place that encourages walking we like to see the menu include those items we have that and can share that. >> i'm interested in examples. >> i want to see what that will be certainly our staff fee funds amenity for supporting walking and generally across the city but now a project within the project itself. >> i'll tell you in general lighting and landscaping and other heavy hiters calling those out specifically and more points was an example of something we've suggested earlier. >> and some have a dual impact in the buildings that have dual impacts on reducing travel by trips by car and encouraging walking okay. i building the

last comment. >> sure. >> the minimum parking requirements i see as an important goal to eliminate this this legislation is not the best place to do that but support this legislation to follow suit not to be changed to address the or the elimination of minimum requirement. >> we'd be happy to see it moved moved in parallel it should be addressed. >> after public comment i'll ask planning department staff to addressed comments to your first point around not accepting on-street parking parking that's important we talked it in the presentation. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors corey smith on the three hundred

members of the housing action coalition i'll be speaking in support with many organizations and thank you for the departments for their collaboration 3 points vehicle miles traveled transportation is one of the a criteria to look at the transportation projects one of the pilars of our evaluation and whenever possible pushing for less cars more bike parking and walkability that's one of the main measurements and regarding the flexibility ultimately means that developers will have options to verify the highest amounts of benefits as wide as that benefit to deliver the public goods we're in support and as far as the enforcement we need it and ask for the transparent to make sure that everybody do their measurable fair share going

forward thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm matt with t m.d. partners we support tdm, however, the program is independent on parking her unit and not consider the amount of veterans and focusing on the units alone may actually not he represent the units for driving in particular we like you to consider whether or not be looking at multi bedroom units should be considered in 2, 3, 4 ordinance slightly definitely we think that families use parking different and parking in the r district is different so we will ask that you continue this item to consider this issue and other amendments before you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. >> i'm sam duke kind of an activist for the thirty years i've lived in the city i've with the paratransit corporation with the - we we're not concerned but happy to see that going forward there was mentioned about public transportation the buildings that they've put up on market have eliminated bus stops and eliminated sidewalks and have eliminated all kinds of things i'm hoping that the program we're putting forward will see to that that the developers take into consideration the drop off

spaces in - for taxis vans that deliver food to seniors they should be take into consideration in doing sidewalks and streets in front of all the buildings the third mission project to say the museum and the eventual millennium tower builders building going up they were had legal suits brought against them they especially\eventually have any consideration for those kinds of things that are so vital we need vans and things to get to places they should be made more available to us thank

you. >> good afternoon, supervisors dementia with the san francisco human services network outreaching i'm here to echo the introductory comments around the exemption for human services nonprofits and those are city fund disadvantaged populations this will be complimentary to the ordinance more affordable housing tdm will impose onerous new requirements that don't generate vehicle miles traveled that is minimal benefits to the community we are once again seem to be dragged into a program that where we're not the problem human services nonprofits in san francisco by and large are neighborhood based and serve clients that live in the neighborhood and we have data that shows that clients are

3r5u789 low income and the department of transportation has studies showing that households in poverty are lower in their vehicle usage and vehicle ownership and also have higher rates of alternative months of transportation walking and carpool, etc. >> so we're not generating traveling at the same time the program will impose transit fees on charitable organizations and a that serves the poor this is inappropriate and this body rejected a year ago fees on nonprofits in the k s p that imposes annual monitoring fees an nonprofits often with grants to reduce the burden on - the city's burden to disadvantaged

cries and didn't make sense at all one way or another give grants to organizations to serve people that are low income and on the other hand, take the ongoing funds for fees that means that you need more money to the city to provide overseeing services and many nonprofits just don't fit this office space model within the to the call of the chair framework part of nonprofits are city funded to provide services that require them to have parking spaces for service related vehicles if you provide par trait and any shutters for people with disabilities or delivering food for people sick or low income those are the kinds of programs you may have a significant amount of vehicles you need to provide parking spaces those parking spaces should not be included in any of

the things under tdm we believe that nonprofit human services nonprofits so be exempted from this program and particularly those that are at most some kind of - there should be a clay on implementing it for those types of organizations take a look at the data and develop more flexible requirement more appropriate and require bike racks and things like that but not imposing vehicles with significant miles. >> i have a couple of questions you raised a distinct ideas what - the number of organizations that we're talking about or the number of development companies that are out there get into the specific

inch i can't think of one to my mind can you help me out. >> i don't know exactly which programs i know there is a development down on van ness for health rates the goodwill has a development maybe programs it may be a small number which is great because that means that the city won't be giving up significant benefits by not impose it on the benefits but at the same time, we have a situation we have a huge problem with the nonprofits and the mayor's office has alternatives and have prop x that requires replacement space so more nonprofit. >> it is not for all nonprofits but specific nonprofits in a specific inch market human services; right? >> right. >> how many nonprofit in the city that kind of do the work

you do. >> we don't know there hundreds but i believe somewhere around three hundred that are city fund. >> will any have the capacity to take on the large projects. >> there's been. >> there's been i'm trying to understand a little bit better. >> that's why the health right project on van ness is very large. >> they're a unique organization larger and robust not in jeopardy. >> they're not that big of a barrier i've seen in the last couple of years 75 hundred square feet plus but seeing that under the replacement we hope the replacements so that may happen more with the nonprofit displacement money coming out of the mayor's office there are studies happening how we can do

that more of building ownership rather than rentals that gives more stability to the program. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. actively want to say that we agree with walk sf about trying to bump up the emphasis over pedestrian safety i mean things ultimately the most preliminary and primal way to get around by walking and pedestrian safety should be stronger nuftsd whatever point and agree and support human services network in their argument exemption maybe for city housing their

targeting populations that are quite clearly non-partisan attended and the staff as well as that is a good question supervisor cowen about the call of that exemption that is probably the kind of information that gives us an idea on affordable housing but organizations that are actually building stability or doing a significant rehab and not get caught that is is a logic and two other amendments we're suggesting one specifically around affordable housing onsite there is data we can work with staff that shows the keeper the affordability the lower the overflow room and miles traveled our suggestion to have a findings that talks about those sort of deepening benefit by affordability and recommended to that within the program have the points reflect that more nuance

and onsite people the more points and the second thing the process he letting the developers selection entirely the neighborhoods to have the knowing not the most benefit we think that should be built into the ordinance as a step of the requirement. >> supervisor avalos. >> no questions thank you. >> next speaker and and good afternoon, supervisors shawn i'd like to thank the staff we've met two or three times and agree with the spirit what they're trying to accomplish and subject a more tailored approach rather than something that is a one-size-fits-all approach our concern that smaller sites require a larger percentage of

the footprint for the healthy whether 37 or 200 feet wide it generally has to stairs and two - one lobby a transform room and accelerator that amount of space is a percentage on the smaller sites than larger sites the smaller sites have the room to play with how many 10 to 24 unit in our neighborhood over valet parking and car share and gymnasium. >> - most of those are out of reach for the smaurld sites our

hoa board is a punishment not something we need to do but instead this adds a burden a member that sold the building tried to add a locker to the garage they couldn't in short we would like to participate but need a menu of options for the i offered in the 10 to 24 unit buildings this list is out of reach for our members thank you. >> thank you for your perspective is there anyone else that wants to speak in public comment if not i'd like to bring up corey teague to speak to a little bit after the comments that you heard in public comment particularly. >> specifically the last comment. >> the last comment after that

you can address whatever. >> i have questions after that walk sf proposed amendments great okay. >> just to prior comment yeah, we looked at this for market value sites and recognized that you know really small projects are different than mid-rise and large projects i'll say that i wouldn't describe this project as one-size-fits-all i kind of see that as the opposite we can be as flexible and possible and include the measures that have evidence that work and some takes up space but a lot of items don't take space whether transit subsidies or whether it is you know bike share or car share membership and certain measures measures you can do like realtime transit display

not a lot of square footage on the ground that is flexibility when you look at the flexibility of the measures and the fact that small projects have a low the fact of the matter to beginning www a lower amount of parking they're providing and especially, when we the proposal we commute today to reduce the - this gives for incentive for the projects san jose reduce 12 parking spaces to achieve a lower the fact of the matter and opens up space for additional bike space it is flexible enough to accommodate the smaller projects as well as large projects if you want to ask - >> around the non-restricted accessory parking brought up by

walk sf that included this as with the tdm an exemption for projects that are not seriousy parking. >> it is important to separate this into two separate issues just for the jargon when we say accessory parking under the code to be dedicated to a specific lowell high scho; right? this is a parking space the tdm program doesn't apply to the stand alone parking garages this is the sole purpose of the use you know if someone was proposing to build a parking garages who will they give the subsidies to why put a realtime display. >> did you have a conversation with walk sf. >> we had the conversation with stakeholders over time this

is one situation that in happen often the other issue we've acknowledged when you have a project being built like a high-rise and have a certain amount of parking and request additional parking not accessory and technical it is supposed to function as a parking garage but when in the real world are they using it as a de facto and would this perhaps something to achieve a lower the fact of the matter we felt was an land use and enforcement issue we acknowledged if you have a project that is you you know mixed use project they're proposing to build a parking garage into this project that we would require any of the parking garages spaces up to the amount that is permitted for accessory

parking to count taurd our the fact of the matter again, we don't feel this is a tdm issue as much as land use issue but wanted to aid that loophole and trying to discourage people from using that. >> and a discussion about traffic reduction goals question neighborhood and this legislation addresses that a huge differences in congestion and different parts of the city and are we drafting how do we account how we not to have a certain approach in a place of high-level of congestion. >> i'll let any colleague at the department. >> that's an interesting approach and a total different methodology this would you know we certainly can consider in the future it would potentially take at least

another year or two years to develop all the data and work that through it is just not the approach we pursued and we wanted to build something that was enabled us to act now using the data we have now and the best practices and we can certainly consider that in the future but not we can act on in the near timeframe. >> the goal to be able to reduce vehicle miles traveled across town. >> kroidz /* /- across the city. >> so last question is related

to the health and human services exceptions that was talked about here's a couple of points i have is how prevalent with the exemptions need to be made and how can such exemptions be formulated. >> thank you i mean this is a challenge that our department and other agencies in the city are working in terms of how to help a lot of our smaller nonprofits services agencies stay in the city and be able to operate i know we're working on that on different levels it's challenging within a metric that used land use we don't regulate land use based on ownership for profit or certain types of nonprofits in the city that is difficult to do that

the southern here is that an exemption for nonprofit that will essentially be a forever if we consider a nonprofit this type of exemption for an office use therapy in their space for 5 years and had to leave no trigger to require that office space for the tdm use no change of use that is a concern not only for the program but other planning departments planning code controls how they may or may not impact the nonprofits we feel this structure by and large will rarely have impacts on the use because most of those services exactly for the reasons mentioned they don't have the capital or the funding to do new construction it is going into an

existing space an existing building as proposed the change of use trigger for the tdm requirements anothers 25 thousand square feet and that's very large for those types of uses and if the use is that large they'll be having impact on the city and those types of uses the tdm measures are focusing on the employees if not more than the visitors and their trips to and from - more 10 thousand square feet. >> has there been an analysis avenue you know- sounds like not been in terms of nonprofit and vehicle miles traveled and how much employees and nonprofits

actually commute by cars. >> i don't know if we have done it by nonprofit but specific types of use when it comes to matters of land use and transportation where nonprofit are for profit it functions as a land use we researched the data k59 how a service use differs from for profit. >> and you mentioned is there a way for you know hearing from the human services nonprofits in the community one of the hardships is the fee if they're a change of use from a nonprofit to let's say a business that has more revenue to add additional cost is there

an opt in for a way for an exemption to be created for i know the ongoing fee you said a thousand dollars a year. >> that's the monitoring fee i understand you want to know a process as long as a nonprofit certain types of nonprofit they can apply and be eligible more than a fee reduction. >> exactly. >> that would be constructed and anytime our fees are based the analysis of the staff time to do the work and anytime we reduce the fee we have to look at simplifier else. >> but on the end of your tdm plan one of the menu options and

more importantly to provide transit benefits for workers and residents that is something that nonprofits actually, the human services and nonprofits don't get money for and every year we go through this budget process that talks about the cost doing business increasing every year but the actual grants that human services and nonprofits get is never large enough to meet with the cost of business is and other additional costs way beyond or a menu item i think human services and nonprofits wanted to be able to you know check off and do but not the resources for it so i think that there are constraint that you know where the menu didn't necessarily address

the nonprofits have. >> i think the scenario you've described a description of every projects all the measures have a cost society with the them they'll been different for a variety of factors that's why we have so many miles an hour and the flexibility built in so for whatever reason our individual projects whether you're a nonprofit or profit service provider or a high-rise developer you can take into account the constraint you have and select the measures that work best for you and those projects as mentioned they tend too often not have the parking and i understand you've not be able to measure who occupies the space there are differences don't believe are captured in

this ordinance you've seen the hardship on more businesses or nonprofits that serve low income communities that don't have a larger profit for a menu of options with the greatest impact of reducing the miles traveled it doesn't have to be resolved yet but look forward in terms of modifying in the future to address this issue we have to have the greatest impact to have a greatest menu of options. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor avalos is there anything else. >> i have an amendment as a whole i want to request the compete accept and one of them includes grandfathering in of

listing project i'm open to a different level one that is - i'm open to what the planning department has put forwards in terms of grandfather in. >> that's good to hear what's a that's what i was going to propose as i ask you accept the amendment as a whole i'll explain in a second and later you can amend it. >> here's the amendment i have first on page 6 lines adding a word for vehicle miles traveled that demonstrates how the tdm more affordable housing is excellent on the level of affordability later we can look at those finding can be addressed how we can have a different approach for you know tenant opted out buildings that don't have a lot of office and the next one on package 9 the clues the tdm

draft be presented any fee required for developers we have a chance for the public to a chance to weigh in on what is put forward for the measure the next allow the planning department to establish a phase in schedule for the tdm projects that have submitted the development applications before december 6th before the language provided by the planning department the fourth is page 12 addressing a clerical issue an amendment that shows that future reports on the tdm program are present to the board and how they're done so these are amendments to the whole i want to request. >> thank you very much i don't know colleagues if there is any discussion i'd like to go

forward and give a couple of remarks first of all, xhoimentsdz to the planning department and others based on the presentation it is clear and quantify a lot of work and thought into making this policy thoughtful and inclusive i know that is not he's a difficult job my compliments to you members here in the chamber and in the office not here on the presentation teem i know a lot of people made this possible and recognize the folks that came in for pub the comments i heard were thoughtful and hope they'll continue to be part of this discussion and we hammer out the tweaks for this important populate that includes the developers that are stand to be impacted by the some of the proposals so a couple of things first, i

want to supervisor avalos has - we have a little bit of a difference the grandfathering clause and i think he indicated i'll be amenable to what i'll suggest my suggestion is from the planning department in a memo for i'll read into the record - let's see table for development projects that the development application on or before september 4, 2016, should be subject to 50 percent of the teetering for developments applications on or after september '57 and green befo201r the development application on or after 2018 should be subject

to 100 percent of the the fact of the matter and 3 with a development application on or before september 4, 2016, should be subject to 50 percent of the the fact of the matter for development with a development application or other than after september 5, 2015, and before 2018 should be subject to 75 percent of the the fact of the matter and after january 2018 should be subject to 100 percthf the matter. >> you want to read that. >> i want to read into the record we'll be r be making amendment to the small section of what scombhoolz is proposing and if we can take that without

objection colleagues without objection that item passes thank you, thank you this is a substantial and more and dense discussion we've had here today and i'd like to take a week to continue to work on this and continue to do our due diligence with the stakeholders is if we could madam clerk what in one week's time what's the date for invocation. >> that's december 5th. >> i'd like to make a motion to continue this to december 5th any objection. >> before taking the vote i have one other thing i want to express and we can look at between then and next week one of the comments was discussed how we are addressing - we're doing our parking tdm

plan by units or but there are units we have multiple bedrooms and want the answer in our next week week it is a policy of the city we wanted to build family housing is there a way to have accommodation for this in this legislation or want to create that incentive for families housing. >> okay. thank you so colleagues i've made a motion to continue this item without objection that item passes unanimously thank you and before we adjourn madam chair it's been a pleasure serving with supervisor wiener our the land use committee for the last year and this is the last land use committee it's been a pleasure to serve with staff. >> thank you supervisor peskin for once again jumping the gun.

>> it's okay. >> your forgiven. >> like supervisor peskin said this is at land use committee meeting our colleague scott wiener will be a member of he's joined me in the committee for 6 years our entire duration on the board of board of supervisors and scott that's been a pleasure to serve with you and for the most part we've seen eye to eye but you've been a worthy opponent and want to give you an opportunity to say a few remarks. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisor peskin for your kind words as well as the chair mentioned it's been an honor to serve on this committee for the topics and now

recognizing those two subjects are intertwined to serve on the committee for 6 years you've been so lucky to for the immortality of my 6 years as a board of supervisors i've served on a committee i'm compassionate about around the house and transportation issues and in particular that are critical for the city's future and an honor to serve on the committee that committee is not an easy one to serve on issues have floated through the committee are unbelievably contention because they're important whether an individual project or whether a major, major issue in the city and it's been an honor to be involved and in those discussions and debates and madam chair you're correct you and i the minute we came into

this board in 2011 it's been a pleasure serving with you and handing off leadership plaster colleagues i'm very, very appreciative. >> thank you supervisor avalos. >> you've spent a lot of time in this committee. >> i've been in the committee with scott and the whole time i was here you didn't say a single word i was surprised but i'm it was a rare meeting you didn't say anything i actually wanted to thank you for serving this on the board of supervisors we didn't always see eye to eye but worked on projects together but what you've contributed to the city and county of san francisco as a

supervisor and probably i'll say tomorrow at the full board you brought engagement to each other and we worked harder to shift through the policies based on our work and tensions and creating the legislation that move forward the city forward particularly how we address development and transportation i think where but came in was a huge emphasis on transportation that actually moved you know and be for attention active to our transportation needs no mayor has done i believe that you're part of that and the city is better for it and didn't always agree on the right approach but we're in a better place we were before your tenure. >> thank you very much

madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you, everybody, adjourned speedo

>> >>[gavel] >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee of san francisco board of supervisors i'm the chairman of the committee arun peskin and joined by supervisor norman yee and by committee member and board president to my left london breed are clerk i want to thank the folks at sfgov tv for streaming this session. mdm. clerk any announcements