and family zone it relates to the projects the interior those higher affordability percentages don't relate to the main articles the soma family and youth those are alleys that are vulnerable and destabilizing facing destabilization as a higher eviction rate and are

pressure and similar in the u m u areas we see in the eastern neighborhoods 3 times higher eviction rates of all the areas in in the eastern neighborhoods they have 3 times the eviction rates than others eastern neighborhoods and again an attempt to think through the mission there was increased affordability tiers actually not affordability tiers but increased affordability driving the fees to the nc t for the fag i will state those areas have they're up zoning the eastern neighborhoods we tried to really

put forth a rational for the graisht provision and you know as it relates guarantee again to the pdrs the eir statistics and the data that we have relating to half of the pdr expected loss but that is over a 25 year eastern neighborhoods planning period we have at about seven years and so you know, i certainly think that we want to work with the commission and perhaps this is not the place to do it but to think about that loss you know again, we're at seven years of a 25 year plan how we plan for that so thank you for providing me that opportunity to talk about our

policy. >> question get that wear certainly here and see the development in the mission and the potrero hill but a lot of that that same rational can be used for the western edition we've seen displacement not in this economic cycle but in bayview hunters point we saw the tenderloin it is kind of displacement didn't really confine itself to one geography, etc. area i grapple with this i don't think that the moratorium was a good idea and this pushes us into a moratorium the - you brought up the currently higher levels of inclusionary i know that the u m u the staff reports talks about the higher youth and family can you explain the higher rates.

>> yeah. emry rogers planning department staff members of the public we had some copies over on the side i think in their all gone ebt we'll provide the handy danny chart and kwhaets before you as i mention we wrote the report in two days there were errors the recorded the mission has a higher inclusionary requirements they funnel into housing that is one clarification we have district with that little higher inclusionary the example u m u and the various requirements there are not just on the onsite, offsite or fee alternatives but there is land dedication middle-income housing alternatives and those are all

variable rates that are described other districts that are higher inclusionary requirements are the transbay sud, soma youth and family sud and the western edition you'll have a parcel that has split part of it is different those are the higher requirements. >> that is a better way to go on this is kind of what staff recommended this two in the m u m u the higher that exists perhaps the same level that is over the grandfathering rates that that jumped from grairthd prongs into a one or two percent higher in some neighborhoods doesn't seem to work but perhaps mirroring the increase that exists in the m u masturbation u

the family have a higher level of inclusionary. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> i see the within and 20 feet is different from the policy level it seems ultimately where this should go i think the rational correct me if i am wrong that maybe a building type that is higher levels of profitability that could take additional inclusionary that getting along the lines of feasibility but doing it in somewhat of a blunt way because i agree we see projects in rincon hill that take more dlrgs but higher than one and 20 feet versus a project on van ness and geary that is one and 20 feet so i think that one it sounds like

it is heading in the right direction but where it is that blunt works for me and analyzing it more could work. >> the other issue the samuel sites proposal i thought was odd in the staff report it talks about you can acquire buildings that are not curiosities environmentally residential use i thought it was about requiring the projects that have existing residential in them and preserving them as affordable the future that one confused me maybe - >> i let the sponsor speak to the intent i did idea that the feasibility or the nexus analysis said you have to create new housing so this allows you to create new housing the buildings are not

call roll residential that's the idea the not residential use comes from. >> and the nexus says for market-rate and permanently affordable so rent-controlled unit is controlled to a portfolio who people leave is market-rate so i think if a building for instance, that is rent-controlled in the hands of a nonprofit or a you know affordable housing developer or community land trust it provides in perpetuity so i still like that idea of being able to acquire small sites it works this is housing stock we have to protect and that's what we hear complaints about that people are being adapted if existing housing and one way to do that as a potential the small sites program if you can't acquire

buildings that have recipient doesn't make sense. >> the small site acquisition program is not and the in this ordinance is exists we're asking the new option that they're providing on which you can buy a building and convert to a residential reconcile the existing acquisition program so that program didn't your create it is good but only can dedicate a small amount to the acquisition. >> if i can add to that a little bit the consultation i think they're working with the legislative sponsors for further refinance it raises policy issues about the potential changes what is a private party to purchase a pdrs building with the intent of convert is it is a brand new program is there's a lot of that needs to be

thought-out and >> good morning and welcome to san francisco county transportation authority. i'm scott wiener the chair and we'll call the roll. >> item 1, roll call, commissioner avalos, present. commissioner breed, present. commissioner campos, present. commissioner cohen, present. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner kim, absent. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, present. commissioner tang, absent. commissioner wiener, present. commissioner yee, present. we have quorum >> okay, i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting todays meeting, leo [inaudible] and also colleagues

supervisor farrell has asked to be excused in adivision supervisor kim is ill and unable to attend so can i have a motion to excuse commissioner farrell and commissioner kim? motion by commissioner cohen, seconded by commissioner compose and do wree need roll call on that or take that without objection. >> take without objection. item number 2 >> chairs report. this is a information item. >> colleagues we have two pieces of good news to share. first i like to congratulate cal trans and transportation authority with public and private sector partners for winning the california transportation award. we had the opening of the new

presidio parkway replacing the doil drive with a safe, modern and beautiful facility. i like to applaud the organization for their work and thank for the recognition as we finalize dlinchy of the innovative project. speaking of invasion, i would like to thank u.s. transportation anthony foxx for making san francisco eligible to compete in the smart city challenge program. this is a way to show how vehicle technology can [inaudible] through partner shipwise the federal government. tim [inaudible] of sfmta is here and will give a overview the proposal. i'm hearing about san franciscos ideas and

how the transportation authority and the office can support the effort. we are still at early stages there is great potential to incorporate new mobility to make the streets safeer and promote cycling [inaudible] with the bay area population expect to add 2 million people by 2040 we are working on transit expansion plans but we must make it easier for people to live without a car or drive the car less. we cant have another million cars in the bay -air roads. technology can help get us to our goal more quickly. on a less positive note, unfortunately with barts troubles over the past weeks we have seen the consequences of what happens when we wait too long to

address the basic transportation infrastructure needs. bart is 45 years old and truly showing its age. at the same time it faces record demand and continued excollation in ridership. the recent electrical problems that are completely decimating barts fleet are just the most extreme example of a system that is becoming less reliable and frankly coming apart at the seams. we absolutely must fix the system, modernize and expand the capacity. in november we will see a capital infrasfruckture model on the bal: it will be a dejaster if the bonds fails. we need to make sure we as a city are doing our part along with alameda and con trucosta counties for barbts vehicle replacement and acquisition program. what is happening

with bart is also a cautionary note for us in san francisco as we make policy decisions that determine whether we are going to invest in muni or not and we need to make sure we are continually getting ahead of the curve when it comes to infrastructure needs of our system. so, colleagues thank you for that and we'll proceed to public comment. any public comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed and this is a information item. we'll move to item number 3. >> item 3, executive director reports. this is a information item. >> thank you chair wiener. good morning commissioners. [inaudible] happy to report-thank you for highlighting the good news chair wiener. in keep wg the theme of research and invasion i was pleased on the 14th of this munt to join

with staff with los angeles and con trucosta transportation authority at a state hearing. chair fraser held a importance of state funded research in transportation technology. the research we benefited from has been in the area of traffic safety for vision zero, office of traffic safety and numerous other technologies to help optimize our system so we appreciated chair frasers leadership and to participate in the meeting. here in the region our work with mtca and bay area government we have draft project performance results which we'll bing to plans and programs committee next month. with the release of the data we will be able to sehow our projects compete against other projects

then region. we have every reason to believe it will do well for progress but in coordination with a bad and mtc we'll take a look at the land use function as the region has important choices. just untime our bart incentive program is getting ready to launch. you may have seen on the news bart perks we are working together with bart to [inaudible] corroded portionoffs the system, the transbay [inaudible] embarcadero and mun gumry stations and the idea is sign up for the program and earn points through the clipper card for shifting travel outside of the peak period to ease the congestion problems on bart and extend [inaudible] this doesn't take

place medium and long term capital planning but a important way we can partner with the community and public to extend the life and the capacity of our system. you can find more nrgz at sf [inaudible]/bart travel incenseive. in terms of the local work the treasure island management team put together 3 grant applications so hopefully we will be successful working with ticd the [inaudible] community development and [inaudible] we submitted a state cap and trade grant for affordable housing and. we submitted a federal tiger grant for a hybrid vessel we hope toacquire for the ferry service and applied for federal inclusive planning impact grant. i highlight these because it is terrific to see there are no programs forwarded at the federal and state level that understand

and underscore our strategy of nob nab in order to demonstrate new ways of conducting and achieving sustainability development. at the neighborhood level throughout the neighborhood transportation improvement program, we work closely with your offices and staff and a number of districts, district 11 we are working with commissioner avalos team on the park station community work at san jose and [inaudible] on district 8 on elk street and district 6 to look at [inaudible] in district 9 we have been able to kick off the alameda interchange improvement project with commissioner campos and his staff this is in effort to improve

the safety, pedestrian bike safety near farmers market [inaudible] more nrgz on those outreach meetings about the concepts beginning to emerge, visit sfcta.org/alameda change. the crooked street is shared with community members in the area of the crooked street. options are a full range of visitor access and circulation and physical treatments to deminsh the high level of vehicle and pedestrian visitors and avoiding the spill over effects to ajaistant streets. one of the findings we made is there as many visitors here as in the key locations in the city but the lack of management cupsty, so unlike the golden gate bridge

and other places with a organization we think that is something that will be helpful to sustain the benefits of the short term programs that are tried. we'll come to the plans and programs exhibit no. 3 was committee and folks can join outreach meetings later march. [inaudible] there is also a final meeting to announce the rail yard alternative and boulevard studthy planning department has been hosting and hold the second community meeting the esday march 30 at 6 p.m. at same location at the first which is potrero neighborhood [inaudible] at 955 [inaudible] come find out more about plans underway to address the alignments options for the downtown extension of cal train in conjunction with land use and free way

vision planning. project delivery yerba buena appears to be on time. we have been able toreplace the bridge work and [inaudible] place seismic joints and concrete barriers. we anticipate being able to share that with you all and have a ribbon cutting in the summer time so my thanks go to eric [inaudible] for managing the project for us. and we are also at the same time coordinating with the bay bridge authorities as well as cal trans on touch down and integration of the bike and pedestrian path, the west path on to the islands later this summer. as far as bicycleing improvements

we are happy to report the prop k funding embarcadero and [inaudible] signage up are so thank you for sfmta for putting in signage to help [inaudible] away from king street and on to less stressful streets and paths. the page streets improvement and congratulate mta on thampt the muni procurement is continuing pace. there are 444 motor coaches and 60 trolleys on order. mta received 101 motor coaches and 38 trolley coaches and many are oon revenue. the prop k funds are put to very good use and bond fund are not eligible for vehicles so that under scores the measure chair wiener described in his remarks for

helping bart, muni and cal train meet the vehicle needs. new traffic signals are also being installed through prop k funding at that webster and o' farrell street location to support vision zero and many other places acrauz the city including intersection of [inaudible] thank you sfmta for get thg improvements out with our prop k fund. with that, happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much mrs. chang. any question or comments? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is a information item. item number 4. >> item 4, approve the minutes of february 23, 2016 meeting. >> any questions or comments or chairchgs with respect to the

february minutes? seeing none, is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take a roll call vote onite 784 >> avalos, aye. breed, aye. campos, absent. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner weener, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the minutes are approve >> item number 5 >> item fiver, approve the-adopt position on state legislation, this is a action item >> any questions or comments on item 5? seeing none, any public comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. the house is changed so can you call the roll on item 5.

>> commissioner avalos, aye. commissioner breed, aye. compose, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner wiener, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the item is approved. >> item 6. >> item 6, approve the improving west side transit access stuteejic analysis report. >> any question or comments on item 6. ? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can we take item 6 same house same call? without objection that will be the order. item 7. >> item 7, appoint john larsson is to system advisory committee. >> any question or comments? seeing none. public comment? seeing

none, public comment is closed. same house same call? without objection that will be the order. item 8. >> approve the twnt 16 prop aa call for projects programming recommendations. toteology $2,192,934 for four projects and stuteejic plan. >> commissioner peskin. thank you chair wiener, colleagues. as you all probably heard the friday before last there was a fatality at broad way and 4th street the 4th fatality in as many years and condolances to mr. laws widow and children. unfortunately these streetscape improvements are after-mr. laws passing but pleased we have found the last million dollars for a 8 million dollar project to do

pedestrian safety and streetscape improve. along broad way between columbus avenue around gene parker elementary school which is a place a lot of kids go but a dangerous intersection. i request we approve this portion of item number 8 specifically on attachment 1, the third item, subject the too the condition before dpw puts this project out to bid that a little bit further consalitation with the community relative to the streetscape design be addressed. i discussed that with staff so would like to add that condition and then approve the item. >> that is a motion? >> yes, sir. >> is there a second? second by commissioner breed. okay, any other comments or questions, colleagues? yes.

>> through the chair, commissioner peskin where believe the contract has been advertised so if quee can condition it on prior to award of a contract. >> i will accept that change to my motion so prior to award. >> okay, commissioner breed that is a second? revised motion is made and seconded. seeing no other comment, any public comment on item 8? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner peskin made a motion to amend, can we take that motion without objection? without objection the amendment is adopted. take item 8 same house same call? without objection that is the order. >> item 9 allocate $10,975,410 in prop k funds and $794,980 in prom aa

funds with conditions with 6 requests to subject to attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules >> any questions or comments? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and can we take item 9 same house same call? without objection that will be theordser. item 10 >> item 10, update on u.s. department of transportation smart city challenge grants. this is information item. >> okay, i believe the mta will present on this mrs. chang? >> yes. [inaudible] >> tim papandreou should be here shortly. >> this is the last item on the agenda so--

>> i don't think i can give the entire presentation but i'll give it a try. this is a excited development and want to take a minute to brief you and the public about the good news. the u.s. department of transportation named san francisco one of 7 fine finalist cities to compete for a 50 million dollar prize the purpose of the program is highlight the innovative ways technology can help urban areas meet the transportation challenges for mobility, safety standpoint prom emissions and community based planning. so, it is very wonderful we are finalist and don't have the prize yet but expect to continue in the direction even if we don't receive the big prize. it is something we have been working on in many respects and underscoors efforts under way such as

vision zero and [inaudible] and bike and car sharing and other services coordinating. in the city. the project is only eligible for medium size cities under 850,000 people and we just snuck in. the idea would be to demonstrate strategies, demonstrate committed leadership sw capacity to sustain the strategy beyond the grant period over the next 3 year jz integrate our project with existing data requirements and making sure those will beope toon the public beyond the grant period. the smart city challenge is expected to improve safety, enhanceability and climate change and there is a 10 million dollar portion the prize offered by volcon which a non profit in the seattle area focused on emissions reduction. the smart city vision element you will see are

many, about a dozen and they begin with technology elementsism underscooring the [inaudible] and automated vehicles, connected vehicles, intelligence transportation, the idea your vehicle can talk to road side infruc structure such as signals and they can guide you to avoid a incident ahead or to be able to more quickly get to your destination. in the second band innovative approach to transportation include the analytic and logistics part which is behind the scenes but a way to optimize conditions on streets for road users. finally we have communication technology and land use components as well as community engagement and equity components of the program. there is a couple steps process that we

have already proceeded to the 7 finalist city stage and in the proposal where we'll receive $100 thousand to development the local proposal. the date for that is in may and expect to hear award winners announced in june. here is tim and i'll let him take a breath and take over and we'll work with the u.s. department of transportation and private sector partners many public sector partners at state, local and regional level jz the city will receive the prize and if wree not suck saysful receive thg grand prize we expect to continue our efforts forward. here you go, tim. >> good morning everyone. tim with the mta. thank you for setting that up. so, we applied for the city

grant under some specific criteria to try to get through the initant of how it can move out to have the most sustainable and equitable transportation system. [inaudible] resulted in what we call a binary policy system that is incompetable with cities gruth not just in san francisco but many cities around the country. that system has resulted in people who are choosing to are required to use a [inaudible] in the city are [inaudible] 80 percent empty, there are 4 empty seats that utilized and most of the times the car is stationary so need a place to park and most the cars are privately owned so it

is creating a economic burden on people to get around the city with private transportation. because of the design the city and transportation system we have enormous peaks in the morning and evening which creates a large demand on the transit supply but for the rest of the day it isn't very utilized. it is efficiency issue as well. in the mean time we had a plethora of new services that have popped up, referred to as shared mobility or some call it [inaudible] economy system. they started early on with car sharing bike sharing came on board but had a lot of companies that are based in silicone valley provide their own transportation for employees. we have what some refer to as a [inaudible] and then

recently we had the electric scooters and new quad vehicles. none created more controversy for the city than what we refer to as transportation network companies, uber and lifts and the shuttle which is a service to move around the city. what we learned is these options are growing rapidly because they are [inaudible] we are trying to figure oit the best way to manage the services while if they are not going away we want to figure a way to work with them and incorporate into our transportation system the best we can. now, that is what is happening in the city up to now, as we look to the near future we are working very closely with some the car companies that are starting to test [inaudible]

vehicles. recently we had a few companies testing in san francisco and one of the car companies had a collision earlier that got acquired by general motors. there is a lot of change happening in this space but barely scached the surface and want to guide the process rather than chase it or be led by it. one of the things we pushed for in the grants and hope to work with the usdot and california government is we don't want to see the path from conventionally owned private cars to [inaudible] we want to see private cars to shared a automated cars because we think that is the best use of our street space and the best opportunity we have to

meet those multiple city objectives. our goal was in the statement is we will work with the companies to guide them into trying to meet local city goals through a shared connected platform. with smart city proposal is simply a focus on working with companies and services and not on their own, working through the community. we felt it was important to state to the dot that we dont believe we can arbitrarily choose a neighborhood but want to work with the community to figure oit what they are interested in and how they would like us to move forward in this approach. we will focus on the data driven elements of this and expand and integrate the shared mobility services with public transit and

incorporate shared and connected vehicles when they are ready to be brought to market. [inaudible] work better together and provide more access to mobility without the car ownership and also save customers time and money. a big focus of the grant is customer focus and figure out the opportunity we can improve the customer experience in the transportation system. from all the research we have done we know vehicle technology can meet multiple city goals if guided effectively. they can reduce traffic fatality, reach the [inaudible] and reduce [cough]. we think we combine the suvss together and should be able to see something that is trans formational and [inaudible]