>> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, january 31, 2017, madam clerk please call roll. >> madam president supervisor breed supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor fewer supervisor kim not present supervisor peskin supervisor ronen

supervisor safai not present supervisor sheehy supervisor tang supervisor yee madam president we have quorum thank you, ladies and gentlemen, please join us in the pledge of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, everyone are there any communications. >> i have one communication to present madam president we're in receipt of a communication from the small business commission dated january 23rd forwarding not board for consideration rules and regulations and for the application of the legacy business program under the san francisco administrative code these rules and regulations are subject to disapproval by 30

days of this notice to the board if you, your from transferred in disapproving those let me know by wednesday i'll submit a memo to the members madam clerk to the consent agenda. >> items 1 through 22 on content these items are - and turn your mike on. >> it was on. >> i would like to sever items 6 and 8 please. okay seeing no other names on the roster, on the items one through 22 excluding items 6 and 8 madam clerk please call roll. >> supervisor farrell supervisor fewer supervisor kim supervisor peskin

supervisor ronen supervisor safai supervisor sheehy supervisor tang supervisor yee supervisor breed supervisor cohen there are 11 i's. >> okay these items passes unanimously madam clerk please call 6 and 8 together. >> item 6 an ordinance to authorize a lawsuit for seven hundred and 50 thousand on 2015 in san francisco supreme court a medical malpractice and 89 to authors the lawsuit by the regent of the university of california for 4 hundred and 74 thousand for a refunded of building. >> thank you supervisor sheehy. >> the university of california is a party to those two settlements until i took office as a supervisor i was

employed by the ucsf research now retired those settlements didn't effect the department of use of force the city attorney has advised me i don't have a conflict of interest i can vote on those items because i now receive a pension and retirement benefits i must make that disclose before the vote. >> thank you supervisor sheehy seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk oh, colleagues, same house, same call? without objection those items pass unanimously. >> madam clerk. >> item if an ordinance for an infrastructure and revision fencing district on treasure island and to adopt an infrastructure financing plan. >> please call item 24. >> item 24 an ordinance to levy special tax within the city and county of san francisco for the community district number

2016 also on treasure island. >> colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? without objection the ordinances are finally passed unanimously next. >> item 25 to appropriate one $.5 million from the general fund for the matrixes the office of civil engagement the human rights for the represents for pathways for immigration for social services in 2016-2017. >> same house, same call? without objection the ordinance finally passes unanimously next. >> item 26 to authorize the settlement for attorney fees from the consolidated lawsuits but i know i know and communication against the city for one-hundred $4 million whether the administrative code point a complies that the california construction and appropriated seven hundred accomplice from the wastewater

balance for this purpose. >> roll call vote. >> supervisor farrell supervisor fewer supervisor kim supervisor peskin supervisor ronen supervisor safai supervisor sheehy supervisor tang supervisor yee supervisor breed no supervisor cohen there are 10 i's and one no with supervisor president breed in the descent the ordinance finally passes. >> item 27 from the budget committee for a lease disposition and a 75 year ground lease with the regents ucsf for a research building with an initial basis rent of one explanation thousand to accept a

$10 million in contribution upon the ground lease and make second and others understanding. >> supervisor fewer thank you supervisor president breed i appreciate the vision shown and will be voting in support of this legislation i harbor the costs of parking on this site and am continuing to work with ucsf to justify this cause thank you. >> thank you supervisor fewer supervisor cohen thank you oh, good afternoon, everyone good to see a full chamber open this important item we'll be discussing a lease option in particular petitioning to how that garage lease has an impact on parking i have a currently amount of questions for the department of health i want to recognize the many hours people have put into this project the

leadership team from ucsf it incredible and between the department of health is equally as incredible and want to recognition matt h mta for their communications helping us understand the option when if comps to parking not an easy feat what we're trying to do to balance the priorities in particular important to keep in mind the fragile position that president trump has put us in serving the fragile populations with the general hospital i'm the supervisor for the district in the southeast and represent the general hospital and have been for this is my 7 year in service and have been watch in project 2 had my hand on the projects for 3 years more importantly the amount of money not only time but money for this particular structure for this facility facility that we have

made an investment if i'm not mistaken one $.3 billion was that the investment that's incredible and able to mania research institution that has the willingness and heart to continue to serve people that don't have access to health care that can't get up and could go to doctor that's what really has moved me to look at this project with such a critical eye i have questions i'm, raising on behalf of the constituents i represent those from the kansas state safe neighborhood organization first i'd like to direct them to ucsf if you could come up to the podium and

director garcia but love for you to describe to me good to see you on tuesday first, the outreach process where we are do i think that is a missed not onlyer we've not done our due diligence in the number of housing we'll held in and around the effected area can you talk a little bit about. >> sure thank you. i'm barb barbara the chancellor for ucsf and this project has been part of my life for 5 years since 2013 ucsf has partnered with the department of health and engaged with nearby neighbors and members of the community to share our vision for the proposed research and academic building to seek their input specifically telephone community mooefrg and 3 hearing with the eir the environmental impact report, 3 hearings recommended to the term sheet and the ground lease before you and health

commission and the board of supervisors a hearing at the historic preservation commission and 3 hearings recommended to the lbd a including today all told 22 meetings since 2013 thank you. >> thank you how did ucsf come up with the $10 million for the parking loss. >> as you may know the project has proposed to be built on the b c lot directly south of the old hospital it currently how does one and thirty parking spaces the durability e department of health and if i'm not mistaken mark the controller's office as intend $38,000 for parking spaces and 78 times one and thirty is approximately $10 million the $10 million was

based on market assessment to replace each one of the parking spaces. >> thank you one of the things i'm concerned with the loss of parking it how will patients get to and from the hospital are we pulling up parking from them. >> the one and thirty spaces that are on the b.c. lots are for patients parking during the construction of the building ucsf will remember work with the city one and thirty spaces from the existing garage so that during the construction of building and we will park those people at mission bay and shuttle them to the hospital during the construction of the research building that there will be one and thirty extra spaces in the garage for patients. >> it is incredible we're not having a negative impact making

it difficult for people to get to their care now as you recall in the budget committee a robust discussions around the tdm plan and is program i think any colleagues supervisor tang raised go legitimate concerns talk about the tdm program one that you're putting forward and two, discuss request me the other alternatives you considered that are considered by sfmta. >> i would on this part speak for ucsf i'll invited director garcia to speak her counted that is leading the discussions but in terms of use of force has one thing of the most aggressive tdm programs at our campus we have among the lowest drive alone relationships in the city and

currently have a rate of our staff at the general hospital that is low we're working with the department of health to work together because we realize our 2000 doctors and their 35 hundred staff people and in addition to the patients so specifically we're working ucsf to determine a new location for the shutter staff at ucsf we right hand hurlts shuttles and working with the city and closely with the department of health on a joint tdm to insure that whatever the city is doing we're augmenting and vice versa i'll invite director garcia to speak specifically to the discussions around the tdm. >> thank you, thank you very much i will call up director garcia and for the people wondering transportation demand

management that is our overall long term to deal with the congestion of the number of cars and shuttles and buses a lot of transit on the streets we're trying to be thoughtful in our policy decisions director barbara garcia. >> director barbara garcia. >> barbara french laid out the tdm program i have a straightforward question how real is that policeman. >> it is real we have the dollars that be 1 pointed 3 correct and $10 million to assist us with the parking issues the staff offsite construction and lalth at other offsite parking and release some of the parking in the parking lot to insure that patients go have access and have community

assess and bicycle parking and ride share and assess for diddles individuals so we have a robust system and working closely with the mta on the tdm plan. >> yesterday you gave us an e-mail with detailed about the lease division about the ground lease in it you call out the long term mitigation planning i love for you to talk a little bit about the potential revenue bond for the $20 million gap sincerely with any conversation with supervisor ronen we share a genuine concern a huge gap not convinced a bond measure will fund it gap can you talk a little bit about what you're thinking. >> absolutely and share that with our cfo we are looking at did revenues that will be

produced by the extra spots of parking and rate increases to do that that's why we haven't completed this process in understanding an issue of the revenue bond for this but staff will continue to work with mta to fill that gap i think mike can talk about that and the amount of that if you like i can ask him to come and share. >> great let's ask him. >> good afternoon, supervisors greg wagner cfo for the district through the incident to supervisor cohen we've been working with the mta in looking at the possibility of financing an expansion to the garage and one of the concepts we introduced as we went into that discussion was the expect of a

revenue bond you'll essential take the criminality bonds through the construction of garage and potentially the incremental rates from construction and did analysis with the controller's office to look at how much revenue that produces and essentially be using revenue that will not exist but for the actions we'll be taking with the new garage so this year several challenges we've not founder a way to make that pencil out we're still in conversations with mta but the challenges you have to look at the cost of issuing the debt for a project of that size and sure that none of the funds will deplete the revenues that go to munching operations we will not want to or ask the mta to consider it so all the issues we've been working through we're working with mta but not kind of

gotten to a financial model that works for financial we're exploring options with the mta for example, revenues that close a portion of that gap what other fund might we draw in through one time dollars at the department or future capital budget proimthsdz so we're working closely with mta and the controller's office on that at the same time as we're considering other options including expanded tdm programs and 0i6b9 parking than on campus and other mitigation measures. >> thank you, madam chair no other questions. >> thank you supervisor tang you. >> thank you. i want to reiterate how for this research is i stated in and, of course, thank to everyone that is here

taken time to show your support and the importance of use of force and thank you for all your hard work and ucsf has taken care of of any family i'm appreciative but i brought up in budget committee this is parking issue not to say that i believe or colleagues building that parking is more important than the work you're doing absolutely not anytime we're looking to agreements with this development in the city there is a job to scrutinize and make sure that everything is take into consideration so when i was looking at the development or the amendment before us for the new research facility it caught any by surprise that despite 3 years in negotiation between the city and ucsf we've not solved for the issue of parking management and the fact that the parking management plan was not

going to be rirtsd until the close of escrow or the close of construction so that didn't rest well with me the fact we'll solve this later on down the road the other thing i know the dwp and ucsf and sfmta you've been working for over two years on developing the options my worry we're another this juncture and not seen the final place so i wanted to follow up on a couple of questions brands some of the things that supervisor cohen asked about for example, we heard from bearing are french during the construction dpw will remove one and thirty spaces from the garage and shuttle the employees i want to know if that will be permanent ongoing beyond construction i mean obviously

the depends on what other parking mitigations we can find but i wanted to know whether this arrangement of shifting the one thirty of spaces into the garage will continue. >> beyond construction. >> barbara garcia thank you for that question just to be clear the fact the building is on one and thirty parking spaces we're losing we're planning on taking permitted individuals in the parking staff and moving them not offsite. >> that's an, an ongoing basis. >> at this point we'll keep that as long as possible. >> for you know hospitals are very you know we can't ask everyone to ride on transit objective for a hospital facility this size how many that concludes my remarks generally speaking would something like that require as a san francisco

general. >> we've look at that clearly over 8 hundred and we have now 8 hundred and need 4 to 5 additional hundred that's the long term plan we have established when we built the garage with anticipation of growth so we hope to use that as part of overall plan for expansion of parking assess. >> mention of exploring some off-street parking i see john updyke. >> we have michigan and looking at the chronicle parking lot and have asked real estate to look at other location we know that will be difficult and continue to do that that is important to do that to provide the access and priority to patients in the particularly i'm not sure that real estate has

options at this point. >> john updyke director of real estate we've not execute them but having conversations with the dpw and those who have lots that are available that can serve as remote lots inside the city. >> thank you i mean, i will say again had gave me pause not to stop the project or delay the project but the fact when this agreement was presented to us before the board of supervisors you know there was talk about the idea of issuing the sfmta revenue bonds that was a highly unrealistic solution especially, as we heard any of the fund that would be issued to the revenue bond none what deplete the operations this is decided over two years and

not seen a solid plan before us that gave me concern and looking at the existing tdm measures as well as proposed new ones and in terms of a new measure i see that the expanding the shuttle services is on the list by adding to caltrain or the transbay transit terminal will this serve the needs of people on the shuttle that is predominantly i'm guessing employees of ucsf. >> first of all, let me understand we're - i recognition and acknowledge what you said about not having the parking lot done before the entire process of structure of trying to get the research center had is so important to get throw in a timely manner do

that and more importantly mitigating the one and thirty slots i take the responsibility we didn't have the full plans for the overall parking process that's what you've been working hard on the last year not to complete in that project i recognize that our people have other items to discuss regarding this issue. >> thank you, supervisor so for context on the property new tdm measures we've identified and where those have come from that's a process we've been engaged in a quite a while going what can into the early stages the research building and part of larger approach to the compass in addition to addressing those one and thirty spaces we come to this list through an outside

transportation consulting firm come into advise 0 on and on us on transportation demand management they did studies and modeling with transportation at the grace looked like we took that and it's been an expensive process with the sustainable streets group they've reviewed those we came to agreement on the highest priority measures we also came to agreement on target metrics for the long run efforts to reduce the number of drive along commutes to the campus a lot of analysis to the list of measures we presented here i think we're tdm is one of the things that there's never enough you're at a point couldn't spend another dollar but this list represents a collective analysis of what the best use of our tdm

dollars are and where we can get leverage for the resources in terms of reducing the drive along trips to the compass. >> thank you. i know that a lot of colleagues have other questions or comments i will reiterate that is not that i care more burn parking on this particular issue i think that is important that anytime we are undergoing development we have to fully vet those issues and first and foremost we're here to help the patients need to make sure that is ample opportunity for them to get into the hospital first place so i'll ilipi i'll leave it at that. >> until i took office as a supervisor i was employed by the

research institute i'm retired this didn't involve the department of ucsf the city attorney has advised me i don't have a encountering i receive a pension and retirement benefits through ucsf i must make that disclosure before i vote and then as to san francisco general you know for any community a speed up resonance in 1981 when we first started dye amy friend san francisco general stood up other places they couldn't take care of us the reagan administration wouldn't say the word aids until the latest 80s people said that was embodies will we were left in the halls

to die but the com passion and the san francisco general team was an example to the whole country and represented the values of this envy city it wasn't just san francisco general the whole city embraced us and stood with us the very first research money for hiv and aids was obtained by then speaker brown at the state assembly through the state and when i was diagnosed i didn't have insurance i still remember a saturday night on a jury in any e i didn't in the er at the san francisco general before i was accepted so i think as we talk about this we think about this - i think this is important to remember

what that hospital means to those of us who are faced with despite illnesses who don't have resources because this hospital has always been here for those of us in san francisco when we need it most. >> thank you supervisor sheehy supervisor yee. >> thank you supervisor president breed and i wanted to reiterate what supervisor tang had already said which is that and - she was very target in her views from me has nothing to do with with the merit of the new building itself and the people that the researchers or doctors will be housed in the new building i think that during

the budget committee hearing i expressed the gratitude that myself and actually just about everyone in san francisco has for the staff so this is really about looking at things comprehensively and making sure that note one part of the community is left out of this decision making here and in this case the parking again is has nothing to do with with the research team and so forth but i think is wise for us to look at things not only for the maid but for the long term so a couple of questions in calculating the per parking the per parking - costs i guess to build a parking space it seems like i don't have in in

front of the any i did in any head in front of the budget committee i believe that was based on $26 million divided by 3 hundred parking spaces and one and thirty is 10 million was my you mention rough estimate i don't know if it is true but that's making the assumption that we would build three hundred something but a lot of times when we work developers and in my own organization and trying to do the calculations they charge me something that he said well, this is a stand-alone we can't afford to build the rest of the slots how much to build one and thirty slots period and then

because we may not able to get enough money to build that far out so then the calculation becomes something else what is the true cost if so a stand-alone project to build one and thirty parking spaces if you think of in those terms then feels like the $10 million is not enough that's where i'm coming from you collect for a stand-alone project and add on top of if you're able to get more money that reduces per parking space costs to the addition but i think we're making a mistake to think that we might be able to get all the money to build the three hundred can someone answer that. >> barbara garcia disorderly

conduct of health one comment i'll have my colleague talk about the stand-alone we're getting the rent of the parking from the staff along with - so it is income coming in as part of 8 hundred plus slots to note additional dollars on top of the one and thirty slots given by ucsf and we have calculations on one and thirty slots if we build that loan and whether in the parking lot itself we'll see if we can answer that. >> thank you for the questions supervises there are a couple of different pieces to that we have looked at tried to look at a couple of different scenarios how to build on the existing site one of the issues that to

build one and thirty spaces the way this site is laid out there is a structure and then an open area adjacent to the structure it calls for expanding into the surface that unbuilt lot next to the existing structure if you build one and thirty spaces on that site you don't get a portion at savings and cost you see have the cost of do construction all of the resources and the equipment to do that and you're not going as high but you're not saving on the costs of mobilizing. >> that was my point. >> okay. >> so am i correct? if it is a stand-alone more than $10 million. >> that's correct. >> why were we not negotiating in that direction.

>> well the concept here was that once your building on that site it is cost effective to build up to the existing garage and not as cost effect for the one and thirty spaces that allows us to fill that building and never and add the additional spacious that what mitigate others spacious and patient parking spaces. >> then basically who saves the money is uc bus we're basically going to have to build up above it is a cost to us but if the mitigation is one and thirty let's make no mistake about it that cheaper for you we'll build on top of that. >> if we were to not have

sufficient dollars to build up to the full space on this site that will potentially be more cost effect to take the dollars and would have on alternative use for the dollars such as an offsite parking location and additional tdm rather than doing a partial build of the existing site. >> my question was we're giving uc is a break. >> sorry supervisor i'm not sure i understand it is definitely the cost of their proportion share is less than it will be to build one and thirty on the site that's correct but the calculated value is based on the proportion of our original plan. >> okay. this is where it gets a little - gets a little bit if'y to want to buy the

argument your giving me so the other issue looks at looks like weighing we'll go around in circles i think i brought this up the issue where this is an assumption that once the new building is built for the existing staff that the number of staff members will be about the same in moving to add a few more but pretty much essentially the same number of staff members and had a followup in question to that what is going to happen - basically adding space for people to do stuff the old space which would be vacated then is available for

somewhere else and will be renovated and add staff what are the changes to add another one thousand people. >> supervisor yee you're correct the plan is the staff that are currently in the the non- seismically reefltd part into the new research building in the current please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, the capital plan for the proposal for renovation of the building 80, 90 to future consolidate the rest of the campus staff into a seismically safe building you're correct there are additional buildings on campus that are not fully occupied their undetermined over

the past year or so been working within an architectural firmer to evaluate the uses of those buildings but we don't yet know what the uses will be so we've been looked at everything from those a potential site so for the housing, could be used for administrative space but not currently determined plan for how those buildings will be used to the extent there are additional people come into the campus in those buildings that will be transportation management issue we'll need to address at the time, we have a plan for the use of those buildings. >> okay. just wanted to go on record to make sure we have that take into consideration in the future the - i think one last question and i'll let it go which say, i think that was i

forgot who mentioned that will the one and thirty spaces that will be lost not lost but given up by the ucsf staff to be move forward to the mission bay and this would be during the time when there is construction then a question that was asked not answered what happens after construction does that mean that one and thirty staff members that are parking on mission bay will move back into the parking lot you have a net loss of one and thirty. >> supervisor yee he would like to add a point of information i can - >> excuse me - ms. french we are conducting a conversation with the board unless a supervisor specifically asks you a question.

>> your identified unfortunately hold off please. supervisor president breed i'd like to ask bearing are french if she can answer the question. >> >> thank you on behalf of ucsf i'm here to consensus if this is of hope that ucsf about remove one and thorough o thirty spaces out of the garage as a way a future way to alleviate the long-term parking issue. >> thank you very much for that comment and that alleviates a lot of my anxiety about the parking by a lot. >> thank you supervisor yee. >> supervisor safai. >> sorry. >> so the longer is supervisor yee spoke he finally got to any question i appreciate the last question that was going to be my

question. >> i take it back. >> no. we're even as of deploy what happened earlier so one and thirty parking spaces that will be temporarily move forward offsite and hearing from ms. french about the commitment under uflgz my worry if it is temporary and move forward back what is ucsf going to do with that sited i have a feeling a proposal in front of us we'll want to use the space and more parking will be displaced and listen just want to reiterate everything my colleagues have said we want to prioritize the research and providing of public health that is an important thing the ucsf i wanted to commend the doctors and the people and don't take this as minimizing i know that doctors

and nurses and janitor work long hours and overtime overworked and their sleep depersisted and for them to get think a shuttle and have to worried about findings their car in the late you know late of time evening not as safe as an environment those are things we don't know or think about when we are talking about the construction of brick-and-mortar that commitment if ucsf is important but i would like to say in our transportation plan that you you can see mitigation money didn't necessarily have to be used for long-term parking but to mitigate it in another way my priority to have the parking onsite authorized unit important for residents but important for the workers and asking them to get on a hurt and wait an additional thirty plus minutes to their day each way to assess

they're parking is many ways an inconvenience i want barbara are to talk about that anyone here from sfmta 3 wants to talk about their negotiations with the ucsf i think that is an important part is anyone here from sfmta. >> first barbara. >> mr. garcia i thought i saw ed reiskin walk in with you. >> again someone else. >> barbara garcia parking is a big issue supervisor and that's when we built the original parking lot built it for expansion and so, now we are having to work at the issue of how to expand 24 parking lot using revenue from the parking and as our cfo look to add

additional work that's the work with mta no immediate solutions but the long term solution to expand to the mobility of the parkmerced that exist there if is built for that purpose and measure that with the priorities of department but because this i said this before because ucsf research center came and we think that is so important and was going to take up parking this is a good time to work on the parking lot we got far on the mitigation of parking for the loss of park by this research center but couldn't get the deal done for the rest of the parking but in agreement with mta and working with them closely and will get a solution we need additional time for that. >> just to follow up on that through the chair can we ask for

a specific time for dpw and sfmta to come back and present their plan to us. >> yes. >> can we ask them to come back with the next thirty days. >> yes. and we have a representative from the mta please identify yourself. >> supervisor president breed victor from the sustainable streets and to follow up on what dreamforce we're working closely and in fact, for the last year collaborated on the transportation demand management program that was referenced earlier with what mta feels are good measures to try to address some of the parking demands issue today i'm available to answer any questions about the timing or other issues. >> thank you, ms. garcia. >> barbara garcia director of health we don't believe that thirty days will solve that we

would like to come with updates and like for we're here for the research center and this parking lot has now come up as a big issue we're committed for the long term issue as we believe a short-term solve for the research center but need more than thirty days we want to delay it. >> that was not suggested we delay this for 90 o thirty days but dpw and sfmta to report book on their progress to come up with a solution for the long term problem. >> we'll be happy to come back every thirty days. >> as long as there is real progress. >> and ms. garcia i want to relate reiterate it is important you've been your department along with mta working on that for sometime this is frustration

this didn't happen you were asking for this particular lease there are other colleagues that want to make comments if you can give us something more definitive in terms of what makes sense for a timeline to keep us apprised of the development because we separately from the lease want to get to something that doesn't result in the additional cost from the city in general so for 24 particular issue i think that is potentially the bottom line what we're trying to get it at. >> thank you supervisor president breed we offered to quarterly and i'll be happy to and we've been working on this for a long time it is as important part of infrastructure we need to resolve for the campus as a whole.

>> i'll reserve my condominiums that is important inform sfmta to have more thought put into this not to say they haven't as far but come back with dpw one thirty days to present the progress on the long term solution he hear louder on the short term solution with the off-street parking for solely for folks that you are working there but to have a long term solution we want to see more progress so if you all can work on that and come back and report on your progress through the chair i'd like to put that in. >> thank you so they're in agreement it appears. >> yes. thanks. >> supervisor ronen. >> yes. i wanted to start off by office buildinging many of my colleagues talking about how for this new building is i've violated the red brick building with the spaces where the

incredible faculties is currently doing cutting-edge research they're no dough you need a new space i can't emphasis enough how important your work is and how cutting-edge both the partnerships with dwp and ucsf and everything he go to general am blown away by the way that you are dedicated to patient center care and the thoughtfulness and unique nature of your work i wanted to mention that before any comments i am, however, the supervisor of the mission district that has been impacted by all the construction of the new general hospital so i'll concerned with about the impact on neighbors i think have been generous in having they're parking their streets, and their neighborhood disrupted so for

quite a while so i'm concern there were all the unanswered questions around parking arrested congested area of the city and no open parking in the area so i still am confused asking questions or my staff for the last couple of days who use the one and thirty spaces to director garcia in lot b.c. >> according to our staff patients the majority. >> their patients lots so that was not what my staff was told earlier. >> because the garage that question i offers asked you how many in the garage so b.c. parking lot is next to the old

intrment. >> but removing the staff to the parking lot that freeze up more spaces for patients. >> i see that makes a lot of sense in that can say doctor french thank you for making that offer today of permanently using those one and thirty spaces for ucsf faculty and staff that would be great so see that in you didn't go i writing i agree with supervisor safai the development in mission bay is constant and have assurance those spots will be used for those purposes in the long term will certainly make me feel better so i am considering making a motion to continue this one week to see that that commitment in writing and i also just want to mention that there has been talk about a bond as a

permanent solution for the parking needs other than general not something if i'm in office will be supportive of we have needs in the city for bonds whether affordable housing, the state of our streets, our parks e and that will never be a priority in terms of the limited amount of bond we can issue as an aide as we get the reports going forward i'd like to see the option that doesn't include a bond in 2022. >> supervisor ronen has made a motion to continue this to the meeting. >> i'm happy to hear from other colleagues before i make the motion. >> if you want to withdraw your motion. >> i didn't make a motion i said i was going to make a motion. >> thank you, supervisor supervisor peskin. >> i believe that director

garcia was going to make a response in response to supervisor ronen. >> barbara garcia we hear you and understand that bonds are really important for those types of items we're that's why we're working hard with the mta and also understand that prop a didn't give us space for paternity prioritization so we've been working with mta they've been understanding of the priorities of the patients parking we understand. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam president i want to reiterate some of the words that many of the supervisors before me said our relationship as a city and county of san francisco over this institution san francisco san francisco general with the university of california, san francisco is a century old and we consider the university of

california our sister agency all be it the part of the city what is before us today i don't think anybody dangerous with we all want to see this facility happen within our purview to make sure that while we're not impacting everyday muni service in fact, in 2007 when a previous board put a charter amendment it said to the extent the city by carmen chu the mta build h built the new parking garages can't impact the muffin on a day to day basis as far as dwp has have not figured out how to finance as far as the parking revenue will not pay for the bond need notness to fill the gap of a

minimum of $22 million and potentially $10 million more than that i want to say for the record no way, however, you solve 24 problem will will adversely impact munoz budget i'm not disrespect i worry about that ed reiskin or the chief financial officer were here in disrespect to line staff we have our largest agencies before us today that still has wrinkles but i will building that mr. reiskin should be here with that no more comments. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> i'm going to add to the courthouse of the respect and a.d. permission for the san

francisco general and the partnership in particular our doctors and nurses and all the staff you really do amazing, amazing work and i'm impressed with the hospital and with the at least on this parking lot again, i think our questions are really to department of health and sfmta in terms of the go mitigation plan and so i guess my question is what you know if thirty days is not a reasonable timeframe i i can't imagine you've been working on it for 5 years and still don't have the tdm program in place what is the reasonable timeframe for the board to be able to get an we are to our questions today. >> barbara garcia disorderly conduct of health if you gave us 90 days we can get an understanding and clarity on our plans and that's what i had asked proposed at the last

committee hearings. >> you said that we should understand this is a long terms process i'm sorry you don't know i don't think so what is so calculated about that. >> the financing of it. >> the financing portion but not the actual plan. >> except for financing how much dollars into this if we go in that direction. >> is there a plan to finance. >> that's something we'll have to determine and again, if we - figure out how we can move our dollars if this is the necessary match for us so that's where we need to have more conversations. >> to be totally clear i don't want the department to come back in thirty days and not have anything if 90 days is the reasonable timeframes in 90 days this board can expect to the

transportation demand management plan but not necessarily the financing plan. >> that's right that's right. >> and over the long term i understand that we have so many large projects and i believe that is a long term process the estimate for the plan that is not articulated is roughly 32. >> 32 to 28 and a $32 million from ucsf to offset the loss that would be helpful in getting the transportation demand management to get the plan in 90 days to get a sense of the $10 million can cover in the offset and hopefully significant portions of the plan so their peace meal i know capital improvement plan and plans you it would be nice to move pieces forward as is financing comes in versus you know we have this

$10 million that will sit there because the overall plan didn't have portions that can move forward diddling to mitigate that will be one of my suggestions the second as you said on top of the $10 million will be expected parking revenue do you know what that projected revenue is? >> per year. >> supervisor i don't have the precise figures with me and there are shades of this as supervisor peskin referred to one of the calculations is not only how much revenue is generated by the space but the net of the revenue and the operating costs. >> right. >> so that we will not impact the base funds for the muni system and we're committed to that but that is one of the things we are in the process of working

throw at mta and the controller's office is to determine what that level of incidentally credential funding and part of analysis that will take us more time. >> do you think we'll be able to have that analysis in 90 days if we get the revenue generated minus the cost of running that service. >> absolutely one 90 days to present the economics of the overall expansion would look like and what the impact of the new spaces and rate changes. >> so in terms of the $10 million that has been committed by ucsf to offset the loss of those one and thirty parking spots where will the $10 million fit. >> and is it in one lump payment and will be in the department of health there is a provision in the l d da that

essentially says that will set in a segregated account for the dedicated use and little department of health is spend down the $10 million at any point. >> yes. as along we've identified a use that is consistent with the $10 million. >> and that we have succinct to appropriation authority. >> i'm curious from the budget committee had considered putting this on budget committee reserve to make sure that is a plan before the board and did board what review it before the spending of the dollars. >> certainly in the reason it didn't come before the budget committee it is coming the concept of the apprenticeship $10 million is going coming to you in the lbd a secondly, the

money has not been appropriated and will not be appropriated before this is a subsequent action so start spending 2 at many times explicit with a the approval from the board of supervisors appropriately the dollars. >> that will be through the larger budget process or separating. >> a larger budget process that will be another approval. >> the reason i propose it should come from the larger budget committee your intimating involved with you know i think the board gets a lot of different balls in the air so we may not be fine tuning through the line by line the duct bucket in terms of how they're spending down this money for the tdm i

think this board is particularly interested in the proposal that would be my suggestion to get a separate presentation on the tdm so we can get feedback as well to the dpw and mta and as well as our community resident and neighbors that brought those concerns about traffic and congestion they can give input my suggestion would be to put the $10 million on the budget committee reserve to the budget committee can get a presentation on the tdm before that money is spent down allows the public to weigh in on their priorities as well and be they like the whole plan but this portion is should move forward that's how we want to prioritize that's my suggestion not the l dda but the tdm program not before us that's

why everyone is asking lots of questions before necessary vote on the l dda but to move forward to focus on the pieces that you know this board is concerned about on behalf of the permit holder community. >> supervisor we're comfortable with that and work with the controller's office so those dollars are flagged and we'll have a separate presentation and accounting so we have the boards blessing to move forward with the expansion. >> just to the ucsf community as well i want to recognize that your work is unique and different from other types of employers here in san francisco i know if our conversation last week i was made to see the employees that walk and bike to work i thought unusually low

that would be great if mta will work with ucsf to there the modes of transportation we understand that people are working night shift they'll want to drive and not as high as other employers in san francisco i think that is that is important for university of california, san francisco to help our city meet our goals around a transit first city and where employees can bike do car share and take public transit to figure out those incentives sluchs and i've seen the uptick in traffic and great to continue to work on that as a long term goal for all the stakeholders that are here today. >> supervisor farrell.

>> okay supervisor president breed. >> colleagues i think supervisor kim you summoned that up presidential making sure we separate the issues but they're part and parcel to our conversation director garcia i appreciate the comments and the notion we've talked about so forth on the continuance and coming back and reporting and continue can you can you talk a little bit about how that effects the project itself. >> barbara garcia director of health i'd like the supervisors to take the vote on the l t b.a. i feel that ucsf has made their commitment for the parking that will be displaced i don't want to delay this we need to get the regents to go forward and move on their process this is a my position i understand the

supervisors. >> just to understand there is a timing issue related to this. >> the construction and beginning of construction. >> okay. >> thank you supervisor farrell supervisor cohen thank you very much the conversation was robust i want to acknowledge that often all the doctors and medical professionals in the chamber you guys are the senate itself ones in the room with the terms and terminologies you're for familiar with i want to acknowledge supervisor kim's rashgs those are the same remarks why we're here and the issue we're here to discuss and that is the l dda the least disposition and the land use term and i wanted to talk about to the point that supervisor ronen mentioned she asked we can continue one week to get a what

in writing exactly through the chair. >> supervisor ronen. >> so i just learned from the city attorney we can amended the ordinance before us today to note the commitment on behalf of the uflgz university of california, san francisco to maintain one and thirty parking spaces for the faculty and staff at the mission bay campus if we are able to do that today and that is the contract is amended before us to include that that makes me comfortable to approve it today. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, that's democracy in action that is how good policy is created thank you supervisor ronen he was going to - and commissioner tang you worked collaboratively with the city attorney supervisor kim mentioned something about a budget committee reserve could ucsf i want the difference

continue budget committee reserve and controller reserve. >> i'm sorry ben rosenfield the controller. >> supervisors ben rosenfield controller different reserves are practiced by different parties i think mr. wagner was referencing flagging the budget committee can consider putting a board require. >> a board reserve. >> that's correct that's what i understand. >> i understood that two but supervisor kim said budget committee reserve i wanted to make sure that we are clear so show me guidance through the chair please. supervisor kim. >> yes. i'm sorry, i said budget committee board of supervisors reserve. >> okay. >> it essentially assuring that the budget committee gets a

presentation on dpws spend down of the especially $10 million before me spend it down it will happen before the money gets spent that will allow the board an opportunity to get impact to the department of health and sfmta on the plan and will allow the members of the public and our constituents to give feedback as well either on components that might be missing things they like strengthened or the prioritization of what parts of plan gets funded first clearly the $10 million will not funded the entire. >> i appreciate supervisor kim our clarity i'm in agreement i want to see support a budget reserve ladies and gentlemen, that are here we want to bring to your attention we're not taking public comment we took if the but if you stand in support

of this project please stand up we can recognition you thank you very much for being here you may have a seat. and all people standing in opposition please stand point oh, a couple back there. >> please no attacks after the meeting thank you. >> i also want the roesht to say there are registered concerns about this particular item so we have as a matter of public record to speak it into existence in closing he just want to say thank you to everyone that is really been hands on on that particular project i'll supporting this project as it move forward and the amendments before us thank you very much

ladies for being part of discussion and i want to recognize the incredible staff at the ucsf that helped us to get over the hurdle and dpw and recognize i don't i don't chang on any staff and hillary ronen staff and other staff thank you supervisor ronen. >> i wanted to note that was supervisor tang who figured out that we could make the amendments today to relieve my concerns thank you you've been looking at for mirror my my constituents so swp i'd like to make a motion to amend the ordinance to reflect that ucsf will maintain one and thirty parking spaces for the offset of

one thirty parking spaces from ucsf campus. >> seconded by supervisor tang colleagues without objection, without objection the amendment passed unanimously anything else supervisor ronen that's it okay. >> supervisor safai. >> thank you just one last point of clarification we were talking about putting money on reserve and spending down apprenticeship $10 million in determining can answer one more quick question the $10 million will replace and expand the parking space we're talking about expanding the garage we're talking about a spend plan clarify the $10 million will be used for parking mitigation. >> oh, and. >> used for the expanding.

>> might not be used inform expand the parking. >> i can't answer that. >> just to be clear that decision will come before this body. >> before anything it spent; correct? >> supervisor sheehy. >> that's it as okay supervisor sheehy yeah through the chair add one voice that's not been present as far that's the patients so it is rare for a major academic research institution to desolate resources that impact people living if poverty the people that can't afford insurance people talk about ucsf and all the money important mission bay that tends to look at a different set of diseases than san francisco general i really want to commend supervisor ronen for finding a way out of this if

i understand the parking issues and in that neighborhood because every weeks delay means a cure for someone who gets care at san francisco general is one week away and so i think that is really important to remember the urgency felt by patient who needs 20th century this vital research to alleviate their suffering to commend supervisor ronen for her brilliant and supervisor tang for figuring out this out seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk on the item as amended can you please call roll. >> supervisor farrell supervisor fewer supervisor kim supervisor peskin supervisor ronen supervisor safai supervisor sheehy

commissioner tang supervisor yee supervisor breed supervisor cohen there are 11 i's. >> the ordinance as amended passed unanimously on first reading. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here. >> all right. we'll have a special order 2:30 p.m. - supervisor ronen will be doing the special order 2:30 p.m. - and thank you to all the doctors and researchers and staff that came out today. >> thank you oh, nice please exit the chamber quietly

thank you. >> see you soon (laughter) see you soon. >> thank you. >> that's good work katie thank you. >> if you guys can clear the chambers thank you take that conversation outside so we can

continue. >> all right. folks if we can student down and stop talking we'll go to the recognition of commendations. >> if i can call up nancy and kathy up to the mike. >> so i'm going to - yes.

>> (clapping.) >> so i'll start with a question had was harder being on a 4 hundred or 200 and 70 foot crane for 14 hours or listening to the board of supervisors talk about an ground lease for a half an hour i'm sorry it took so long. >> staying hours we are similarly thankful. >> the excitement so i want to say that i can't feel for honor and pride today in recognizing you both you know for those of you who don't know nancy hernandez and karen two counselors resisters who along with 5 mechanics of green peace the majority of women liemgd a 200 and 70 foot crane in washington, d.c.

wednesday january 25th frontals climbed the crane damaged for 14 housing i can't believe that you did that hanging a banner that said resist in clear view behind the white house. >> (clapping.) >> so i want to tell you a little bit about 80s incredible women nancy hernandez a bernal resident 5th on eviction if bres that's a whole other issue is a mission activist youth worker and mural i thought that spent over 18 years incorporating art and direct action into the bay area social justice movement and

dedicated to the youth and known for her beautiful murals and works at goornz i saw mario who was here in the mission district and has been a local drummer for how many years. >> a lot and is really just an inspiration for so many which of us in the mission i want you know that my husband calls you the popular person in our household karen as been involved with green peace and served on the brovrz president and not only a freelance but activist we're till a district 8 resident

by supervisor sheehy and i are fighting over you want to claim you we'll share and you live on guerrero street i was so excited to learn your murder to peg stevenson of the controller's office. >> (clapping.) >> incidental everyone needs to see that live and work this is incredible we attempted up a video of nancy on the crane are sending a message to everyone in san francisco i want you to see that for effect ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ it is a message to it effects more than that plus a love letter to you it is our responsibility to fix it that's why we're out here today >> i'm very, very afraid of heights but today, i climbed up one hundred feet to get out of any comfort zone to say resist. >> (clapping.) >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ . >> (clapping.) >> before interning it over to supervisor sheehy we're facing unprecedented treats to our freedoms and constitution and really is creative non-violence actions that will safe this country so i cheer everyone i've watched that several times when i needed precision that is that truly that spying but on behalf of the board of supervisors thank you to fighting and inspiring us i also want to briefly mentioned i am glad to see our form controller you came out to join us in recognition you today so thank you so much. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor ronen

for honoring this heroic work that is powerful and like to expend the boarders honor to my resident of my district i'm very yes, ma'am athletic have a fear of heights myself i can imagine what that was like but hanging a message of december sent you had that fear of heights sends a powerful powerful message of resistance to it administration i want to note - so i worked for green peace in the early 90s so knock on doors across the bay area and develop actions during the day thank you for your your thirty years of commitment and ed for your doesn't the to the organization we're living in difficult times this kind of

resistance is what we need so thank you, thank you, thank you. >> (clapping.) >> so i want to say that resistance begins at home and i'm regrateful to the city and the people of san francisco for instilling within me a deep sense of justice and a fearlessness i know we have heroes every time you stand up for people is highly commendable i hope the rest of the board looks to supervisor kim it she's a fearless leader for the people you guys have a position of power and in this climate will be a lot of brussel in front of us a lot of the young people have tons of fear about immigration status fears of their parent taken from them our

center was rated by ice last week the fear in the midst and the fear the police and the fear that officers have been getting away with murder and killing people without repercussions and fear of evictions a resolution that was put up in front of you guys to protect the teachers from being evicted during the school year that was constituted u shut down there is a fear you guys love the city more than the city loves you when the police officers association cantonese comes after i hope that type of resistance this banner can come to mind that our ability to conquer our fear of heights and the conquer fear of being arrested pass on a fearlessness

you have the police officers association and have a ton of people maybe hating on you when and lennar in our area and corporations building condos and van guard and out companies trying to evict families when you stand up for the people of san francisco you are in defiance against those who prioritize profits over people when you do that and stand up are for people in opposition to profit your inspirational when you are quiet and stick your headnote stand with that current administration around climatic change we see that i hope that message is a message of hope that we're not focusing on saying not to delay this president or any one policy but a symbol of consistent vision for a better future and so i hope that some of of our fearlessness will be passed on i

got it it from the students we hope you guys can stand up as stoppage as you possibly can to the forces that are in front of the i that choose to sell san francisco's soul out to profit. >> (clapping.) >> i want to thank the board of supervisors for recognizing our resistance high above the city of washington, d.c. i've been an activists for more than 35 years monthly the government's response to my work is sue me i've been on trial twice and defended meaningful in rhode island and connecticut and arrested more than 35 times in 5 states always with the vision and hope for a better world

whether it is a worlds mount without nuclear weapons or a world we protect the human rights of everyone i do this with a strong commitment to non-violation when i was stavrnd one hundred feet above the ground i had to crawl on the platform because standing up was way to difficult i stayed those and tweeted and did interviews and took photographs because that was far more important than anything else our physical fears with nothing in comparison to the fear i have of what this government can do without 0 voice whether plants or animals or people that physically can't speak out they fear deportation or incarceration so that is why i do what i do i will continue

to do what i do and grateful for the city of san francisco for recognizing the importance and criticalness of non-violate direct action our country was built on it next we're doing one of the actions who can i call on to do that with me who supervisor jane kim we will ask you to join us we need you thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> i only live a block away - >> i'm loyal to district 8 percent. >> i know you're good at hanging banners. >> the last time i got

arrested for the record but advocating for justice. >> 1, 2, 3 rode 1, 2, 3 we had people lie e rode 1, 2, 3 we had people lieye you. >> thank you and congratulations. >> (clapping.) >> okay with that, madam clerk let's go back to item number 28. >> item 28 an ordinance to amend the tax regulations code to remove the one hundred there's penalty from one of the penlites failing to register and

remove the fee from a duplicate register certify. >> roll call. >> supervisor farrell supervisor fewer supervisor kim supervisor peskin supervisor ronen supervisor safai supervisor sheehy supervisor tang supervisor yee supervisor breed supervisor cohen there are 11 i's. >> the ordinance is passed unanimously on the first reading next item. >> >> the airport development plan including in the requirement for a feasibility study and the board of supervisors determination prior to initially the environmental review but for the future individual projects under

the recommended airport colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? without objection the ordinance passed on the first reading next item. >> thirty for the tax regulations and police code to eliminate fees comboetdz by the city. >> same house, same call? without objection this ordinance passes unanimously. >> item 31 to appropriate 34 point applies to the department of emergency management for public safety in fiscal year 2016-2017 and to place appropriation on the controllers reserve for the procedures from the financing same house, same call? without objection the ordinance passes. >> item 32 a resolution to fix the prevailing wage rates under the city contractors for public works and improvements. >> same house, same call?

without objection it is that item passes. >> madam clerk item 33 through 37 together. >> item 3 to authors the department of the environment to accept and expend 46 thousand from the association of bay area to perform activities as part of by the way, regional program through 2015 and item 43 a resolution to authorize the rec and park department to accept a one and 47 in kind grant from the parks alliance and resolution to retroactively authorize the department of health to accept and expend an approximate 4 hundred plus grant from the department of health for the prescription drug overdose through august 31st, 2019, and item 36 to retrofitting to send 200 plus

grant from the community clinic consortium for health care for the homeless or health captains through 2016 and waving indirect cost and retrofitting direct the department of health to accept and expend three hundred plus from the department of public health department to participate in the project known as the cam launch through june 2019 and waving the indirect costs colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? without objection the resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> item 38. >> to improve an emergency declaration for the replacement and repair the equipment at the wairmentd with the total expected costs of $435,000 interest same house, same call? without objection it is adopted unanimously.

>> item 39 to amend the planning code to establish the citywide transportation demand management program required to incorporate the design features and incentives and tools that support a constitutional form of transportation to create an administrator fee for various sections of planning code and make ceqa and other other appropriated fshtsd and determinations. >> supervisor cohen my understanding you have amendments. >> thank you for recognizing me colleagues we want to briefing present to you some legislation that was sponsored by our former colleague supervisor avalos i sent picked up as a sponsor and want to recognize any co-sponsor supervisor sheehy so the the item before you establishes the transportation demand management or tdm program spoken a lot about it earlier item item 27 i think that is a fact we've

acknowledged and accepted that will 10 thousand new people will be arriving in san francisco every year and projected the city will add one and 90 thousand jobs and one hundred homes 2040 that's why we embarked on the tps when is a multi-agency effort to improve the transportation so we may accommodate this new growth the tps has 3 commons first the transportation steering committee's sustainability fees the board of supervisors took action last year the second element we have replaced our level of service analysis with

analysis that looks at vehicle miles traveled v m s is consistent with the state policy and a better standard for environmental review and the third and finally element of tdm program that will be the item we're voting on to through that program developers will provide an onsite amenities like bike that concludes my remarks and childcare and car share that will reduce driving trips from other projects now essentially the city has developed a memo of 66 sustainable transportation option the people will incorporate into their projects developers use the t memo to choose the measures that will get the target thresholds i

don't want to get into the weeds foerdz the planning commission has approved but the specific item before us is the tdm ordinance which clearly sets out the policy and articulates the. >> be mriblt plan reminders the planning department mta said the last year reaching out to various are stakeholders and including transit advocates, affordable housing advocates and developers to help us shape this program we also had many robust land use committee meetings about this item and where we discussed various amendments and jaufltsz this is the result of a collaborative effort i want to acknowledge a few people the planning department and mta victor wise and wade w and corey

teague i'm sorry wade i can't pronounce your last name close enough maybe i need more time to work on tdm to get down that name want to acknowledge those folks are committed their lives to this particular piece of legislation and been tireless leases on this program so, so i several amendments to address concerns we've heard from the community input on the draft tdm plan first loud and clear the public wants to weigh in an tdm plan prior prior to project approval i believe those amendments speak to those concerns you have those amendments in this document that was circulated earlier this afternoon the first amendment is

simply clarifying line 6 through 8 adds development agreement unquote to clarify that both development applications and development agreements approved before the effective date of ordinances are not subject to the tdm program the second amendment before us on page 9 line 18 which requires the project sponsors discuss this prior to the project application including preapplications meetings and solicit feedback from the community to be take into consideration in preparing the proposed testimony plan the third amendment and final one on page 9 line 18 is simply required a draft tdm plan be

submitted with any preliminary applications or assessment and this most certainly includes p pa circulations thank you, again i hope to have our sport and want to acknowledge the collaborative effort that transpired to make that a document we can get behind. >> thank you cobra madam clerk add me as a co-sponsor supervisor cohen has made a motion to amend seconded by supervisor peskin colleagues without objection, without objection the amendment passed unanimously supervisor fewer. >> yes. thank you supervisor president breed so i want to thank supervisor cohen for taking the leadership on this and apologize to any colleagues, of course, i have been just in my office less than a month i'm catching up i appreciate this conversation about how to shift the residents

for miles of travels from depending on a car for reliable alternatives whether walking or biking considering there is some spent a lot of time 45 thousand uber and lyft drivers it is critical there is a transportation demand management program in place i do, however, have concerns with the draft memo of options in the current form when i look at the memo of 66 options to reduce the traveled miles i'm concerned for example, having the measures to improve the walking conditions is one point but shuttle service gets a because of of 7 to 14 points why only one to 5 more affordable housing by voting on the tdm program today, we are making a policy call san francisco has taken a statement

we're a vision zero city and transit first city the point system tells me a different story he how we calculate the transportation measures i don't believe we share more than 7 to 14 points for providing shuttle service and invite this to further define the sustainable transportation so i am asking around about the c c-6 point and how those were developed i understand i'm coming in what's to the conversation so just asking for edit information how this aligns with vision zero plan. >> thank you supervisor fewer are your comments directed to the sponsor the legislation. >> yes. please. okay supervisor cohen.

>> yes. thank you yes supervisor president breed. >> with you like to defer to staff. >> yes. i would like to defer to staff to respond. >> good afternoon wade senior planner planning department the way we developed the memo and the assignments of points for the individual measures in the memo was around the policy of reducing vehicle miles traveled so that was the policy framework we remember working in the points were allocated based upon how effective they are at reducing vehicles miles traveled so you're calling out the shuttle measure that was identified as a lot of points because it has been proven to be effective averages and vehicle miles traveled

just because there is a point value and a number of points higher than versus other measures those options are available didn't mean those make sense for every development and doesn't necessarily mean that the city would approve every measure selected by a developer in their tdm plan and the shuttle measure in particular there are - we don't think this measure will be selected infrequently it is a costly measure the shuttle is at a minimum of 15 minutes during peak housing or thirty outside of peak hours that is a costing type of operational expense for a development that most developments will not select and second the measure requires a staff recommendation from the sfmta regarding whether or not it should be approved and mta can speak to some of the

considerations they'll look at t at that particular measure but again, we don't - we think this is a ones in a few year type of measures that will be selected in regards to you know the comments about walking and the point values i'll state that we believe that every measure actually on the measure improves the walking conditions every walker vehicle miles reduces the crash exposure to people that are walking most vulnerable citizens and the transportation network so this policy again is about reducing the vehicle miles traveled and other things to improve the walking and but this is focused on the new development what we can do. >> thank you may i direct any questions to the speaker.

>> yes. >> my concern that the point value system of 7 points initiation to walking is one point you say you don't think that that option will be used very often because it is costly, however, when i look at how i think we should be setting policy we have a policy in place about dislocation with vision zero goals actually is that i think actually vision zero should be a policy that is considered while you're considering this point system and not only just to reduce the amount of what we call it the v m t actually we should be enkm other policies we've adopted and already working towards the goals we look at a shuttle system for example, 7 points and other 14 points out that's correct. >> 7 or 14 that's what it goes

up to yeah. >> i think that is - i just question sort of the point system and the value of those points and what it encourages and we put one point towards walking improvements and put 7 points toward a shuttle and have questions about the shuttle service quite frankly that puts more transportation on the students i'm concerned how that point system encourages people not to have cars and also aligns what the vision zero commitments. >> supervisor through the incident the vision zero is something that all staff and mta been one of the additional benefits from reducing the vehicle millions

traveled the goal of this program to reduce bmt the narrative we'll have all along and very data driven how effective each the measures are at reducing that so - that is the narrative we have taken and the approach we've taken other things the city is doing around vision zero that new development has to consider through environmental review around vision zero it is just the focus is on reducing the vehicle miles traveled. >> okay. thank you. >> anything else supervisor fewer did you have any followup. >> any main question i know your looking at reducing vehicle miles traveled but i just think doing a policy like this we should consider the other policies that we have in place

and every policy we have should be working towards vision zero goal and so i just question not why you added the shutter shuttle i'm questioning the value you place on the points that's my question thanks. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> i had a different set of questions to add on to what supervisor fewer said i think so the intent of this policy to reduce the vehicle usage mode on the roads but having negotiated several policies in the district i can imagine if not a lot of points for requirement of a project that there maybe less incentive to negotiate vision zero pedestrian safety improvements i think that ddas

are exempt from this policy we see with developers they have multiple goals to achieve reducing vehicle miles on the road and reiterate the points that supervisor fewer made i think that is important to figure out how we balance all the goals that our city has around development to assure we're disincentivesing and achieving other goals reducing the number of vehicles on the road i have a question i'd like to have a member of planning come up i know that corey teague was in conversation with any office any questions were around the kworment mechanisms in place for the ordinance now the way i read the ordinance that was silent in terms of penalty that were put in place

plus or minus tcertificate of occupancy you want to make sure they're put in place before we issue a certificate of occupancy any questions are related to a after the opening of commercial space beyond the monitoring and have reporting and nooifrt the site what is the actual penalty if the property owner decided to remove parts of tdm in the future. >> thank you, supervisors corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. corey teague we'll have a monitor plan for the site environmentalist reporting requirements to help to insure that all the features of the tdm

plan stay in place that is a new components as you may know typically our enforcement complaint based we open a case we research if if so a violation we go through the due diligence and if so a penalty phase that progress will remain during the monitoring and reporting process staff determined their tdm plan was out of compliance they'll for the property owner and if it was something that can be brought immediately into compliance that will be done if they're unable or unwillingly to bring into compliance we'll create an enforcement case and the process will unfold we essentially sends them the required violations and it from the abated the same penalty

phase that exists right now for any other code enforcement issue i can go both detail if you like. >> all code visions are equal they are assessed the same. >> we're capped how much we can charge as 200 and $50 a day for a code violation we can't go above but require the property owner in violation covers staff times additional fees on top of the penalty fees additional to that the city attorney can also assess civil penalties and take additional enforcement action outside of planning department to assure enforcement. >> so regardless of the scope of the violation how big, small whether missing