. >> when mayor lee first put out his budget instructions, while technically not followed by this agency, we try to follow the spirit of, there was a call totion as to not increase fae count of the overall city budget. that was done over a concern of rising employee costs, particularly pension and health care costs, and projected general fund shortfalls in the outyears. so i'll share that we have heard some concern from the

mayor's budget office, considering we have a sizeable increase in positions. we've provided an explanation of why these are necessary, and they really reflect in my mind really almost a decade now of planning and investment that we have been making with the city, with the mayor's office, with the board of supervisors, in order to provide a transit service that we need for an existing city and a growing city. so we have obligations under development agreements, we have obligations under development plans. we have with the full support of the city, developed a new subway, built a new bus yard. now it's time to resource the operation of all those things, so i think those were the right decisions over the last ten years to make those investments, and it's the right decision now to fund their operation, and that's what this budget reflects. so on the revenue side, there has been a lot of good news since we started the budget

process. of course we have the state sb-1 revenue, $27 million in each of the fiscal years, which support -- which is really what's helping to support that expanded operations. you know, that there's potential for a repeal ballot to be on the -- repeal measure to be on the ballot this november . we are counting on those revenues. we are ready to put them to good use to put those rail cars into service, and we are confident that the voters of california will reject that repeal and leave these dollars in place. we have gotten revised estimates for general baseline fund transfers from the controller's office. this reflects the continued roth growth of the general fund so we're able to incorporate those, and that's also a big part of what's enabling us to fund transit improvements. we got some revised estimates for some operating grants from

the regional metropolitan transportation commission on balance positive. it did cause a little bit of a decline in the second year, but again, generally good news in terms of their revised statements. i'll save the next one for last. we do have a fare and fee parking revenues coming in from the arena, that those have a counterpart on the expenditure side, so they are not a net benefit of the agency, but they cover the cost of the additional expenditures that we will have for the arena. as of -- based on your direction from the last meeting, we have reduced a number of taxi fees which i will speak to. so we had to include the revenue impact of that, and then, the baseline already had all of the other automatic indexing fees, fines, and

fares, and i think it's attachment c to the staff report has all of those, the same that we do every year, except where we're deviating based on the fares or this fee relief. in terms of the reserves, we had a discussion about this a bit at previous meetings. i had said we had kind of two sources beyond ongoing revenues by which we might be able to close our gap. one would be using the population baseline, prop b revenues, and the other was using our own fund balance. in the end, because of all of the other revenues that were coming in, the problem to solve for was relatively small. what i'm recommending is we keep the prop b revenues in the reserve budget and use the funds -- or the fund balance to address one-time needs in the operating budget. the reason for that is in part

because our reserve has gotten very, very strong. it's funded at much over what you require it to be funded at, so i think at some point, it gets almost too big, and we have -- i think it's good for us to use those funds for one-time purposes. and second, i think once we move a dollar of prop b into the operating budget, i think it would be harder to move back, and we spoke about some of the capital needs we have for things such as vehicle overhauls, which are legitimate use for prop b, so i want to kind of preserve that to the extent possible. so what i'm recommending in terms of the reserve funds is that 9.7 million in the first year and close to 40 million in the second year, largely these funds -- it's a still bit for equipment, and other small issues, but the main things these are go for are facility

improvements. as i mentioned on the capital side, some of the things that are hardest to come by are facility projects. we've been undergoing as we shared often at policy and governance, assessments of our facilities, and as we've identified a number of small and maintenance repair items that we need to or would like to address for the well-being of our employees, for the reliability and resilience of our facilities. so these -- these funds would largely be used for that. they had been budgeted just as operating funds in the budget, but as they are one time in nature, they seem like a reasonable use of reserve funds. what i would also add is that given it is a big number in the second year, before we enter the second fiscal year, i think it would be appropriate for me to report back to you to see where we are in terms of the health of our fund balance, our projections at that time for the fund balance. right now we're using very

conconservatico conservative projections. in the event the economy does experience a downturn, and we decide, you know what? we don't want to put those -- that next bucket of this into use for our facilities, we better hold onto it reserve, we'll still have an opportunity to do that. and then, the other note here i want to point out is that we are also -- and we discussed this somewhat when you approved the construction contract for the arena, we had a gap to close, so what -- we'll also be -- i'm also recommending use of another $10.6 million of revenues to fund the construction project, but that money would be repaid to our fund balance by the mission bay transportation improvement fund, so that's really more of a loan than an expenditure. so this is the -- just the

revenue side. you can see the good thing about our revenue picture is it's fairly diverse. we don't have a one single source like many other transit agencies do that we rely on, so it's a good mix of things from the transit fairs, frres, and general budget, and an increase in the operating grants. so a fairly diverse portfolio that should make us somewhat diverse for economic changes. so this is the fund balance picture. the lower line is what we're required to have by your policy of 10%, 10% equivalent of the operating budget. the upper line is our actual, reminding you that we dipped down, far below where we wanted to be during the previous recession. we've built it up to a very

strong point in the last couple years, you've authorized allocation for one-time uses, such as i'm suggesting again. even with that, you can see we're projecting conservatively right now to end the year right now with $210 million, and as i said, that's conservative. we think it'll probably be a little bit higher. so what i'm proposing are expenditures that at the end of the two fiscal years would bring us down to about 150, which is still -- gives us a comfortable margin over the 10% requirement. and again, before we enter into that second fiscal year, i would offer to come back and do a bit of a check in to make sure we're still confident that the economy's strong to support that level of expenditure fund balance. but even if we can do it, we'd project that we'd still be well above the minimum that the

board policy requires. so just, again, wanted to remind that all of our existing programs continue and that it's not just the muni programs, but it's some things that you've recently done, such as reduce fees for first time tows, as well as low-income folks that get their vehicles towed. i think a lot of these are leading in terms of transit and transportation agencies, so i think it's -- speaks well to the values of this agency. the fare changes, we got your -- the final direction at the last meeting, including using two times the regular fare for the adult day pass, so that is what is included in this recommendation, as well as the 20% for the "a" pass over the regular pass. the rest, that you've seen

these multiple times. we've affirmed and reaffirmed them, so we're excited to put these into place. so on the taxi fees, most of the public comment that we've heard, at least on this budget has been the fee on the taxi industry. over the last few years, we've been waiving the fees to the tune of $9.5 million over the last few years. beyond that, here's what is also already happening. the driver's fund disbursement, which is happening as we speak, is well underway. waive -- includes a provision to waive the taxi driver annual renewal requirement for these two fiscal years, so that's already kind of baked into the taxi driver fund disbursement that came to you late last

year. there is a legislation i mentioned last time that has since been passed out of the land use and transportation committee and will be, i think, at the full board next week. that will waive the business registration fee for taxi driver's also for the next two years. and the "a" card permit is 100, so that's relief over the next two years for working taxi drivers. and we already had incorporated the elimination of medallion renewal fees for the folks who purchased their medallions, holders of the transferrable medallions. so that is what we had in addition to the previous fee reductions. so based on your feedback and the public comment, here's what we have additionally. it is a -- we're proposing to reduce by half the medallion renewal fee for prop k

medallion holders. so these are what folks referred to as the earned medallions that were earned by working taxi drivers after the prop k reform and before the medallion sales program. we already spoke to the reduction or mr. gruber spoke to the reduction or the taxi stand application fee and that's for a hotel or someone in the private sector who wants a taxi stand. we're reducing the fee, but also as i mingsed on the capital budget side, we have our own funds available to help make sure that the fees don't stand in the way of anyplace where somebody wants a taxi stand. and also based on public comment, have -- are proposing a reduction in the color scheme or taxi company renewal fee for the smaller size taxi companies with 15 or fewer taxis, so that is based on the feedback we got

from you and from the public on addressing taxi issues. there has been pretty extensive public engagement throughout this process. as you've seen and heard. i won't go into all of this. we did get feedback at the last meeting on the crossing guards, and as i said at that time, it's really a matter of collective bargaining, if we're going to make a change to the crossing guards. i did get an inquiry from the union this, the seiu, and i responded to that effect. we are happy to engage, as our current mou establishes, to have this kind of discussion to explore different changes in wages or compensation or hours. we -- after the basic -- basics of the education using all of our media channels, we did have town hall meetings, internal

communication, as well. and this is that long list that you've been seeing every day since january 23rd, with today being your first opportunity to consider adoption. if not today, you would have a second opportunity in two weeks, but the charter does require that by may 1st, we submit our budget to city hall. so that is the operating budget, and welcome your comments and questions. >> thank you very much, director. and again, fellow directors, i'm going to go to public comment first before we discuss amongst ourselves. miss boomer, three minutes again, please. >> very good, madam chair. if anyone would like to speak, fill out a speaker card. >> okay. thank you. on the september 5th, when you approved the driver fund

payout, director heinicke mentioned that he thought none of the funds should be used for advertising because the mta should pay for the advertising. i doubt there's anything allocated in the budget for that, but i think if going forward, you were to do so, we would come back to you, and it would actually benefit you in making the industry more valuable. that segues into the same comment i made under public comment that if you were -- rather than wait for schaller to see if he's going to issue a report or when it comes out, go ahead and let corporations buy up to 50 medallions. i see on your budget that you say that your sales revenue will be zero, which is true. but if you were to make the right policy, i think you'd make tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. and finally -- i sent you an e-mail early this morning -- it's gracious of you that the

medallion renewal fee has gone from 1200 to 600, but i think that's 10% of the annual, and i think that's still too much, and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> robert chizana, followed by mark gruber, and peter strauss. >> thank you. i would like to thank you for at least reducing the medallion fees, but you must remember that this is an indication that you understand the taxi industry is in really bad shape, and i would like to see some proactive measures not to cuto cut off fees, but to help us combat uber and lyft and the tnc's. and you know, really, we've

heard a silence from you, and i wish you would come and talk to us not with a filter of miss toran, who is the nicest person in the world, but in a way that we could put forward a program that would revitalize the taxi industry. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chizana. next speaker, please. >> mark gruber, followed by peter strauss. >> thank you, again. mark gruber, and thank you for the attention you're paying to this tiny drop in the bucket of your budget, which is the taxi budget, but to us, this is important. really vital. i appreciate the fact that to

the fee for small color schemes has been reduced by a very modest amount. i wish it were more. from green cab's standpoint, we are still paying 18 times the amount of a hypothetical 500 cab company on a per-cab basis, and of course, our -- you know, that means from the standpoint of our ability to pay, we are being put at a substantial disadvantage. so this -- that whole section of the budget, i -- and this has been a complaint every time the budget has come up and been approved, and it's never really been rectified, so taking tiny steps in that direction. all i can say is i hope that larger steps are taken at some point in the future. i'll say a couple of words

about the medallion program, which i think has, perhaps through no fault of anybody's perceptions because, you know, there were unexpected, unforeseen events, it's proven to be a complete disaster, a total catastrophe. and i think the may dal i don't kn know -- medallion program, the buyer's program, needs to be ended. there needs to be a bay back of the medallions of the people who paid for them. it can be long-term, and perhaps a revenue source can be found for them. i think the viability of the industry is severely compromised by the medallion price and the medallion value

and the need to purchasers to pay for those medallions, so that's all i'll say about that. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gruber. next speaker, please. >> peter strauss. >> good afternoon. peter strauss of the san francisco transit riders. this is a very good budget that you have before you and one that we're overall glad to be able to support. we're very thankful, as i'm sure you are, too, to have the assistance of sb-1 to make our fund balance easier than it has been some other years. still concerned that long-term, we do still have fiscal areas that we're facing. this is an area that as you know we're very involved in and concerned about. we're glad to see the inclusion of the fare pair at the day level. we're pleased to see it return

to a level of doctrine service enhancement. this is something that i've addressed before. and we're very glad to support the additional staffing or to make possible the additional lrv service, the muni forward, the equity programs, and don't want to overlook the maintenance training programs, which we feel are very important to support increased reliability, the transit services. if we have any concerns, we would have liked to see it go a little bit further in terms of areas such as evening and weekend service. we're still concerned about the proposed cutback single car and muni service on the weekends. these are areas that we still hope to be able to work with staff on as we go into the budget year, but overall, this is a good document, and we do overall support what you have before you. thank you.

>> thank you very much, mr. strauss. do i have any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. directors, do i have any comments or questions on this budget in front of us? yes, director hsu. >> thank you, madam chair. so i'm encouraged to hear that this joint effort with b.a.r.t. on the station homeless services seems to be having some results. i'm just curious. do we just split that evenly with them or how will that take shape going forward? >> generally how it works with the stations, is we share maintenance responsibilities roughly 50-50, so for those pilots, we've just carried this forward. we -- you know, a lot of the areas are shared, and that's where a lot of the issues are, in the shared areas, but we both equally benefit from

anything that improves the rider experience or reduced the maintenance ticket or both. >> and i take it well, this is something that could come from additional city sources, but we've got to get it done. >> i think it would help b.a.r.t. to say well, the social service agency should be paying for that. the social service agencies have their own budget challenges that they're trying to address. these are our stations so we're working very collaboratively with them on this. we think it's a reasonable investment for us as the transit agency to be making. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. yes, director -- [ inaudible ] >> i wanted to say i did a tour one morning with dpw to look at their work in this area. i know that they are spending a lot of money in their budget that's really outside the purview of what their agency does on this issue. but i do think it's great that we're doing our small part.

i guess the one question i have is related to the -- one, i didn't fill up in the crossing guard one, when i asked during capital, what i meant on that -- or operational, and two in terms of growth of positions, do we see any technology in the future can help us with some of these areas that we're seeing job growth in. for example, planning, it looks like they might be instituting a way to do some permits on-lines, and there's ways that other departments have, like, plan checks that can be done actually by computer. i'm not trying to get rid of people's jobs, but we are trying to achieve greater efficiencies, and we are hiring more and more technology solutions, and as we bring more and more on-line, do we see a point where we'll kind of stop the job growth in that regard. >> first of all, on crossing guards in the presentation, as i said last time, it's a matter of collective bargaining.

we've had a discussion with the seiu, and we're happy to discuss and sit down with them in the memorandum of understanding. if we would be recommending it, we would find space in order to do that, but we would need to go through a collective bargaining process before we do anything. one of the bases on which i nominated senali for the good government award was a number of issues that have happened during her tenure on the information and technology division, on the revenue side, customer service side. you're about to hear permit processing. a lot of that is now automated. i think -- i mentioned there's

some of the belt tightening that some of the divisions are doing within the transit division. while we're adding a lot there, we're also anticipating some savings from the fact that we're modernizing our vehicles, and vehicles that were breaking down a lot and had difficult to maintain parts, difficult to access. and these new vehicles were very much designed for maintainability and reliability. components are easier to swap out, they're easier to access, so it's a less maintenance perunit vehicle than we've had in the past, so some of the savings, we've accounted for there. so that's the yes part of the answer. i think as -- as, you know, on kind of the inside business process side, and that's why we did have -- want to keep that? the strategic plan. there might be ways to make things more efficient. we're hoping as the new financial system, for example, fully comes on-line, some of the things that previously were

paper processes will be automated and that can free up resources. the no side of that is until we get to, you know, an autonomous future, and maybe someday if we're lucky, we'll have an autonomous transportation director, it's a labor heavy project. you need not just the operator, but you need the people who are maintaining the vehicles, who are cleaning the vehicles, who are surprising and training the front-line staff who are collecting the revenue, so some of those eventually going cashless would be another technological advance that could be revenue saving. i'd say the lion's share of the agency will be going paper free, but any time we have an opportunity to bring in new business processes or new technology from a labor

standpoint, we'll all be in favor of those. >> i was talking about labor and administration and some of those other categories. i mean, i think you still have to pay by check for a white zone. there's really some things we can do to make some things -- [ inaudible ] >> there's been a lot of progress made over the last few years. >> thank you, director borden. director torres? >> so you've communicated with the board on the medallion issue? >> yes. so we're keeping all of the members of the board updated on all the parts on the budget. >> well, i supported no increase for any, and i didn't realize that some of these holders got these for free and have been earning $30,000 or more peryear without any reimbursement to the city or

county of san francisco, so i don't believe those people should get a reduction. however, the fee reduction from 1200 to 600, what was that base odd? ju -- based on? just arbitrary? i asked for the fees to be completely eliminated, so i wasn't included in that discussion. >> well, we can go back and play the tape, but the direction as i had it -- >> no, i was talking about my direction. >> yes, but i'm required to take direction from the body, not from individual board members. it was to reduce or eliminate, and in the end, it was focused on the prop k medallion holders, so when we went back and looked at staff, historical relief that we've provided -- i mentioned this last time, the distinction between the burden that the medallion holders have

who bought their medallions, versus all the rest, whether they bought them or not, is very, very uneven playing field. for us, the best way to provide value to the medallion -- of those who purchased their medallion is to give them whatever advantage, whatever competitive advantage we have. so therefore we felt that eliminating or bringing down to 20% would erode that advantage, so i think given the board's perspective, that 50% was a reasonable approach. >> when you said we should go back to the tape, i found that particularly interesting of the hearing last time. so if we went back to the tape, we'd find that the consensus of the board was for 50% reduction. >> it was to reduce or eliminate the fees. >> right, but there was no specific -- >> right, right. >> that's what i thought, so don't tell me we should go back to the tape and review it.

>> no, i was trying to clarify. i thought you said that the direction from the board was to eliminate the fees, and that's not what i -- >> i amended that by saying -- >> okay. all right. so i appreciate that -- >> so in the future if we're going to -- just for a point of clarification, if you're going to get direction from the board, is there vote taken or is there just a surmise. >> usually, the board chair gets a consensus, and provides directive, which i believe director heinicke did at the last meeting. >> okay. thank you. excellent. >> okay. thank you, director torres. do we have any other questions or comments? >> just as an expression of gratitude. this doesn't happen in one week or two weeks or six meets. -- meetings. it takes an incredible amount of meetings. to the best of your capacity, i

think we would love to see all fees. i think we are all emp thettat to what's going on. i think the calculations to maintain everything we've got going led to what we have today, and i'm certainly ready to support the plan. >> madam chair is this the last meeting for our budget director? >> no. >> last budget -- >> i just wanted to echo the remarks of thanks and gratitude. thank you for the budget briefing. and at least i'm going to be sad to see you go. >> we do have her through the end of the calendar year. if you stop by her office, you'll see the count down clock. >> but who's counting? >> so i do want to say i thank you all the staff for your work, and director reiskin for

honing us in on this and i do just want to say, around the taxi fees, i'm glad we could -- we could get to this point. and i don't want to leave the taxi drivers who are here with the idea that we do not spend a lot of time and energy thinking and strategyizing with the taxi drivers. we do think about it. we think about it a lot. we worry about it. we know that we need to take action in order to continue to have a viable taxi industry in this city, and we know how important that taxi industry is to our transportation system, so we will continue to work towards that. i know it's frustrating. i know it can appear from the outside that our hands are tied and there's nothing we can do, but i do think going forward we will be able to come up with some ideas to help sustain the

taxi industry. i thank you for your patience and you have our empathy of what's going on in the industry. saying that, do i have a motion and a second? we'll take a vote. all in favor? all opposed. next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> madam chair, nobody has indicated interest in addressing you on this matter. >> all right. do i have a motion to approve? >> motion. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> all in favor, aye. any opposed, hearing none, approved. >> madam chair, directors, that concludes the business before you today. >> all right. thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> all right. welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 2,

2017. i'm katy tang and to my right is supervisor jane kim. we will see if supervisor safai will show up. our clerk is not erica major, but victor young. and from sf -- do we have any announcements >> yes. completed speaker cards and k07 -- copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the april 10th board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor tang: thank you. can we call items one and two together, please. >> clerk: yes. [reading item numbers one and

two] . >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to the sponsor, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i have no opening comments. i'm excited we are continuing to accept more straoelt -- streets we can open up for residents and workers in the mission bay area. >> good afternoon, supervisors, department of public works. and as the clerk noted, we have two pieces of public

infrastructure which we are asking to be accepted. the first is as noted, seventh street mission bay drive and if i could have the overhead projector, that would be helpful. thank you. seventh and mission bay drive is indicated here in green. and just for reference on the second item is mariposa, which is a single block section noted in purple below. the seventh street and mission bay drive intersection public improvement project is located in mission bay south redevelopment area and part of the reconstruction plan for mission bay south. it consists of constructing infrastructure improvements in portions of seventh street, mission bay drive and barry street corrector. the plans included at grade

railroad crossing. the peninsula corridor joint powers board and california public utilities commission. they approved the redevelopment plan and infrastructure plan, which closed at at grade railroad crossing and provided the new location as a second entry to mission bay. the second project that was indicated is the mariposa street project. this project consists of constructing improves between i-280 an and off ramps. it included work on the ramps to coordinate with mission bay development projects. the work on caltrans right-of-way is not being accepted by the city. the public improvements were constructed in accordance with

approved plan specifications. the director of public works in consultation with city agencies such as puc, fire department, mta, issued a notice that the projects were for their intended use. they determined the construction and acceptance of public improvements are consistent with the general plan and of the planning code section 0.101 and this doesn't trigger any further ceqa environment review. the projects with consistent with the redevelopment plan. we are asking the land use and transportation committee approve these items and recommend acceptance by the board of supervisors. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for your presentation. anyone else or that's it?

okay. we will open up items one and two to public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak, come up. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we get a motion on items one and two. >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a motion to move forward items one and two with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: we will do that without objection. thank you. item three, please. >> clerk: item three resolution accepting of public sidewalk easement on shipley street adjacent to development project at 923 folsom street and adopting public works order concerning the easement. >> supervisor tang: i will turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. my office is here to present on item three. >> good morning. this resolution accepting a public sidewalk easement on shipley street at 923 folsom and adocumenting the public works order concerning the easement.

the project began as a large project authorization for 923 folsom street adopted by the planning commission on july 24, 2014. public works has determined the public sidewalk easement is necessary to create a wider sidewalk to create safe passage for members of the public on shipley street with the sidewalk is adjacent. shipley street is too narrow. convenience and necessity, the city obtain a nonexclusive easement for pedestrians to pass over. on sent 22, 2017, 923 folsom acquisition made an offer for easement over the property for

pedestrian passage. on october 26, 2017, public works director and the city engineer certified all work was completed and inspected and that the sidewalk has been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications and all city codes. regulations and standards and that such improvements are ready for their intended use. the public works director has also recommended that the board of supervisors accept this offer from 923 folsom acquisition llc for the public sidewalk easement. we have julian marsh here for additional comment. >> supervisor tang: without anything else, we will go to public comment on item three. any members wish to speak? okay. public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: just want to thank the project sponsor, julian marsh. at this time i would like to forward item number three with

positive recommend to the full board. >> supervisor tang: and we will do that again without objection. item four, please. >> clerk: item four is ordinance business and tax regulations code to suspend temporarily application of the business registration and fee requirements for transportation network companies drivers and taxi drivers. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i think we have amanda from our treasurer office. >> good afternoon supervisors. the state passed senate bill 182 last year which prohibits treasurer from requiring drivers to register as a business if they live outside of san fran. this is in stark can tras to treatment of all -- contrast to all other independent contractors who do business in san fran regardless of where they -- san francisco regardless of where they live. it undermined our business licensing authority. the city was on record opposing

this legislation and we are now challenging the validity of the law in court. in the interest of fairness as the lawsuit proceeds, we wanted to avoid a situation where a small group of businesses, tnc drivers who live in san francisco and taxi drivers continue to play. this ordinance is crafted as a tempora temporary resolution of the business license. thanks. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. i wanted to know what the anticipated impact on our revenues would be as a result of this? i'm not questioning the impetous. i think it is really great you brought this forward to us. i wanted to know what we are expecting in terms of the impacts on revenues. >> we estimate it is less than $200,000. in reality most tnc drivers even

if they live in san francisco probably wouldn't come forward and register which is why we oppose the legislation. it is covering taxi drivers left in that category. >> supervisor tang: thank you. that sounds very minimal. okay. colleagues do we have any other further questions or comments about this one? >> supervisor kim: no questions, but i just want to completely agree with the direction. it is really unfortunate that the state passed a bill prevents localities from requiring worker who is do business in san francisco for applying and paying for a business license. out of fairness for the drivers, i think this makes sense. it is unfortunate this is before us. thank you for your work with supervisor peskin and our treasurer. >> supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you. how long do you anticipate this suspension to take? >> it is drafted in its current form for two years. rescinds automatically after two years without any action from

the board. >> supervisor safai: that would be $200,000 annually? >> yes. less. >> supervisor safai: what's the anticipation of the time on the lawsuit? >> i would defer to the city attorney on that. but they crafted it to align. >> supervisor tang: deputy city attorney. >> sorry about that. deputy city attorney andrew shin. i don't know the answer off the top of my head but i could have my office reach out to your office and provide an update. >> supervisor safai: that would be good. i agree with what supervisor kim said as well as chair tang. this is the right thing to do to level the situation. but i just always kind of think of it from the fiscal perspective. if it is around $200,000 or a little less for over two years, how do you all plan to back fill

that? that's a loss of revenue for your office, correct? >> no. it goes into the general fund. >> supervisor safai: right. that's a loss to the general fund. okay. just wanted to be clear on that. otherwise, i agree. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you all. so, at this time we will open up item four to public comment if there are no further questions. any members of the public comment on item four. >> public: thank you supervisors. taxi workers alliance, mark rueberg. i want to thanks supervisor peskin for bringing this forward. sb-182 was really just piling it on to a whole bunch of other laws and rules that treat cab drivers unfairly visa vi

transportation network company drivers. and actually treats everybody who pays a business license fee in san francisco unfairly as opposed to tnc drivers because they are the only ones who are exempted under state law to my knowledge. so, this will inject a little bit more fairness into it and owing to the fact that cab drivers would always be exempted at least during the period that this lawsuit goes forward. and we hope and pray for its success. as you are keenly aware, i'm sure, cab drivers have been suffering mightily over the past few years owing to the discrepancies in regulations between the two forms of

service, which are really identical or so close to it that you can't make that distinction [bell]. >> public: and i just urge you to pass this. it will be of some help to cab drivers and if you see your way clear to make this a permanent exemption for cab drivers that can been appreciated. >> supervisor tang: thank you. public comment is closed. colleagues, motion on item four. >> supervisor safai: make a motion to end it to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: all right. we will do that without objection. mr. clerk, any other items before us today? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned].

>> ever wonder about programs the city it working think to make san francisco the best place to work and will we bring shine to the programs and the people making them happen join us inside that edition of what's

next sf sprech of market street between 6th is having a cinderella movement with the office of economic workforce development is it's fairy godmother telegraph hill engaged in the program and providing the reason to pass through the corridor and better reason to stay office of economic workforce development work to support the economic vital of all of san francisco we have 3 distinctions workforce and neighborhood investment i work in the tenderloin that has been the focus resulting in tax chgsz and 9 arts group totally around 2 hundred thousand square feet of

office space as fits great as it's moved forward it is some of the place businesses engaged for the people that have living there for a long time and people that are coming into to work in the the item you have before you companies and the affordable housing in general people want a safe and clean community they see did changed coming is excited for every. >> oewd proits provides permits progress resulting in the growth of mid businesses hocking beggar has doubled in size. >> when we were just getting started we were a new business people never saturday a small business owner and been in the bike industry a long needed help in finding at space and sxug the that is a oewd and others

agencies were a huge helped walked us through the process we couldn't have done it without you this is sloped to be your grand boulevard if so typically a way to get one way to the other it is supposed to be a beautiful boulevard and fellowship it is started to look like that. >> we have one goal that was the night to the neighborhood while the bigger project of developments as underway and also to bring bring a sense of community back to the neighborhood. >> we wanted to use the says that a a gathering space for people to have experience whether watching movies or a yoga or coming to lecture. >> that sb caliber shift on the street is awarding walking down

the street and seeing people sitting outside address this building has been vacate and seeing this change is inspiringing. >> we've created a space where people walk in and have fun and it is great that as changed the neighborhood. >> oewd is oak on aortas a driver for san francisco. >> we've got to 23ri7b9 market and sun setting piano and it was on the street we've seen companies we say used to have to accompanying come out and recruit now they're coming to us. >> today, we learned about the office of economic workforce development and it's effort to foster community and make the buyer market street corridor something that be proud of thanks to much for watching and tune in next time for

>> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or

more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind

of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so

that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse. and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger.