control. i think ultimately what will stop development is that the city grinds to a headligalt. it's one of the issues that makes the city functional, equitiable, and makes the city work. if we miss this opportunity, we don't have another chance. thank you. [please stand by for captioner switch]

and what isn't drawn from there is citywide resources for what is a citywide transportation network.

i had the pleasure of serving on the task force. what we identified was the need for a mix of funding sources for transportation over the next couple days. and this, while it is not a silver bullet, it is a down payment to address the most pressing transportation needs. thank you. >> any others, please line on app. >> thank you, good afternoon. i am on the board of the san francisco transit riders. as mostly a transportation guy, i hear a lot that the city's top priorities are homelessness and housing. but transportation needs to be a priority too. this is not a matter of what is number 1 and what is number 2 and what is number 3 or number 4. we need to pursue transportation equally along at the same time. and housing and transportation are hopelessly interconnected. that is why our transportation justice coalition includes housing advocates as well as

transportation advocates and others. this is a very holistic. we all participated in good faith in the city's transportation task force. and as you have heard, as you know, we recommended a funded program for hundred million dollars a year based on the prop jay plan. but our preferred funding source as supervisor peskin explained, it is now, you know, being used as a source for two other measures going on the june ballot. as such, we need to look at the other funding sources that are available to us. some of what may end up on the ballot and under control of the board. this is one of those that is under the control of the board. we urge you to support this very strongly, you know, as a down payment on hitting our overall transportation needs. the transportation impact development fee was mentioned at

the beginning. when that was originally imposed, it corrected 50 % of the cds. athe next this cost as part of that fee. even with the increase this is within 25 %. we strongly urge you to support this program. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker. >> both of whom were members of the task force 2045. we are both speaking in support of the increase in fees. i want to try to make a couple of points. can i have the... this is from the original 2015 transit sustainability fee nexus. it assumed 5320 jobs created in

the nonresidential sector every year for the period that they looked at sustainability fee is. the planning department, however in 2015, points out that we are doing really well. we are producing, in the period of 2010 to 2014, 30,000 jobs a year and it basically, downtown san francisco. we want to talk about sustainability. the sustainability of the city requires a massive public investment in public transit. the answer in the original study was a see. the next this study justified nonresidential costs for nonresidential costs not counting pdr was $80.16 ohms --

68 cents a square foot. we are talking about may be raising it to 22. what is unsustainable is not funding a transit system that works for all san franciscans. it is not sustainable for this political body to say that the only way we can pay for transit is a sales tax. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again chairs and supervisors. i am here today to speak in favour of the transportation sustainability fee. as other speakers and supervisors have pointed out, our unfunded needs for transportation capital and operating currently grow into the billions. we do not have, at this moment, be clearly identified source of funding to address those needs. if not did this, than what?

i look to members of this board to take our needs seriously. to act within their powers to address them and to come up with some reasonable proposals to help fund our many and growing transportation needs. to me and to our coalition, folks you have also heard from, a transportation sustainability fee seems like one piece of the puzzle to help address that. it is troubling to me that we, after going through a lengthy process, many others mentioned the transportation 2045 task force that we left that process with a plan and we still have no identified task forward to find the needs that are contained within that plan. i would urge you to support this and i would furthermore urge this body to think very carefully about the impacts of a potential repeal of the gasoline task -- tax and senate bill one. it could be that in a year's time from now, we find ourselves

sitting here talking about cuts rather than raising revenue. thank you. >> supervisor tang: -- >> supervisor safai: thank you very much. >> i'm speaking for myself. we have not had time to consider the details of this matter and we will likely like to weigh in later. as an individual living here for 25 years, i can, i thank you for bringing up this issue again. the initial transportation sustainability fee was way too little. and now we are looking at too little and also too late. infrastructure is an impossibly difficult task. it is no wonder that the citizens are up in arms about mpa. i wish that you could join us monthly when our baseball transportation committee meets. just last week, we are looking

at so many retrofitted improvement projects and not enough roads to reroute traffic, that there are simply no places to go. the effect is going to be that if you do nothing, development will stop anyway because you cannot get anywhere or do anything. if you do too much, too much is still too late. i hope that you find the high level of that sweet spot. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public would like to comment too? please come up. public comments closed. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam chair. i hope with the committee will see fit to adopt the amendments that i have before you and then i want to afford to the

representative from the sfmta the opportunity to address this item in the committee. >> supervisor tang: mr jones? -- miss jones? >> thank you very much. planning director s. at the mta. i am not going to cover all the points that i have, although i am here and some additional individuals here to ancillary -- answer detailed questions about funding. but i did want to add some details around what the funds are for and how they are used and also the overall funding gap that we have around transportation. so the tee 23 task force which is a precursor to the other task force that we have been discussing, that group was convened in 2013 and recognize there are three sources of transportation system

improvements needs. the core needs which are basically keeping what we already have in good shape and operating well, the enhanced needs, which are looking at better serving san francisco as it was in 2013, and expansion. which is growing the system to meet expected needs in the future. and that last piece, expand, that's what thiswhat the ts act. a lot of the gaps and the needs that we have our about dealing with what the current system entails, but the expand is a very key piece of it. and so as was mentioned, that tool at the time was the transit and park development fee. the idea that really that was not capturing all of the impacts of development. so if you do not mind going to the overhead.

this is a very hasty table i would have gotten an f. on and six grade because i did not identify sources or units, but basically, it did not capture residential development at all. and it had, you know, little over seven dollars a square foot on production distribution repair. and between, you know, 12 and some are short of 15 for commercial. that his office and retail development. there's a lot of categories in here, but this is collapse pretty significantly. so in 2015, as has been mentioned and referred to a lot, multiagency work did a nexis study to assess the level of impact of new development on the transportation system, as well as feasibility studies. the nexus for residential developments, you can see in the

middle column, and then that compares to what words adopted based on feasibility. the feasibility study primarily focused on how the fee would affect residential development and it seemed mindful of a view towards not increasing housing costs. so in terms of what has come to an ca and going to regional agency since that time, we have received six and a half million dollars in funds since the fee was established. there's a lot of grandfathering built in at the time and a lot of development that has been subject to other agreements. so it has been six and a half million dollars which has been pretty much aligned with what was expected and we are budgeting for more over time and looking at pretty much doubling that next years. six and a half million dollars for the next fiscal year. and then four years beyond, around eight to $10 million

based on the projections that we have been given from the planning department. these funds are at -- allocated according to a citywide memorandum of understanding and they go to transit service expansion and reliability, transit capital, regional improvement, and complete streets. so we have used the capital portion for efforts such as transit signal priority which allow buses to move through the streets faster, and i only raise this because it can't -- in contrast to the types of transportation improvements that get directly funded by development projects, which are really about improvements that are clearly connected to and benefiting the project, it is something we can use on the system overall to make the whole system work better citywide it. it was a fee that is looking at citywide impacts. all of the parts of how

transportation works in one location are very much connected to what is happening in another location. it gives us the ability to look at that. so what we are looking at her future uses of these funds are critical projects like the 16th street project. again more signal prioritization again more signal prioritization near-term implementation of efforts underway like the bayview community-based transportation plan. so we have talked about what the proposed increase would do which brings me to the need for transportation funding. as has been mentioned. it was working from a starting point of $22 billion in need. the transportation and sustainability team was recognized across the process of not necessarily a source of a large amount of revenue, but it was a valued or policy reasons

and for reasons of equity. so the task force process focus was on the higher revenue generating forces. but a strong coalition of task force members, many of whom you have heard from today, supported the increase as part of an overall package for those reasons. and again, as i mentioned, we are in a place where a lot of the revenue sources are under debate or uncertain. we do have regional managers on the ballot which is great, but the other thing that is coming up on the ballot is a repeal of senate bill will -- one. we cannot emphasize how big of an issue that is. that $22 billion in need was identified, assumed that the bill was in place. so we would be further in the hole if that is successful. and we are definitely hoping i'm going to be working toward it not to being a successful repeal. and then, again, the gross receipt tax. there's a lot of competing

consideration around that revenue. so we are fighting a fight and want to keep the discussion open on all aspects of transportation funding. i just want to close with a reminder and a message of urgency. the reminder is that in order to keep the city running, it has been recognized at all levels that we now need to have a goal of 80 % of all trips being in sustainable modes by the year 2030. reaching that goal will take a lot of investment and a lot of hard to trade off. and then the urgency, i just want to close with, is about the need for transportation funding. i cannot emphasize enough that we cannot have an equitable or economically healthy city without dealing with our transportation needs. and land use planning needs to be supported by transportation. the city that we are all envisioning together, it's going to need a far more robust system to support it and what we are able to provide for now. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you mr jones for that run through. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank

you madam chair. colleagues, and thank you to miss jones for that, i think, startling -- starting startlingly important testimony. i realize that i submitted an amendment which i asked previously that a committee member make. but i would respectfully like to ask you to consider changing that amendment a little bit. which is, if a member of this committee would like to duplicate the file, and accept the centrosome in it's entiret, which we can then trail until after the commission hears this and i realize that that is where the bulk of the value is, and move forward with the five-dollar fee, particularly in light of which miss jones showed

relative to nexus and described thi describedthe history, if wee central soma, i would ask that one of you, if you see fit, to duplicate the file and i guess i cannot duplicate the file, because i'm not on the committee anymore. and, so, take out of the title, be long title at line five, where the fee for such projects would be, increased by two dollars. so just accept in the central soma plan area, and then we would make the corresponding change, presumably, in the tab table, at page 3 and remove the

central soma and take that up subsequently, so at least we can show the people of san francisco that while we have been, while they said no to a sales tax, while we decide to not move forward with an office rent tax, which would have had an absolute nexus to downtown office building owners and their tenants because virtually two thirds of our transportation, public transportation infrastructure goes to or from the dead -- the downtown core, that at least we can get something done here today. so i will leave you with that. but at some point, we have got to find a dedicated source of revenue, and that point was several years ago. >> supervisor tang: thank you supervisor peskin. before we act on your suggestion, you know, it is

really not lost on me how much money will always continue to need for transportation and how we really need to link land use with transportation funding as well. however, you know, one question that i have, you know, and the points all made them back to our 2016 conversation on this very topic, and some of the point that were made at the meeting were being considered a two-dollar increase back then, was that, you know, through transects it was the first time we expanded the fees to residential projects. through their we increase the fees for commercial development. and so when i look at the analysis i was presented to us to shows that, with a five-dollar increase, we would generate potentially about 26 $.4 million of additional revenue, but if you take out all the central -- the central soma projects, it means i would only be about 3.2 million. correct me if i am wrong, but is this -- this is just based on

this project in our conversation earlier. i just don't want us to, you know, think that bypassing this we are actually generating hundreds of millions of dollars. it might just be $3 million. so, again, i hear the principles and i agree with them but the additional amount of revenue might just be three-point to. supervisor kim? >> supervisor peskin: i do not want to disagree with our experts who have deposited those respective numbers of $26 million in change and $3 million in change. but i do want to put it in, and i do want to acknowledge that when we change the transit impact development fee into the t.s.f., that we did something that was pretty amazing which was that we captured residential development. i think that is very, very important, and as miss jones said, and made a very conscious decision to not burden residential development with additional use.

i am not actually arguing any of that here. had we raised the t.s.f. for office whether it was by two dollars or five dollars with central soma or without central soma, back in the day, we would have captured projects like the salesforce power. which would have still been built, which would still be occupied, and we'd have actually mitigated some of the impacts that it had, but we didn't do that. so i am not arguing that $3 million is less than $26 million, but i am arguing that sending a message or willing -- where we are willing to put our laws where needs and our mouth is its very important. i asked the divided question. i do not want to send any message to the people of san francisco that we have solved our transportation woes with an amine make 3 million bucks but i want to send a message we are

totally serious about this and we will tackle central soma and a appropriately fiscal weight in the meek -- weeks and months ahead. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that response and i think that my other point is that a majority of the projects that, you know, were analysed and potentially would be impacted by these increases are in the central soma. i understand where it potentially trying to carve it out however what we are left with is just such a small amount of projects. again, only bringing three-point to an additional funds, you know, i do not know what kind of a message we are really sending because if we do want to send a message, it would probably be to incorporate all of the projects, even central soma. and i also do think it is really important that we make that clear distinction between what was in the nexus study versus what is in a feasibility study, because i think sometimes we tend to conflate them and so, we think that just because a nexus study justifies a certain dollar amount, that is what projects

should be able to do. supervisor kim? spee for just a couple of things that i will note, while -- spee four, while i think the numbers maybe disappointing, it is still $3 million. i think it is important that we look at the impact transit fees regardless of what it generates. because i do not know if the message is a great way to frame this, but it is important that developers do you pay their fair share of the impact of what they're having with building and construction and we want to make sure they are contributing to our transit infrastructure. so i have always thought that this was the right knee. it was what i had supported two years ago. just because it does not generate, you know, millions and millions of dollars, more than 3 million, i do not think it is a reason we should not move forward with this. i feel comfortable with that. i do appreciate supervisor peskin duplicating the file and

letting us discuss the appropriate fee for the central soma plan because it is not just about transit within the central soma plan. we have higher expectations for a developer contribution to affordable housing and also maintenance of many of the infrastructure is that we plan on building within the central soma plan. so for me, it is not about, should be raised it? of course we should raise t.s.f. but in balance with the other acts that we are asking developers. i want to make sure we have a right balance in terms of what we are asking them to contribu contribute, and housing or transportation, because i think we are asking for a lot and it is a good thing. i want to make sure that we examine the need to increase in balance with our other developers of the central soma plan. so i would support supervisor peskin. i will make the motion to duplicate the file and make the

amendments to move forward. it is tremendously important that we do this. you know, i just want to say, there are times that i will negotiate and fight over one or two or three additional affordable housing units and sometimes the criticism that i will get is that it is only one or two or three more units. is that really meaningful? i have to say, when you meet that family or show that resistance, it is very meaningful to the lives of the individuals. these units are not always the same thing, but i do think that we should be doing what we can to be -- to more greatly contribute because we are just not. >> supervisor tang: thank you. just to confirm with supervisor peskin, you are still proposing a five-dollar increase for all the noncentral soma projects? >> supervisor peskin: that is correct and well well below the nexus and still significantly below the 2015 feasibility. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i know that supervisor kim

mentioned earlier that she supported the previously fee but i think the previous one that was recommended was actually just a dollar. so i just want to make that clear that that is what was voted on in 2016. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you i appreciate it. there is a lot of good things and i am glad we decided to have further analysis of central soma since 88 % of the proposed to be that would be impacted by this proposal. i do think that what i heard from the planning department is that they had not done a full analysis of what five dollars would be outside of central soma. they looked at it and it they said it was not apples to oranges. i appreciate the spirit with which supervisor peskin is trying to move forward something that makes a strong statement. i do think development projects absolutely should be the value that they are imposing on the

overall city and the impact that they are making is tremendous. i think that when you talk about, i mean we had this conversation with the transportation authority this morning, a lot of the projects and central soma, for example still allow for a certain number of parking. people do drive in from all over the bay area to those offices and offices downtown and have a significant impact on san francisco in a way that is different from residential projects where people have multiple -- multiple forms of choice to access their jobs. i think there is a lot more conversation that needs to be had before we would split the file and move a conversation forward in terms of what would be done outside of central soma. i'm glad that we are slowing down the conversation because central soma is imminent. there will be a lot of discussion and land-use and in multiple committees and in the planning department. i think i heard the planning department say thadepartment sat fault for not scheduling and having this conversation sooner than we are now. we are where we are and these

conversations are going to move forward. i would probably hold off on doing anything outside of central soma or in central soma until we have further analysis from the planning department and have them say to us what the actual impact of what a five-dollar fee or two-dollar fee, whatever the feet might be outside of central soma. so i probably would not support that motion today. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i do respectfully say that i want to posit and say that if you believe that all of these projects should pay for their impacts, we should not be having a conversation over five dollars but we should be having conversation set forth in the nexus as displayed by admits jones upwards of like $80. so and i am happy, do you want to speak? >> i do want to say that when you raise a fee that becomes the

conversation that inevitably, and five or ten years later, becomes the baseline to the next conversation about raising fees. i mean when i was first on the board and we experienced that post- 911 economic downturn, we reevaluated, literally, scores, dozens and dozens of fees that not had not been raised from you name it. marriage fees to parking fees, et cetera, that was back before we gave mr jones the ability or the commissioner to raise parking fees or what have you, fines. and that became the baseline for another decade. and so i mean having these conversations are never easy and i get it. developers are in business presumably to make money and return money to their investors and that is all well and fine. you provide jobs and in some cases housing that some of us can afford.

but it is time to bite the bullet, brothers and sisters on the board, and supervisors. or, you know, let's stop playing the games of, you know, this other tax and that other tax, if you want the city to function, it has to have a transportation system that works. if you do not want to be -- if you do not want me to be your chair, that is fine, that is our collective responsibility to crack that 100 million-dollar not. >> supervisor tang: thank you supervisor peskin. i do not disagree with you. again, i applaud you for how you were trying to rein us all in and make sure we are addressing our transportation needs. again i want to be super realistic that it is $320 million that we're talking about with this particular legislation. especially if we do duplicate and separate out the file. >> supervisor peskin: not to be argumentative, that $3.2 million which presumably, if the numbers are right, represents a tenth of the projects, is not going to kill any developments outside of central soma.

so why not -- >> supervisor tang: you do we know that for a fact? >> thank you for letting me commenting. at the metrical use is a little different. as the effect on landfill you -- value which is a standard procedure. think that it pushes the limit pretty closely, you know, i think that you can make an argument that outside of central soma it maybe more feasible. i think we can say that much. i wanted to remind the committee that you central soma tier a and b. projects, the ones that are the lesser in the intensive seat -- intensity, in addition to t.s.f. will play -- pate $21 and a fee and other pieces of the total that they would pay is just shy of $60 a square foot. the tear see projects will participate where the half a billion dollars in transit funds will come from.

just remind you, we forgot to mention that earlier. we are actually a little bit closer to the nexus than what we have been talking up heart and centrosome a. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not arguing that. hats off. how to meet had value recapture outside of centrosome over the last many decades, we would be having a entirely different conversation, which is why initially the chair offered the five dollars down to two dollars for central soma. we can easily capture outside of central soma five bucks. i thought it was anemic for a first ask. [ laughter ] >> supervisor tang: supervisor tim? >> supervisor kim: i also have to state that supervisor peskin introduced this in the beginning of february and over the course of three and a half months, i have not heard from a single developer complaining about this proposal. and not to say that is indicative of weather this pencil out, i certainly imagine that, if that is not the case,

that we will hear from them in due course. certainly during the project approval, and as someone who wants to make sure that projects get approved, i think that we can re-examine the fee or work with the project sponsor and specific instances if they feel that this is the reason why their project will not pencil out. that we will be able to work with them on it. so what i will do is i will make a motion to duplicate the file. and to then read into the record the amendment that supervisor peskin has put in. so one file, i guess, excluding any changes to the central soma plan. i imagine we would have to put it in an affirmative language. city attorney, to ensure the five-dollar increase excludes projects within the central soma plan to one file and then to continue the existing amended

file through the call of the chair. >> yes, supervisor peskin's amendment but he distributed basically have two different categories. there is all nonresidential except for areas in the central soma plans that are set at five dollars and central soma is that a two-dollar increase, that we would be wiping out the two-dollar increase and leaving the language that says we are going up to five dollars for all nonresidential, except in the central soma plan area. >> supervisor kim: okay. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i believe that is not debatable, correct? the duplication of the file? supervisor peskin? sorry i mean supervisor safai. >> supervisor kim: the duplication of the file isn't but i did make an amendment to amend it.

with recommendation. so i have duplicated file one. i will leave it with the committee to call the chair, but on a separate motion, i will make the motion to amend the first file as stated by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor tang: can we do that without objection on the amendment? we will do that without objection. and now i would like to make a motion to move forward the first file to the full board with positive recommendations. do we need a roll call? >> on the motion stated by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: no. >> supervisor tang: we took the amendment already. >> the motion to defer to the full board with recommendation? >> supervisor tang: just to clarify, this is the item that did not contain central soma. >> and just a fee, the five-dollar increase? >> supervisor tang: that is correct.

>> on the motion, as stated, members... [roll call] >> supervisor tang: with that said i want to continue this overall conversation. my goal is not to have this dying committee, i want us to continue all of it. both the duplicated and amended file. either to call the chair or may 21st, whichever you prefer, because i do know that t.s.f. will be heard, i'm sorry, it will be heard at planning commission on may 17th and central soma will be heard on may 10th and back here on june 25th. i am open to when you would like to continue this. >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam chair.

it was actually to that specific issue that i wanted to speak, which is in so far as a matter of charter law, the planning commission has lost jurisdiction over this matter and insofar as i have no intention of introducing a resolution to extend their time to review it. i don't have to wait for mr starr or planning department stopped to send us a report. we will listen to what they have to say on the 17th and it would be great if we could take this up again on the 21st. so with all respect to supervisor kim, i would prefer if they could be continued until a date certain on the 21st. >> supervisor tang: originally i meant to the file will be continued to call the chair, but i would also like to continue this to may 21st. >> supervisor safai: point of clarification, it will be heard at planning on the 17th and central soma is coming to planning, when? >> supervisor peskin: may

10th. >> supervisor tang: you may tend. >> supervisor safai: it will come to the full board? >> supervisor tang: it will come hundred 25th. >> supervisor safai: it has to go to land and rules, i think it is two committees that has to go through from my understanding. anyway, i know that for a fact. anyway, the order of that, but supervisor, that does not impact the conversation from your perspective? we will have the benefit of the planning department and plannine commission deliberations on both items by the 21st. >> supervisor tang: okay so with that said, sorry deputy state attorney? >> one housekeeping question. you now have two files. one with the five-dollar increase for the noncentral soma plan and one for a five-dollar increase in a two-dollar increase for central soma. is the committee's intention to continue both of those files, or to rescind and just keep the one file alive and deal with that one at your next meeting? >> supervisor peskin: as a

matter of housekeeping, i think it would be fine, and thank you supervisor kim through the chair, duplicating the file. if we detailed the five-dollar file and move forward with the five-dollar, two-dollar file and deal with it on the 21st. >> which one is moving forward? >> supervisor tang: we're just giving the original. >> supervisor peskin: the original as amended. >> supervisor tang: the imaginal -- original adds recommended. can we do that without objection? okay. and then we will, so now we have one version, again, and that one, two we have to make another amendment to that version or is it already done? okay. great. can we have a motion to continue that item to make the 21st? okay. thank you very much supervisor peskin. and staff. okay, now if we call item three.

>> item number 3 is a report to provide the implantation and x-linked -... >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you i have called this hearing so we can hear from our central market tenderloin citizens committee regarding the agreement called for under the central market and tenderloin pay area expense tax exclusion. for anyone that is unfamiliar with these agreements, they are a unique feature in which there is a contract between the company's participating -- companies participating in the payroll explosion, and the city. no other tax exclusion that the city provide such as stock option tax exclusion includes a feature that wrote provides companies after taking this benefit to get back tangibly to the community and to work with us in order to structure that agreement together. i also believe that it is worth

noting that since a board of supervisors did not have the authority to approve these contracts, we are unable to delegate that authority to them originally. i certainly would have supported that but i want to take the time to appreciate them for their work in advising and relationship building over the last seven years. we are now in the seventh year of this eight year program which started in mid 2011. the trent 81st met on september 2011 and that chalk -- tax exclusion is happening next year in 2019. the report today is there a way to provide them with ways to present an overview of the benefits that have provided to the community. recommendations on the board on issues and needs currently confronting our neighbourhoods and being addressed by these community benefit agreements, as well as the insight into the

pros and cons of the agreement. as this program ends over the next year, i think it is good for us to review what has gone well and what could be improved. if this city ever does consider taking up a program or incentives like this again, i also want to recognize the chair of the c.a.c. who has already approached the mike. i believe soon we will be joined by bill barnes from the city administrator's office. he stopped the c.a.c. and i'm like my committee members -- and if my community members have any comments... before you start i just want to say a heartfelt thank you so much for the hours of work and energy that you have put into the c.a.c. it is a volunteer job and we do not provide any benefits for the time that you spent in both hurting a lot of cats, getting people to meetings to get decorum and negotiating agreements on behalf of the community and spending time listening to the committee in

terms of what the many needs a are. your ability to listen thoughtfully and to bring people together, in a very divisive climate and to engage effectively and collaboratively bringing both resident stakeholders together as well as companies has resulted i believe intangible help for the tenderloin and central market neighbourhoods. i want to applaud you for all of your efforts. it is not easy to do. i want to hand the floor over to you. >> thank you very much. if we can have the slide show up. i was not quite sure how to get it all the way into its slideshow position. so what i want to say, first off, it is certainly been a difficult process in the early days. it was a very contentious and we still had moments of contention. the makeup of the committee started at 11 members with designated seat and we had three more, about a year ago, we ended

up with five people on the committee unable to fill the other seats. on the board of supervisors passed legislation to bring the number of seats down to five. now we have four members and one more member has informed me they are intending to drop. i wanted to point out the three members who remain are the three residents of the tenderloin. every member who was appointed with an expertise or a particular desire to extract particular interests out have fallen by the wayside as time has gone on. i want to applaud the members of our community who have really hung in there. the big thing that i would say that we have done is we have managed to keep good relationships with all the companies that we have been working with. can we just give you... can i speak it this one? okay. this year's community benefit, we have two new community benefit companies. we have continuing relationships

and we have multiyear agreements that we do not vote on with twitter and microsoft. out of all of these, there are literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and volunteer hours and in-kind donations and grants. and, you know, you can certainly look at our records to see what the content of that is. i will say that what i think is the two things we have been able to accomplish with this committee, especially in the last year, is ensuring that the level of the give back to the community has been higher than it would be had it been under ordinary circumstances and these are corporations doing ordinary levels of corporate giveback or corporate responsibility. having said that, i also do not think we had, efficient as supervisor kim said, teeth to really be able to enforces from some ways. one of the suggestions that came

up from the community quite a bit is that part of the benefit should have been lumped into a common pool that is in -- that the c.a.c. would be able to designate out. there would be an incentive with other partners of the community to participate on the c.a.c., but also so there would be much more attention onto how we could leverage those dollars as a whole. what has happened over the years, more and more dollars have been oriented towards small and specific favoured projects and certainly do not have the level of impacts that we would hope that they would have otherwise. so, having said all of that about what we have gotten suit so far, i want to talk about the one real accomplishment that we have had this year, which is, in the beginning, we really talked about ways to find ways to leverage the power of crowd sourcing of networking, of being able to bring in additional dollars to the common good. to be able to look at things

like acquisition funds, housing subsidies for people within the neighbourhood, various ways that we could pool resources and do substantial good for the common good. that never gained attraction for a variety of reasons. one of which being that there simply was more interested in kind of gaining patronize asian rather than being able to do the calming -- leveraging common good. what we were able to do this year, because we had the two needs -- to new companies and we had in the room parents from the tenderloin and midmarket area public schools, we started a conversation about how we could increase funding for the public schools. and one of the first signs that we had a great success around stats, was when, at the beginning of the year, the reading school neede school neel dollars for a literacy expert. all the companies gathered together and meet they raised

over $40,000 to ensure that literacy expert remained at the reading school and an additional $20,000 went to another school and to the tenderloin community school. that success has fuelled a process where the companies are collaborating with the parents of the midmarket public schools and they are looking to build a strategic plan that may raise between half a million and a million dollars a year and the next three years to support the schools in our neighbourhoods. the reason this is so important is that schools and other neighbourhoods that often have wealthier families and resources, when they suffer cuts, they are often able to raise three to five thousand dollars. when parents raise funds, they cannot compete and cannot fill the needs that they have. so by bringing together a collaboration with the various

companies, we believe they will be able to create some momentum. this is a way of creating resources for the schools that are not dependent on the bottom line of the cba companies but leveraging crowdsourcing and other ways to do the fundraising. this is our great success for this year. it is a model, i think, could be used in other c.a.c. circumstances. to look at how to take revenue from the bottom line of other companies that are receiving a benefit that to leverage those resources so that it is a substantial good that comes to the community. that is my report that's my hope is by the time we get going a little bit further we will have more to be able to tell you. spee do i just want to say thank you so much for this report. it is actually really encouraging to read that you and the c.a.c. have been at work ito

getting more concrete and specific contributions. particularly off to the local economy as well as local schools. we want the prosperity of these companies to extent of the neighbourhood, and i think it was frustrating initially when our businesses were not benefiting from new employees and new company it's coming to this commercial corridor that you have the highest commercial vacancy rate in the city. so getting them to commit to specific percentages and numbers on local purchases commitment really makes a big difference for the neighbourhood that they are a part of now. >> i would like to add to that it has been so interesting over the years that with every company that has been made, the biggest difference has been in front of the c.a.c. and being asked to do that. many of them would say, we have brought our vendors with us from other locations are really

looking to the largest city. in this instance we are able to generate more revenue for local businesses. supervisor safai i want to ask, what has been... >> supervisor tang: for both the community and the companies? >> i had some company -- some feedback from the companies and i would like to read just a couple of those. very often you would not be surprised to hear something like this from a twitter employee that he was a technical operations manager who joins the evictions defence collaborative and became part of their board, and has since then become a advocate in that area. he had done nothing around edge before and this is really opened his eyes. we also have people who say things like i cannot tell you how much volunteering in the tenderloin means to me. i feel very welcome when i walk around there. i really do. i do good work that makes me feel good and makes the world a

better place. but it is also worth it, and i reached out to the older companies as well, they say that they have learned that being present and engage with our community members and stakeholders helps to defuse the perceptions and assumptions of those members about our intentions as a tech company in the neighbourhood. we have been able to rehabilitate our selves in the neighbourhood. so i mean it has helped to improve relationships in that way. it has its limits as well. from one company, they unfortunately have been out priced out of the neighbourhood had and have had to leave. it is an interesting reflection that the real estate marketing -- market is working against some of the companies to take advantage of what is going on. but they said that they are not to their engagement has changed our relationship with the neighbourhood significantly. they hear frequent comments about stress of having the

written office and the location due to little improvement in the safety conditions around the office and the frequent negative interactions employees have with passing vagrants. that is reflective of the kind of engagement burnouts that we are seeing in the whole emphasis on volunteering. i have been to volunteering where people say it does not get better and i will ask, how long have you been volunteering? two years. we think wow. you must have been here for 20 or 30 years and still seeing the same struggle. that is a key piece of it. that relationship with people who are new to the neighbourhood and finding a way that we can say this is about the long haul as new neighbours and you need to have the same commitment that we have here as well. it will not be instantaneous. this is the ongoing work that we have to do. >> supervisor tang: what you hope to achieve before the end of the tax exclusion program next year? >> my latest hope is that this public project will allow us to

build momentum toward a public goods. not only do i want us to be able to raise a kind of money that i think we can, the 500,000 to 8 million for a public schools, i would like the conversation to shift for the employees of these companies, why do we have to raise this money privately? what is going on with the public school system that there aren't enough funds for the schools forward to schools on the rest of the city? and i start looking at things like... how should i vote on that? what happens to our tax dollars? even the materials that we are talking about here today, we have to talk more about the common good as a matter of, i need to pay part of my wealth generation back into the community so we all have a quality of life. i think the process can really help us do that and if we can launch this particular project in an affirmative way, we may find we will have those conversations with at least discrete groups of employees who are captured by this and we maybe able to extend that out to other things, like it is better

to be on public transportation than on a private transportation. because you share the experience of the city with other people and you're able to develop that empathy. you will be able to reap the benefits of everything that we do as we pay into our community. so it is a grandiose scheme for a very small community with very few people, but i think our work is paying off, if we can get them on some of the others to be committed in the longer period, even after what occurs. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. do you mind naming some of the members of the c.a.c.? >> absolutely. the ever reliable and to annetta. she is so reliable. whenever i have the greatest fears about forum, if i know she is the one who will make it, i have no. whatsoever. someone who shows up every time and has shown up since the very

beginning. and steve as well. >> supervisor tang: and to annetta also served on the south of market redevelopment c.a.c. as well which means she has been attending many meetings for very long time and being a very reliable forum member for over a decade. thank you, so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: i do see mr barnes is here today and i want to give him an opportunity to speak if you would like. seeing no presentation, wanting to open it up for public comment on this item. >> yeah, i have been involved with a central market planning board and also to the north of market. a slight refocusing. it is a good segue. i have been involved a long time. from its high point in the sixties when mayor shelley was mayor to it's a very, very long decline in the area to the point

where around the turn-of-the-century, and erin mentioned this, it had the highest vacant storefront rate in the entire city. under that situation, two mares and a lot of developers really pushing to turn that area into a redevelopment area which have been high cost, loaded, unbalanced, at a massive welfare program for overpaid, extraneous professional bureaucrats. we really did not want it. i would like to correct some ideas that i hear in progressive circles. what we came up with, this is, the community came up with this idea for the tax break. and the reason it was is because we were being faced with a redevelopment plan that we did not want and would not work for us. and it was the least worst option available. one thing that everyone should know, this plant did not originate with jane kim. it came from the community. we came up with it.

it was the least worst option available and jane was our aid in getting it passed. it worked overnight. it was revitalized and two years. my only issue is that for many years ago, it is not a net benefit to the city, it is not a net benefit to the city. you probably should have been closed to new applicants years ago, and finally, i see the board of supervisors is getting ready to close to new applicants and i'm glad that you have the power to do that finally. i also want to say i am pleased that we have people like sam dennison in our neighbourhood yotocan do the heavy lifting. [captioner switch]]