>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow.

for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help

companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general

manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here. essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love

the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar

problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a he hwedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and

making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i

would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world. >> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and

teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping

prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. >> special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century

around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system we need to change the system we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there. >> we get have to get to help them. >> to be. >> hi, i'm average i'm a personal analyst that the human resources examining and recruitment unit and suffix i started my career as a san

francisco state university and got my bachelors in psyched and orientational psyche if they had we have a great relationship that the san francisco unified school district i exploded for american people interim shopping mall and become eligible for a permeate job. >> okay. perfect. >> i love working for our human resources services because of the agriculture we're laid-back with a professional mindset although human resources is a challenge we're light a hearted started as a intern guided through the process eventually one day a a deputy director or staying with the puc is where i love it

in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that.

i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> 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.