molly and the treasurer's staff. i think they've done really an amazing job for what they were given? i just think personally, it may actually be good not to focus on specific issues yet and just basic -- focus on the basics of how to create a public bank 'cause the issues could very well change over time. i mean, i totally agree affordable housing is the issue now, but if we put all hands on that, what if it changes in a few years? i think we need to focus now on just how to get a bank going, and then it can change over time, renewable energy, affordable housing, infrastructure, etcetera. and i think that the main reason we're doing this is because of divestment because public bank is inevitable and we're doing this because sf has always led the way with banning plastic bag, day marriage, and public bank tz. so i think sf can really lay

the way in how to do this? i think when you look at what these current wall street banks invest in, bampg of america poured 14 billion into fossil fuels, and the taxpayer. so when you factor in the externalalities, it's too expensive not to do a bank? so yeah, i'm just really excited. i think we need an all hands on deck approach, just like the golden state warriors approach, pass to whoever's open, but let's get this done. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, curtis. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is trevor martin and a member of the berniecrats and public bank coalition. i would also want to commend everyone on their work on a public bank. thank you everyone at the

treesher treasurer's office. i'd like to say i'm glad they've moved past the feasibility question. everyone says it's feasible, but a question of good policy, i don't think there's a question of whether it's good policy. mr. brooks gave you numbers. i'll tell you what's not good policy, investing in funding industries that are killing and brutalizing our communities. you know, fossil fuel industry and the gun manufacturing industries, and the prison industries. it is good policy to -- to use our money to benefit ourselves and our communities, and i would also just like to say that the solution -- you know, i just want to ensure that the

solution is a public bank, a municipal bank. and i'm -- and i'm -- whether -- you know, i understand that's going to take steps to get there, and i don't want everything at once. i understand that, but i want the end outcome to be a public bank. as commissioner pollock said, i've been with the sfd fund apo as billion, after four years, we got to that meeting at sf'ers, and i felt like something was going to happen, and we just came out of there with another plan to make a plan, and it just infeweriated me. like you said, this should have happened a decade ago. we need to make this happen. we need a public bank. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chairman. next speaker, please. >> thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. chad holtsman, senior policy analyst for 350 bay area but speaking for myself as a

language time san franciscans. i want to thank the treasurer and the great staff for the great attitude which i don't always see from city departments. i do think that, i guess the comments by curtis and trevor are worth -- this is kind of focusing on the positive aspects of the bank, potential positive aspects, and i think what we're highlighting is the averted negative aspects of not doing this, which is -- which is also i want to bring into the room, have led the campaign to divest your pension fund from fossil fuels and there is some movement on that, but getting the city itself to stop spending its money where its mouth isn't would be a great start. really love this rank choice distribution of norms or goals, rather? i just want to highlight as so many used to do qualitative and quantitative data mining, that the three in the middle are for

all intents and purposes, the same. you can't really say that 33 and 31 are different, like, in any significant factor? so i happen to be an infrastructure fan, so i'm kind of propg up infrastructure. 2, 3, and 4 are kind of the same, so moving forward, i would hope you would consider them such. going forward, i think more constituencies are better? so i think one thing focusing on what to start the bank around is that thing bank? and nationwide, i think it's going to get framed as such, and then, the folks who don't want the land to be taken by affordable housing will oppose the bank, whereas the bampg is around two or three things, all of those constituencies can support that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed.

[ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: so i don't think we have to make an action item on this item. so i am wondering, madam clerk, could you please call items six and seven together? >> clerk: [agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, my apologies, but i must make a motion to continue these two items due to the time constraints. again, my apologies for being here late, too. i just have another meeting right after there, so i would like to make a motion to continue these two items until the next meeting of lafco. >> clerk: madam chair, we still need to take public comment, though. >> supervisor fewer: yes, and now i'd like to take public comment on items six and seven. seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, so can we take that

motion without objection to continue the item? thank you very much. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item eight? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you. is there any public comment today? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, is there any further items? >> clerk: we still have item number nine, future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: okay. we need to open that up. is there any further agenda items? >> eric brooks. since you're in a hurry, i'll make this quick. it is vital that on your next agenda, and i've spoken to brian about this, this you take up legislation that is in sacramento so that we can make some decisions about it, particularly sb -- or ab 813, which unfortunately i recently

discovered for some unknown crazy reason cal cca is supporting and that does not make sense. and so we need to have a discussion of this, and i can't highlight enough that loretta lynch who's a former kpafl public utilities commission president, i gave brian her -- california public utilities commission president, i gave brian her e-mail to get herrin put on why ab 813 is so drastically bad and we need to oppose it. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, is there any other business today? >> clerk: that concludes the business for today. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. the meeting is now adjourned.

>> when i open up the paper every day i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about the planet i want to leave for my children and other generation, i think of what contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. ♪ clean power sf is san francisco's key way of fighting climate change by renewable energy and offering it to san

francisco customers. i'm from the san francisco public utilities commission. the program came about with state wide legislation in 2002 to enable people to take more control over supplies. i first heard of the program when the organization was advocating to launch clean power sf. what i'm most excited about, it's going to bring 100% renewable energy to my home and reinvest into renewable energy infrastructure and jobs. i had gone to a lot of street fairs and heard from the staff at the san francisco public utilities commission to sign up for clean power sf even before it launched. >> we learned about clean power sf because our sustainability team is always looking for clean

operations. linkedin is the largest online network. there are about 530 million members using our site. in this san francisco office there's about 1400 employees working in roughly 400,000 square feet. >> after signing up for the program we heard about the san francisco program and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. i'm the co-owner of the new wheel electric bike shop. we opened this store in 2012 and the new wheel sells and services electric bikes. 11 people work here in san francisco and our store is about 2,000 square feet. electric bikes are fantastic for transportation in the city, they're clean and green and you get places faster than any other form of transportation. it amplifies the power, it doesn't replace it. it makes it easier to get places

by bicycle and it's so enjoyable and environmentally friendly way to go and more convenient in san francisco. >> clean power sf requires two products, green, 40% renewable and competitively priced with pg and e. for those who want to fight climate change more, 100% renewable at $0.02 per kilawatt. >> i decided to go with the super greens, after finding it only to cost about $5 more a month to have super green, that's a no-brainer, i can do that. >> we were pleased that clean power sf offers the super green 100% for commercial entities like ours and residents for the

city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services for linkedin and now encouraging our employees who have a residence in san francisco to sign on as well. >> clean power sf buys its power from renewable plants that feed the energy directly into the grid. >> there's a commitment to sustainability throughout the entire organization and this clean power opportunity reflects that. >> one of the wind farms we use is the shilo wind farm and that is large enough to be able to provide energy for up to 200,000 homes. >> our mission is sustainability, even though our bikes are minimal energy use, it still matters where the energy comes from and part of our mission in sustainability is how we run everything -- run our

business. having the lights come on with clean energy is very important. >> the sunset reservoir has solar panels that take up about four city blocks covering the reservoir and the solar power generates energy for city resources and clean power sf for residents participating in the program. >> it was easy to sign up for the program, i went online to cleanpowersf.org and i started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going to be switched over and it just happened. when i pay my bill, i still go to pg and e and i don't see any difference between now and a year ago. >> sign up online, just have your account number ready and it takes about two minutes and there's nothing to install. no lines are getting connected to your home. all the power goes through the

existed power grid. >> we haven't had any problems with the switch over to clean power. >> it's super easy to sign up. our book keeper signed up online, it took about 15 minutes. nothing changed but now we have cleaner energy. >> we see clean power sf as a key strategy to meet renewable energy goal, we have a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2020. currently we have enrolled about 86,000 customers across the city. about 20% of what we hope to serve in the future and in the next two years we'll offer service to all san francisco electricity customers. >> an easy way to align your environmental responsibilities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> joining clean power sf is one of the easiest ways to fight

climate change, receiving cleaner energy at low and stable rates, you're helping to support a not for profit that helps influence the energy grid and produce more production. >> i would encourage any business to seriously convert to the clean sf service. it's good for environment, business and the community. >> you can sign up online our call and the great thing is, you'll have the peace of mind that you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. ♪ ♪

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder

so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go

it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help

us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and

they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can

afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things

you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the

conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for >> i personally love the mega jobs.

i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪ we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet.

the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans

bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond

with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands.

>> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it.

>> welcome to our land use committee meeting of may 21, 2018. i'm katy tang, to my right, jane kim, to my left supervisor safai and we're joined by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, any announcements before us? >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and

electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the may 29 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> item number 1 is ordinance amending the planning code to increase the transportation sustainability fee by $5 for projects larger than 99,999 gross feet except in the central south of market area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair and colleagues, and thank you for the chair for scheduling this item and hearing it after the unfortunate scheduling snafu at planning, that was heard by the planning commission, though the 90 days

had lapsed and you're all in receipt of a letter dated friday, may 18, which indicates the unanimous recommendation for this legislation by the planning commission. as a matter of fact if you watch the planning commission hearing, commissioners representing a range of perspectives on the commission actually pushed back on the discussion around whether or not the $2 fee in the central soma should be higher. but we're overall in agreement that the $2 in the central soma plan was probably still too low. but recommended the tsf legislation that is before you today. the new protections put out by the planning department based on what is pepping in the pipeline, shows a significant compromise in the desire. in the desire to accommodate

concerns by the planning staff, even though their own study showed that a $5 increase was not only feasible, but actually a drop in the bucket. we've taken the projected revenue down from 23 million dollars to $12 million with this compromise, but we know that the numbers don't really give us an accurate prediction of the future, which is of course volatile. what is before us is a policy decision that i think we should have made some time ago before for instance, the sales force tower went up and the building that continues to be at a fever pitch throughout the city. today, we have the opportunity to really plan for the future and not make that same mistake again. we have the opportunity to create a transportation fee baseline now that can be reevaluated later and from time

to time, and i think we should redo the feasibility study from 2015, because i think we'll find there are other tiers that can be explored in this current hot market. and the vacancy and rental assumptions made by planning three years ago are out of date. but most importantly the lack of public outcry reinforces what the planning commission knows and said last thursday, these projects are absolutely feasible. that increase to transportation structure benefits these large commercial projects. and again, we heard this two weeks ago, we have a lot of public support, we did not hear any words of opposition. nor did the planning commission and a publicly noticed meeting last thursday, and with that,

colleagues, i commend this piece of legislation to you and i would like to thank all of the supporters we heard from at the last meeting. and hope that we can send this to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. colleagues, which other further comments, questions? all right. and do any of the department staff want to say anything? >> the san francisco planning department, i want to reiterate on may 17, the planning commission voted unanimously to support the proposed increase in the tsf, $2 in central soma and $5 elsewhere. that concludes the presentation, i'm here for questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. at this time, i'll open it up to public comment then for item number 1. >> my demonstration is not only

going to give information pertaining to the topic, but also the 30-day rule where agenda is going to take place pertaining to business and tax of the planning code of south market. in order for that tax code to be put into effect, i want to highlight this information should be taken under consideration. for the year, 2017, there is a total of $873,923,572 of uncollected taxes from twitter and nine other high-tech companies. this came out in 2017. the year before that, there was a total of $1,357,216,777 of uncollected taxes. that's a total of

2,271,171,143,of uncollected taxes. that is proof how the high tech companies are getting preferential treatment and it's putting a bind on all the departments and all the people that are economically disadvantaged and vulnerable and have a combination of mental and physical disabilities in our veterans and homeless people. you're wasting money on shelters when the truth of the matter is, this should be spent on low-income families to stop the homeless problem. safai asks how can you finance the homeless problem? i showed him $2 billion that has been wasted not collected from twitter and five other high tech companies. now it's nine high tech companies that is taking advantage of these tax breaks. these multibillion dollars companies don't need a break, the people that are

economically -- [bell ringing] -- and homeless on the street need a break. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jeremy polak, speaking on my lunch break, thank you for considering this. i would like to echo supervisor peskin's comments. i think in general i urge you to support this, at least as proposed here. it's clear to me that the central soma plan could stomach that $5 increase as well. i commend the planning staff on their work on the fiscal feasibility analysis. i think that's really helpful to have those numbers broken down, but that analysis is only as accurate as the data and assumptions that go into it. and seeing analysis based on $74 per square foot price when we saw facebook leasing part towers and that is over $100 square foot, is such a dramatic

increase, it shows what incredible demand and profitability there are in the large office towers and we know how much transportation and housing impacts those have. and we need to do a better job of capturing that value. that uncertainty in the cost and the assumptions in these analysis is what drives a lot of the problems we have in coming to an agreement on issues like this fee and inclusionary housing fee and i urge you to get more certainty and transparency in the numbers. and i think some way to look at the pro forma of the development projects to get a real idea of what the numbers are would go a long way to building trust in these debates we have. [bell ringing] and i think projects that receive public subsidies, you should look at the pro forma to make sure we're all on the same page in debating the fees they pay. i urge you to support this as

it's written and reconsider this fee along with the jobs housing fee based on the profitability of office space in the current economic climate. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, so we wrote you a letter supporting this fee increase and it's very good and i would repeat supervisor peskin's words that's it's really just a drop in the bucket, much more is necessary. but i would like to think about feasibility. when i see, when you have these fees, what you're doing is reducing the price of the land under any of those projects. and lord knows, that landowners, including myself have had great windfall over the last 40 years in the price of land under the buildings or vacant land. so when you increase the fees, it's not a really big deal as long as the developer has notice and the owner has notice, you

should do them in advance, give everybody notice is going to happen, so they negotiate the price of the land, knowing that these fees are going to be in place. and then the fees can be much higher and we can do a better job. because none of those projects are feasible without transit. they need the transit as much all the people who ride it do. you're doing the right thing. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 1. >> good afternoon, i'm sharon, we're one of the key development sites in central soma. wanted to say we appreciate the board's consideration as well as the planning department analysis on this. we certainly agree that transportation and infrastructure investment in the neighborhood is very important, which is why the planning process over 16 separate planning commission hearings have created a very

comprehensive community benefits package for central soma. $500 million out of the $2 billion anticipated will go toward transportation infrastructure. and we just urge the board to consider that as you move forward into your tsf recommendations as well as the future central soma plans impact fees on your decision today. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public, please come on up. >> matt field, tmg partners, thank you again for your work. i'm a resident and native and appreciate focusing on transit sustainability and acknowledge the $5 and $2 in central soma, we appreciate that in respect to project feasibility. and would echo sharon's comments, in the context when you take the greater central

soma plan, if you can consider all these fees in context, we would greatly appreciate it, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mike russo from kill roy corporation. i wanted to give the message we're in support of transportation in the region. would like to respectfully ask you when you consider central soma to consider the total fee package, including the context of this transportation sustainability fee. if you do adopt it. central soma plan as mentioned already has a very robust fee package. it's been many years in the making and as was also mentioned is generating $500 million for transportation improvements. so we're certainly in agreement that is important funding and would like to keep that context

in mind when the central soma plan comes in front of you, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: any other comments? seeing no other members of the public who wish to comment, i'm going to close public comment for item 1. supervisor kim, i think you want to speak after public comment. >> supervisor kim: yes, thank you, chair tang, i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing back the transportation sustainable fee for large nonresidential projects. this was a debate when we were -- when supervisor john okay lis reintroduced the iteration of our impact fees and how the large commercial developers pay into the fee, understanding as we create jobs, there is burden on sfmta and we need to make sure we have a transportation system is able to absorb new workers and residents

in our growing city. i just want to say that then i did support a larger increase to our transportation sustainability fee for large nonresidential projects. and support the fee increase outside of the central soma plan area. actually, a few weeks ago, when i talked to supervisor peskin, i asked to hold back the central soma fees as we are currently looking at all the fees as a whole in the central soma plan in late june. however, the planning commission has now heard the central soma plan and has heard the tsf increase and they have recommended the $2 increase for the central soma plan. so understanding that this is now been supported by the planning commission, i'm happy to support this today. we will have an overall conversation on all of the fees as the central soma plan moves forward to the full board through june and the beginning of july. i'm certainly happy to continue

this conversation, but i think given the strong recommendation from the planning commission, i'm ready to support this today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just had a couple of questions for maybe staff? you can come back up. can you just reiterate, i know supervisor peskin was telling us, but how does this generate inside central soma and outside. >> the $2 is about $12 million. let me get that. >> supervisor safai: either one of you is fine, maybe ms. jones from sfmta. >> yeah, the $2 increase in central soma and the $5 elsewhere would generate under our estimates $11.4 million. >> supervisor safai: how much inside of central soma? >> 8.2.

>> and then 3 outside of central soma. >> supervisor safai: is that attached to the actual feasibility. i know the last time the feasibility said it did not compute for central soma. >> the department analysis was that it did not compute, however the planning commission is feeling strong, it probably could. >> supervisor safai: what was some of the reasoning behind that? >> they didn't hear anybody via e-mail, via public testimony -- >> supervisor safai: there was no financial analysis, it was based on the response from the community? >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: is there a component in here that talks about redoing the feasibility. >> supervisor peskin: the answer is yes and i spoke to that in my remarks and planning is intending to do that in the coming year. but i also wanted to hark back to something i said a couple of weeks ago, which is that in our

other incarnation as the san francisco county transportation authority and saying this remembering that the sales tax tanked and that we have the collective responsibility as part of the transportation task force, 2045 endeavor to find $100 million a year. and as i was clear in the last meeting, this $10-12 million would actually come out of whatever instrument we bring forward, hopefully in november, in order to do our collective part. i also wanted to say that -- >> supervisor safai: i had another -- >> supervisor peskin: sure i just want to add one thing. there are six major sites in the central soma. you have representatives from half of them here today who have stated what they've stated for the record. but i have to say this.

which is every single one of these six property owners and developers or companies under contract to buy property, are extremely sophisticated. each and every one of them pay lobbyists and consultants to read our agendas, week in and week out. this tsf is not a secret. in fact, it was written about publicly, you didn't need a lobbyist or someone who reads the board agenda or legislation introduced, it was the subject of a hearing at this committee. it was the subject of a planning commission hearing. and i do want to state, because i'm mildly annoyed by it, that were it not for an unsolicited e-mail communication from a city official who was actually defying what the planning

commission, the oversight body appointed four members by the mayor and three members by the president of the board of supervisors, acted upon last thursday, had that e-mail not gone out on friday, they would not be here. but i am certain that their lobbyists and consultants knew this legislation is pending. so this is a mildly manufactured thing and i had to get that off my chest because the individual who did that knows i'm less than pleased about it. >> supervisor safai: so back to my question, through the chair, it was about the feasibility. and i appreciate that, supervisor, i'm not trying to mine myself that. what i want to -- minimize that. can we put into the legislation that we have a process for the review? >> supervisor peskin: we do. you can see mr. sanchez is

nodding his head. we have that, we are the board of supervisors, we take anything up, simple answer i'm not comfortable inserting that. >> supervisor safai: not for central soma, for the transportation sustainability fee so we can see how this plays out. i'm fine with what you're proposing today, but what i mean is have the opportunity to look at the fee itself and what impact it has on nonresidential overall, so we can have a report back and see how the impact is. >> supervisor tang: if i can jump in, and correct me if i'm wrong, department staff, but the controller's office is supposed to do analysis of the impact fees every five year and the next time they would do it is next year. this feeds into my comments from the last committee meeting, but i would have liked us to be considering increases to any fees, whether in central soma or elsewhere after the analysis or

future analysis would have been done. that would have been my preference. i also shared for about $12 million, you know, it's a small amount, for a lot of the pains they're going through, but i also understand the responsibility that supervisor peskin has and feels with his role as the t.a. and the chair there. in any case -- ok -- those are my thoughts. but to answer your question, the controller office will have analysis on the impact fees next year. >> supervisor safai: on the tsf? >> supervisor tang: these are impact fees in general. maybe the staff can answer that. >> supervisor safai: i was referring to the idea of this new fee that is going be added to nonresidential. and then having the opportunity to come back and look at the feasibility and what impact that

has on incentivizing or disincentivizing. i think it's going to be a positive report based on the passionate feelings of the planning commission. >> supervisor tang: why don't we turn it over to ms. jones? >> yes, sfmta planning director, sarah jones. there is a review of all city-wide fees every five years, but the board of supervisors also included analysis on a three-year cycle of economic feasibility. >> supervisor safai: is that currently in this ordinance or is that company wide policy? >> yes, we've incorporated into our budget supporting the planning department in conducting that feasibility study. >> supervisor safai: if we pass