chicago transit agency saw a reduction in operator assaults in a very short period of time. we saw this night and day transformation. >> do you think we have enough police presence or would you like more. you said you want to get to zero and o of course we all want to get to zero. >> the magic number would be uniformed police officers on 5% of the vehicle in service during peak time and we have approximately 720 vehicles during peak commute hours. since we don't have the fiscal resources for that kind of deployment we are relying heavily on data driven

deployment. >> what happens when an operator doesn't feel safe, how do they call and what are their response times. >> i'm glad you asked that, one of the things that we have noticed is during those late hours, we have issues with people trying to sleep on the vehicles and doing other things and the police response time is very good, typically five minutes or less. >> at this time we will open it to public comment. >> clerk: public comment is open. seeing no mus must n no

members of the public we will close item 6. would you like to file it or continue it? >> i think i have enough information, so i am comfortable filing this. supervisor. >> i am comfortable with that what went on at night and with all hours especially, so if we can get that data, i think it would be fine to close the hearing and if we need to have another one, we will. >> you want to capito continue or file the hearing? >> there is a motion to file the hearing. supervisor kim, is that okay? >? okay. thank you very much.

madame clerk next item please. let's call items 8 through 12 together. [reading agenda item]

>> thank you very much. i will turn this other to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i know this has been a long committee, so i want to thank everyone who has sat with us the entire time. i have 18 amendments that i am introducing to the central soma plan. i have discussed all of these at the full commission and to the full board and committee, so i will give my colleagues to look through. i have no further comments since i have talked enough about the central soma plan, so at this time, i am ready to open up for

public comment and perhaps we can answer questions after public comment. >> that is fine we can keep the ball rolls. >> if any members of public wish to come up with items 8 through 12, please come on up. >> good afternoon. i think it's still afternoon. [laughter] my name is genie and i am with ss blue and central to ma neighbors. i am here to request supplemental sir.

we request that the city prepare supplemental impact report to analyze this new information. this is significant new information that demonstrates that the central soma plan will have far greater traffic impacts than disclosed in the eir. that is all i have, thank you very much. >> hello, my name is gina. thank you for sitting here all afternoon. i am gina ful phillips. i support sf blue and central

soma neighbor's appeal and i support the arguments put forth by richard druary. i would like to give these to the clerk for the document letter that gina just distributed. >> tony roblis. if central soma plan will have wide reaching effects in terms of gentrification and there must be strong protechs against

displacement as it pertains to the plan, otherwise, this will continue to be a piece of city planning and policy making that prioritizes profit over people. thank you. >> the central soma project is part of the market in south of market and any rezoning of it's area has a ripple effect to the entire city. we still have numerous urgent issues and the following areas still need to be addressed. aggressively land banking sites, requiring at least 10% increase in affordability required as part of the housing sustainability district, create standard publicly owned designs

that are student use or family-serving, release the new jobs/housing study completed by office of workforce development, and have restrictions on micro units with exception to allow 100% sf4 developments. we made aware and support using the land that is part of the flower mart site instead of office.

we look forward to workin working with the supervisor's office on addressing these issues. thank you. >> greetings supervisor, david elliot lewis, long time resident of the city. i share the concerns of tony roblis, senior disability action about the displacement affects of this plan. displacement is real in the city and a lot of people have lost their housing and people can't afford to move back to their city. i think we need to just -- i'm not against the plan but think we need to consider those factors before you move ahead. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> i have these before you and i presented them to the planning commission as well as discuss them at other board meetings after the appeal and also at viers land use committee meetings. a number of them range from technical fixes to language such as clarifying calculation of land subject transferable to land development rights, to changing the land commission has made -- for our key sites that are super large projects that the tdm was not necessarily intended to or didn't necessary consider to some amendments that some of the project sponsors have requested on their key sites. these are the amendments that are before us, and i know supervisor safai you may have

had a question on 11. >> yes. >> but otherwise i would like to amendments 1-18. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: i have a number of questions but i want to start with number 11. it would be good to hear from the planning department for reducing floor height from 17 feet to 14 feet. >> a variation of this amendment because introduced back in july. it gave the planning commission discretion to lower the minimum floor from 17 to 14 feet, and also reduce the mass production

controls. that amendment strengthens that language and was further request of the project sponsor. this will, just as a right permits this as long as the project provide land for affordable housing. >> right, i got it. i see that. i would like to hear from the planning department because in general i don't support this proposal. i don't support this amendment. i think the project sponsor can do both, i am not sure why reducing their pdr height is tied to affordable housing land. i think they should do the dedication of the affordable housing and provide the proper height. i know the planning department said they spent a considerable amount of time coming up with heights and i know in sen tra

central soma this is the -- height. >> supervisor kim stated this is similar to another various other provisions for various other key sights that are in the code that provide project sponsors an av new to get array of different exceptions in exchange for providing certain public benefits such as dedicating portions of their land for public housing and those exceptions are generally related to basically accommodating what would have been the full build-out of the site had they not provided those public benefits, so basically provide

avenue for them to build the project, there are certain accommodations that are allowed in the code by various mechanisms. >> because i see her number 8 that supervisor kim through the chair says require the pdr space, this is number eight, section 24, page 77, line 16. sectiohave a minimum floor to height requirement regardless of feet in the building and this is ask for that to be dropped to 14 feet, zero percent on fourth

street. it could be about wanting to have more space on the upper floors at the cost of the pdr space and i am not inclined to support this particular ask. i don't know if anyone is here from project sponsor today, so no. >> i will say, supervisor, that a number of these key site inspections were particular to the particularities of the individual sites and what the trade-offs are for accommodating the program on the site with or without the land set aside, so that was something that the project sponsor in presenting their possibilities of how that could be accommodated made the case for and that is how it made it's way, but in general, yes, you are correct that the plan is also strengthening just the requirement that pdr have 17 feet. >> that is my point it seems to

be a direct contradiction and you guys are asking for it to be strengthened in other areas. is that your understanding supervisor, that they are saying they can't do the affordable without this exception in? >> this was not how they requested the amendment. we amended so guff them discretion to lower from 17 to 14 feet this. made the project sponsor anxious because there was a slope and there will be parts of the parcel where they will build at 17 feet and parts where they will build at 14 feet. they got nervous and asked to guff them this allowance as a right and there was a pushback

that there is no guarantee we will get the land for affordable housing. at the the smart suggestion of lisa chen we are now tying the two together, so in exchange for this benefit, we will confer the flexibility on the ground floor. >> okay. i will also, and i have texted the project sponsor to reach out to your office supervisor safai, but i am also happy to take this and separate it from the other amendments and we will take a roll call. in the meantime, you will have time to talk to the project sponsor before the full board. >> that would be great. is there anything in here about the public benefits packages, is it included in here today? >> yes. >> what one is that on your

number? >> the one on my radar was the mint, did you make an amendment on that in this package? >> no i have not agreed to increase the old mint portion of the community facilities distribute from 15 oto 20 million. in the original proposal, i know this has been through many iterations, we had originally provided 10 million-dollars to the old mint. if planning commission recommended 20 million and we reduced it to 15 million at the lapped use committee in july and i am sticking to the $15 million allocation. currently the old mint, both the

intermediary manager p and the permanent site is in negotiation with the community how the old mint can be a benefit to the south community and that has not been made to my satisfaction. i understand that members of this board and land use committee may differ in opinion from myself. >> i would say from my experience because we have a similar one in my district, they are truly some of the most difficult projects to find finding for restoration, so i understand you position wanting to negotiate access for community groups and organizations to fully utilize the space, but isn't that something that could be

negotiated as part of the restoration process, separate from, and not necessarily as a part of, because we still have to find the funding, right? at least in our district we have a $30 million hole that we have been able to find. it's similar and related. >> this is a fixed sum, and i don't feel strongry about subtracting millions of dollars from either transportation regional projects, like the downtown expansion or the air quality mitigation controls that were clearly laid out couple weeks ago at the full board of supervisors. i would love to fund everything, more transportation, more parks,

and give more to caltran, but this is a balancing tact we all play, so at this point i think it is a fair contribution to the old mint. keep in mind, cft is not going to provide a benefit to the old mint until the projects start building and get their certificates of occupancy. part of how i understand they are fundraising for their capital plan is by showing this contribution of the city at 10 or 20 million. afterconferring with a couple of folks i have heard it doesn't impact their fundraising whether 15 million or 20 million contribution from the city, but that is the current benefit they are seeing with this commitment is the ability to help raise money for their capital campaign

in the long-term. i have not been convinced of reducing the pot of cfd within the environmental and transportation buckets to provide additional 5 million for the old mint. there is the so much competing interests that it is always a tough call. i understand that everyone should have a different opinion, but at this point i want to keep the $15 million obligation. >> not to say that this is the largest topic out of the central soma plan, but since we are speaking about it; i think i would err on the side of wanting to take the recommendation to restore it from the regional enhancement fund by $5 million. if other way i see us being able

to do this is there are eight different budgets, so we could take 625,000 from each category which pails in comparison from what each are able to get from the environments. it's such a large asset to our city, and it might sound like 5 million is not that much, but every dollar does count with these restoration projects. i have talked to neighbors who live around there who care about in big structure really contributes bake to th back to the community. i would like to consider putting that back in from regional transit bucket or from each

category $625,000 each. >> my only request is this be done at a full board with a vote of six members. >> my request to the committee on this issue because i don't support it is to make that amendment at the full board. i don't want to make that amendment at committee and then i amend it back at the full board. does that make sense. then the committee can do what it wants and i can prepare the amounts again at the full board in november. >> i would like to try to get that amendment back in today because i remember us discussing this but not aware that we had in committee amended that underlying committee benefits document, so since that happened i would like to restore the

5 million. >> can i ask a question to supervisor kim, so did you say you didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, or you just wanted to have more time to have conversation about this and dive into it? i just want to hear clarity on your position? >> supervisor kim: there is an ongoing discussion that's happening today between the interneed area management company and philippin philippinephilippine thats.

filipianas. i could make a request to wait one more week and regardless of the out whic outcome make the amendment then. . >> you could make an amendment to the ordinance saying that you approve the plan and the plan document that came out of planning at the last meeting with this one change. you could do that next week and it would not trigger another continuance. >> i would like to do it today because there were so many amendments flying around and i wouldn't have supported it if i understood we were amending the

underlying benefits package summary. >> is what we are doing today going to the full board? >> we have to continue is my understanding for one week anyway. >> regardless it's going to be continued for one week whether we do it now or next week, it won't be sub stan tuff to slow it down. >> there will be a committee next monday and then the monday after. sorry, there is no board meeting the next say so will be sending it to full board on november 13. >> there is a board meeting october 30. >> this will be land use for the following two weeks. >> yeah. >> john goodman, i think it depend on what the committee does today whether this will be

in land use two weeks from now or just next week. >> except i will be making amends next monday that probably will be sub sta substantive and require it to come back november 5, and my optimistic hope is we will then send it with recommendation to the full board on tuesday, november 13. >> supervisor safai: can i make a suggestion since supervisor kim has said she is going to make amendments next week again. could we delay this for one week because i am supportive of adding the $5 million myself, but this gives one official week for there to be further conversations and if there is no movement we have the ability at that time to add it back in. >> i will be okay, with that. i have will just say that without the funding for the project itself, i think it's

hard to assume that there could be a community benefit. we need to project to be completed for the tenants to benefit from it, so my goal is let's get this project moving and after that we can think about what would go into it. of course you want to start the conversation now, but if that project can't get off the ground that is a concern. >> i agree. i think what i heard supervisor kim say is this conversation is going, and a one week delay could help in those conversations, and maybe then she would be supportive of our position. i am supportive of adding the $5 million back and also in support of allowing one more week for conversation between the interested parties. >> okay, we can wait one more week, so i so will make a motion

the adopts items 1-18 minus number 11. sorry. supervisor sa safai. >> did you have something you wanted to present. >> didn't mean to derail -- i had a clarification of item not on the list. so if you look at number 15 and 16 they are kind of a match set related to the impact fee, the central soma impact fee and the cfd tax so, the package of ordinance and plan as afforded to the board back in may, the planning commission had inconsistency in the code where it had a rate for residential of

$20 a square foot, but in the -- document it said $10 a square foot, and i wanted to clarify because it's not on this list and immediately apparent and we are recommending a split where the $10 applies to condo projects. >> thank you. supervisor kim, do you have a response. >> sorry, which piece? >> ms. chen, would you mind? >> what was not included. >> that was not my doing. >> it was a clarification that we need to amend the implementation document to reflect this new fee scheme. it may be conforming edits --

they are adopted by reference in the planning code so under your per view. >> what is the question in. >> is that item the 15 that you want us to make conforming edits so the underlying documents. >> to the implementation documents. >> i don't have any problem with that. deputy city attorney can we add that part in, amendment 17 to have it coincide with or apply to the implementation documents. >> the committee does not need to make that motion to amend, planning can modify the document to conform to the ordinance. >> i am guessing there is nothing else? thank you. supervisor kim. >> i will take the motion to

adopt all of the amendments except for amendment 11. >> just to clarify, i believe there is a draft ordinance circulated to the committee as well along with the chart? yes. >> just wanted to make one clarification on page 144 of that ordinance online 6, this is the cfd section, 434, supervisor kim is prosecut proposing amendment that would change the 40,000 gross square foot trigger

to 25,000 square feet. that is not on the list sent to you but wanted to clarify that is one of the amendments that supervisor kim is proposing and that the committee is voting on today. that question is significant, one, we want to make sure that we get to document right when we submit it to the park but because the 25,000 square foot change would require -- to planning. >> yes. we did discuss with staff an planning commission has the right to hear specific piece if they would like but we did discuss to make sure it didn't impact the tom timeline. >> can someone else plai explain what that is? >> that is related to the applicability of cfd, and in the

changes described here on the list, in shifting sites from residential to nonresidential the fles threshold is lowed from $40,000-square foot to 25,000 square foot. >> how many are impacted by that? >> we don't know that we have any projects that have proposals in today. it's possible that it could affect a few in the future. >> through the chair, what is the purpose of that amendment?

>> just to capture projects that would trigger the office allocation threshold which is 25,000 square feet because as you know commercial projects smaller than this are not subject to allocation. >> did the planning commission approve that? >> it was not specifically considered. >> they can choose to hear that or not. >> did we hear from them. >> we bring it to them from thursday and query them at their hearing whether they would choose to hear it. >> is there any indication in

advance whether they plan on? >> we do not believe they will probably want to hear it, but up to them. any member of the commission could ask to hold a hearing or not. that is why we will bring it to them on thursday. >> thank you. >> thank you for that. thank you deputy city attorney for catching that just because we got this packet today in committee, so it's hard to read through 235 pages. i think there is a motion on the floor to talk all amendments except item 11. can we do that without objection, so then we will do that. then amendment 11 roll call. >> a point of clarification to the chair. i thought we were putting the

vote on that item for the week. >> okay, sorry. >> i wanted it to be put off additional week. >> so today we only adopted 1-18e18 minus 11 plus the trigger reduction. do we have a motion to continue it for one week as amended? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. better streets item. >> clerk: item two item

modifying better streets plan requirements and curb cut restrictions. [reading agenda item] >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: after conferring with the city attorney, i will stick with my original motion, which is to move forward item two as amended to the full board and make a motion to duplicate the file where i do amendments on the nsf and request the city attorney to eliminate city-wide minimum parking requirements and the city attorney will let us know if this requires a full referral to planning, but that is my motion. >> thank you very much.

supervisor safai is now not here, so a motion to excuse him from this vote, so the item will be duplicated and only the four amendments move forward at this point. do we need to take another roll call on the amendments itself? >> what i have on record is the amendments passed and we were going to see if you were going to duplicate it. >> we are going to duplicate and send item 2 to the board with full recommendation if there is no objection. are there any other items for us. >> the duplicate will be amended as well? >> the duplicated file amends back the ncs amendments that i

made today. that is, the second and fourth amendments to page 19, line 19 removes ncf from the curb cut restrictions and -- bringing back all the changes to the ncf table. >> thank you. >> so one version has been duplicated and will remain here in land use committee. >> what is the motion on the duplicated item as amended? >> i will make a motion to move item two to full board with recommendation. capitol the call of the chair without objection. >> there is nothing further. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> what are the three things d. that we need? we drop, cover, and -- yes, so we did a good job okay. we have third grade coming in, second grade. thank you so much. so our practice went pretty well, and we have so many special guest that came today to practice with us, okay? so i'm hoping that this is not -- [inaudible] >> so i'm going to introduce first dr. matthews, our

superintendent, is here, and he was practicing with, us, so drth matthews. >> good morning, boys and girls. buenos dias. so first, i want to tell you how proud i am of you. you did a great job. it is so important that we keep you safe during an earthquake, and today, you have the opportunity to practice during that earthquake. it's important, when you feel the ground shaking, that you drop, that you cover, and that you hold on. so we're very proud of the job that you did today. all throughout california during the month of october, and especially on this day, young people like you and older people, like me, are practicing what we want to do during an earthquake. you want to make sure, also, that you have supplies at your house, flashlight lights, radio,

food, enough that's going -- you are going to be able to fed -- sustain yourself for a period of time. so that's very important. today, we have a number of people who are, as i said, here to keep you safe, and they're very proud to be here this morning. we have our mayor, we have the chief of police, we have the chief of our fire department, and we have our deputy director of emergency management. so give them a big round of applause. [applause] >> so it is my pleasure to introduce to you, bryant bears, our wonderful city of san francisco, mayor london breed. >> the hon. london breed: thank you, dr. matthews. good morning, bryant elementary school bears. it is so exciting to be with you all today, and i've got to tell

you, i was alive during the 1989 earthquake. now, i know i don't look old enough to be alive during that time, but i was. and i remember that the earthquake lasted for only seconds, but afterwards, the power was out, there were a lot of challenges, and the reason why we have in san francisco sf72.org, so make sure you go home and tell your parents -- repeat after me, sf72.org, there are a list of things that you should make sure that are in your home so that after an earthquake hits, you and your families can be prepared and you can be safe. is that a deal? thank you. i appreciate that. so today, we were practicing, but as dr. matthews has said, what you want to do, as soon as

you hear or feel the ground shake, you want to do what? drop, cover, hold on, and you did a wonderful job today, so continue to make sure that you listen to your teachers, you listen to your parents, you get good grades, and when that time comes here in san francisco, you will be prepared. thank you, everyone, for being here today. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and with that, i want to turn it over to the deputy director of the deputy of emergency management, mike dayton. >> thank you, mayor. good morning. i am so excited to be here. i've got to tell you, the kids at my table did such a tremendous, johnny, aunel, jade,

you guys did such a good job of identifying what you need to have at home for preparedness kit, but they were good at knowing what numbers to call, if you need help. what number do you call if you need help? awesome. awesome. we've got so many dedicated dispatchers that are ready to get you help, and ready to get you help when you need it. again, you did such a tremendous job. and thank you for being here. with that, let me introduce our police chief, william scott. >> thank you. good morning, bryant bears. so you guys have already passed all the tests. i was going to give you one, but you already know all the answers.

so you did great this morning. as mike said, if you are in trouble or if you feel like you need assistance, call 911, and you can let like myself, a police chief, or firefighters to help you. i want you to know we are here to help you. we have a great city. you guys are prepared -- i learn i a lot -- i learned a lot from my table. and i will tell you a test. what are the three things you need to remember? all right. you aced it. you aced it. congratulations. next, i want to introduce my partner of public safety, our fire chief joanne hayes-white.

>> good morning. first of all, i want to say you did an amazing job. i've been doing this for years, and i want to say you did top notch. thank you, mayor breed and superintendent matthews for art prioritizing public safety and today's particular message about preparedness. boys and girls, i'm going to give a shout out to my table. i had anthony, jace, and tiandre. i wouldn't be working as fire chief today unless i had wonderful teachers. we get a lot of credit, scott and i, in our deputy because we're heros, but teachers are heros, too, so please give your teachers and faculty and staff a round of plauz.

[applause] >> boys and girls, it's a pleasure to work with my colleagues, and the message that i would like to reinforce when you go home to your moms, your dads, your grandparents your brothers, your sisters, teach them the importance of stop, drop, and hold. taechl them the importance of having a kit so you will be prepared in the event of a large scale emergency. all the school districts are doing something similar so we can be as san franciscans prepared. so thank you, have a wonderful day, and keep up the great work. back to principle laura. >> thank you. good job, bryant bears. -- back to principal lawyer. >> thank you. good job, bryant bears.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new

higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you

have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000.

when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or

>> the teams really, really went above and beyond and is continuing to do that today. this past year, the san francisco public utilities commission water quality division started receiving many more requests to test for lead in the public school system here in san francisco as a result of legislation that had passed from the state requiring all of the public schools to do lead testing. and so as a result, the public utilities commission and the water quality team in particular was asked to meet with the san francisco unified school district to begin to prioritize which schools to test to meet that state mandate. >> the team that tests, we're a full service environmental laboratory, and we take care of both the needs of the water quality division and the waste water enter price.

and on the water quality enterprise, we have to also have drinking water that meets all federal and state quality regulations. and lead in schools, we're playing a problem in remediating this problem of lead in schools. >> our role here in communications is being able to take the data that we have that we know is protective of public health and safety and transmit it, give it to the public in a way they understand we are really doing our jobs well and making sure that they are safe always. >> the public learned very quickly all the accurate facts and all the critical information that they needed to know, and it's up to these individuals and their agencies and their commitment to the city. >> i enjoy the work because i can help people, and i can help the utilities to provide a better water quality, make sure that people feel that drinking hetch hetchy water is actually

a pride. >> hats off to the water quality team because between them working on late nights, working on the weekends when the schools are closed, and working as a partner in the school district for the times they found a higher lead sample, they worked through to address that, so the team went above and beyond and is continuing to do that today.

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the land use transportation committee for october 22, 2018. our clerk is erica major and from sf gov-tv, thank you to jim smith. madame clerk, are there any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as