island. >> director samaha: so when you mention it's owners that will be paying that. do we anticipate any fee for just living on the island to help pay for these? basically if you're renter or owner? >> so i think the affordable housing units won't be having anything with hoa assessment or -- well the inclusion would drive down the purchase cost of their unit. but the affordable housing renters would not pay any of those island-wide costs. but the people that purchase

units, or people that are managing market rate residential units would participate in the cost. they would like to be reflected back into rents, but it would be a specific cost that a market rate renter would be paying. >> director samaha: got it, thank you. >> president tsen: any questions from the public? hearing none, next item. >> item number 10, ferry plaza, building one plaza, and hilltop park art proposals. >> i'll be fairly brief on the item, but i did want to provide

an update because when we met in april i anticipated bringing recommendations of artists to the tida board for approval. i just want to give you an update where we are in the process. as we mentioned, the selection panel conducted interviews with the proposing artists on april 17. and the selection panel made provisional recommendations for each site. with regard to each work, there were some questions about the proposal as it had been presented that the panel wanted arts commission staff to go back and engage this dialogue with the artists about. so that dialogue is ongoing. and then the arts commission plans to take the proposals to

their visual arts committee to review and comment on at their may meeting which is next week. the arts steering committee will meet after the visual arts committee. so that meeting is being scheduled. then we expect to come back in june with recommendations for the board to consider. and ultimately, the contracts are held by the arts commission with the selected artist and they manage those on our behalf. in the initial sites, include the ferry plaza, building one plaza, hilltop park, for building one plaza, they were ai

weiwei, ai weiwei, gormley and pardo. and for hilltop, sewage moto, booker and gold worthy. so these images are images of ai weiwei's proposal for the waterfront plaza. the pardo proposal was for pieces, red and green, on either

side of the ferry building, the ferry shelter structure. again, recalling navigational buoys as a leaping off point for inspiration. and then anthony gormley, this was his piece, which was a monumental sculpture figure. and this was the piece that was provisionally recommended by the panel with some questions for the artist on form, potentially location, and some other things for discussion. those are the topics that arts commission is engaged with dialogue with the artist on. building one plaza, this was the proposal by ai weiwei.

you see the pieces in the individual quadrants of the building one plaza as you move up toward building one. and then white, this is a picture, a piece that incorporates both motion and sound. that was a drawing on an installation at the golden gate international expo sayings called the wall of chimes for inspiration. and again the panel had questions for the artist about the massing of the piece, as well as other aspects related to the installation, but this was the piece that was provisionally recommended by the panel.

i'm sorry. somehow did not include a slide here of the piece proposed by booker. she had a recommendation for a piece to be installed in the image that is on the upper right here. she had a piece that she had proposed be installed in that location near the intersection of clipper cove boulevard. and avenue of the palms. and like her piece for yerba buena island, she works principally in a steel form with recycled tires. it's her preferred medium, so the piece that she had proposed for near building one was on a larger scale than the piece you

see here. and it was something that individuals could walk in and through. but again, it was the piece by pae white that was recommended. shah calla booker's proposal. engaging with the stairways of yerba buena island and incorporating natural materials and also some interaction with living elements, trees and other things to create unique spaces. and then the piece provisionally recommended by the panel was this piece by sugimoto.

it's called the infinity point. the total height of the proposed piece is 66 feet or 20 meters. the lower portion is proposed to be in white marble with the other portion in stainless steel. and here, the primary questions from the selection panel that are being investigated, are potential zoning or ffa restrictions on a piece of this height at this location.

the plan is to have the visual arts committee have a conversation as their meeting next week. and then provide an update to the steering committee prior to our june meeting so we could bring recommendations to the board at the june meeting. >> president tsen: ok. so, i'm on the selection committee. let me give a little bit more color and character and detail to there very long process that we've been through. the selection committee was composed of chris meany, who is your joint venture by the development partner, myself, the president of the arts commission, and then two outside curators, one who is the curator

of painting and sculpture for the san francisco museum of modern art and curator from the museum in washington d.c. i thought that it was an excellent selection committee. and in fact, all three finalists that were selected were internationally known. we got more than 500 applications and it was narrowed down to three from each site. two of the artists, we were so interested in soliciting more from them, we gave them two sites. that was ai weiwei and chakala booker. they were given two sites. and bob has mentioned that we

provisionally have selected artists. and i would like to go through that with you a little more carefully. it's provisional because there is still conversations that we have have with the artists to refine the proposals that came in. because the proposals, some of the proposals were not totally acceptable to the selection committee. let me just say that there are several other points along the way. it's going to go through the visual arts committee of the arts commission. but it comes back to a steering committee. and the steering committee consists of two people from treasure island development authority. there is one from the arts commission, one from the private developer. and who else? >> it's actually the president

of the commission as well as tom, the executive director from the arts commission. so two from the arts. >> and then richardson and myself are on the steering committee. so it has to come back to that steering committee before it gets a final vote and decision by this board, by the treasure island development authority has the final decision on it. so there is still a little bit of a process to go through. i would say that unanimously, everybody was absolutely excited and stunned by the proposal by sugimoto, which is very monumental structure, but it also is a concept of infinity, so it goes from a base of about 40 feet and goes to a point, a little bit over an inch.

the idea of infinity. but also a sun dial. the summer equinox, there will be alignment. so it will be in line with the summer solstice. so really it engages the cycles of the season and it's going to be all physically, something worth while to pursue. andy goldsworthy, one of the artists that was selected to do something tore the yerba buena island and he was incredibly excited and came up with wonderful concepts that need more time and i think that direction that the selection committee wanted to go was to think of one of the sites later

on to pre-award that to andy goldsworthy and his work fits so well with the type of parks that we are considering for yerba buena island. for the other two sites, the first site is the waterfront plaza. and the waterfront plaza is so important because it's really the moment of arrival. it's going to be a piece which should be seen as you arrive on the ferry to board the ferry. you should be able to see that piece in a come hither moment. you should be able to see that piece as you arrive. so who that artist is and what that art piece is, is incredibly important to us. of the three artists who made proposals, the only one we felt that responded to the elements,

but it was not perfect, there were other issues that we wanted to talk to the artist about, particularly making the piece have a little more emotional resonance. and so it may be is that we'll give them a little bit of time to come back to us with a revised proposal and see if it's acceptable to the selection committee and to the steering committee. the other piece was pae white, which is an artist, she is emerging woman artist. she was selected as one of the american artists for the finale, which happens every other year. and she proposed the piece which responds to the wind and to the environment, but there are some issues again which we need to explore, one was whether the

piece could endure the harsh conditions of the island in terms of the wind and the exposure, because there are chimes she had proposed. so we want to explore that a little more carefully. those gardens are being designed by andy cochran, who in fact is an artist in other own right as far as being a landscape architect. and the style of those gardens is very different than the style of the art piece that has been proposed. as soon as there are answers,

we're going to be coming back to the selection committee first and then to the tida board as a whole. and if you have -- the other thing i would say is that these art works, the proposals, for the three sites was posted online. they were also displayed here in building one on treasure island. it was displayed at the arts commission in their space. and there has been public comment to that. that first day when the art works were posted an treasure island building one, i was coming back from a meeting over in east bay and i was excited to go and see them, drove to look at them. and they had just been put up and i was surprised to see there

was three women who were there pouring over the exhibits. and i was so surprised they knew about it, because it had just been put up and i was curious. so i engaged in conversation with them. and they were so interested in it. that they had come all the way from the city so they can look at the proposal and i think that there certainly is a lot of interest in the city on what these art works will be. and think we will have incredible pieces of art which will attract many people to this island. so, any questions or comments? >> director richardson: yes. i have some comments. yes, i'm a member of the steering committee with

commissioner tsen and jill did mention a great job. we had almost 1,000 pieces to look at. and in my selection of the artist, i did choose sugimoto, ai weiwei and chakala booker, pae white were part of my selections, but for me, at the end of the day, i think we need to be very cognizant of the diversity of the art. and i was hoping that maybe some partnerships could be entertained for some of the artists so that they work on collaboration and i'm looking at that. some of the sculptures and things this were here and again i saw some again looking at almost 1 thousand pieces i would like to revisit.

sugimoto, they had a culture where you could be looking at

adjourn. >> thank you. it.

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in

chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know

that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all

>> 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 this today, how much time will

pass before we have understanding of the fiscal impact and feasibility of this, three years? >> no. for this upcoming year, the study is going to be undertaken in the next few months. >> supervisor safai: so a year from now, this will be studied? >> within the upcoming year. >> supervisor safai: got it. ok. that sounds good. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor tang: ok, so hearing that, i could have gone both ways, right? i would have again preferred that regardless if it was a controller analysis of the city-wide impact fees or the tsf feasibility analysis coming up in the upcoming year, i would have loved the increase to be associated with those studies, but you know, i will defer to our district supervisor where much of the impact is, as well as the planning commission that supported it. so it is what it is today. supervisor safai, still

comments? >> supervisor safai: one more through the chair to supervisor peskin, when i heard the comments, i think we talked about this for a second, the idea that there is $500 million in fees that are being generated by central soma. there is a lot of conversation about transportation and overall fees. we're going to be taking that up in the next two months. so the idea of taking this and putting it into the consideration of that and potentially having that -- >> supervisor peskin: why don't we have ms. jones attempt to address that who will be more articulate than i ever will be. >> this is just scratching the surface of the issue, but there is a distinction between what the fees that come off of development projects pay related specifically to an area plan, or to a community benefit district, and what we are able to spend our transportation

sustainability fees on. the money that is levied onto development projects in the context of an area plan, some of it goes to that invisible stuff that nobody really wants to think about or pay for. but most of it does go to something that is clearly tied to and supporting a development project like a complete streets project right there. or you know, transit. or transportation infrastructure that is within the area and enhancing the area and the development projects overall. in contrast, transportation sustainability fee is a funding source that helps us put money into the transportation system in ways that improves it in sort of a more invisible basic kind of way, so for example, you can use transportation

sustainability fee to pay for a new engine for a bus that extends the life of that bus, deals with state of good repair, that kind of thing. so it's not a directly comparable funding source that you can just swap out indiscriminately. so there is a certain value to mta of tsf that doesn't come from the projects. which are also very important improvements as well. >> supervisor safai: i get that. that makes sense. thank you for the explains. through the chair, i would say that in the context of all the fees considered in this larger package coming up at central soma, there is a point by which we cannot go past, otherwise some of the projects become unsustainable. so i it's important to consider that in the larger context since we're to the end of the road on that debate. we want to consider this fee as

part of the larger package that is coming in front of us, but thank you for the distinction, one seems to be more local to the area and one can have impact on the area, but impact in other areas of the city as well. i appreciate that distinction. thank you, madame dam char x. >> supervisor kim: we are currently working with our key site developers and other soma developers and the community on developing a cohesive plan with all of the fees. it's not to discourage what is happening today, but i feel very confident that when we make a final vote, it will be a comprehensive look at everything together. i feel comfortable supporting the $2 fee and it will be known to everyone that transportation

is important. we're not try to prevent development in central soma. we want ta thank to happen. -- we want that to happen. i do feel comfortable moving forward with this today. it's not that we get another bite at the apple, but again, the whole plan is coming before the land use committee on june 25th. >> supervisor tang: thank you. appreciate your comments. with that, colleagues, do we want to have a motion? any further debate? >> supervisor kim: i'll move for recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. any other items today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: thank you, we are adjourned.

[roll