san francisco public works welcome all to enjoy the magic of the

sca perfec >> supervisor tang: all right. welcome, everyone to the language use and transportation committee of monday, december 3, 2018. i'm katey tang, chairman of this committee. to my left is supervisor avenue shall safai, and standing in for jane kim is supervisor aaron peskin. madam clerk, are there any announcements. >> clerk: is there a motion to excuse supervisor kim? >> supervisor tang: motion to excuse supervisor kim? okay. we'll do that without objection. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> clerk: please make sure to silence any cell phones and ele electronnic devices. >> supervisor tang: apologize. we can't really hear.

>> clerk: can you hear me now? >> supervisor tang: okay. yes. that's better. madam clerk, can we please call item number one. >> clerk: item one is an ordinance to delete the plumbing code related to the plumbing code of the san francisco utility commissions rules and regulations concerning cross-connection. >> department of building inspection. i am the proponent for this removal of section in the san francisco amendments. this is something that's a reference in our code as of right now, and we have been speaking with the other departments, department of public health and p.u.c., if they would come back to our code advisory committee and propose their amendments to the code with the new table that they are requesting to have put into the san francisco amendment so we could actually have something to enforce. right now, it's a regulation,

and we're having problems with contractors, installers, inspectors enforcing regulation as a reference right now. so the request is for them to actually come to the code advisory committee and put the request in. we've already gone through the code advisory committee, the i b.i.c., to have this section removed. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i guess for the public's clarification, this has to do with backflow requirements, and it sounds like the plumbing code currently references building code requirements. >> we have plumbing code requirements that are related to backflow protections and has devices that have already been listed for what we have. p.u.c. is coming with a

different list, which is more stringent, which is fine, but we need a list of those different devices and kbiermts so our inspectors can enforce that and not reference it. contractors, when they see the code, they're actually able to see that requirement, therefore, install the proper devices for protection. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: all right. colleagues, any questions, comments on this one? all right. seeing none, let's open it up for public comment. item one, please come on up. >> supervisors, good afternoon. john scarpullo with the sfpuc. i'm also here with a colleague from the san francisco department of public health who will be speaking after you do. our two agencies are here requesting that you continue the item to allow for dph and the department of building inspection to get all on the same page regarding the building amendment and the

building code. cross control and backflow prevention is one of the agency that's have multiple jurisdictions. clearly department of building inspection has jurisdiction under the california plumbing code, additionally, dph and puc have jurisdiction. we do have more stringent requirements for backflow protection and those are well supported by evidence, indicating that the requirements of the plumbing code do not sufficiently protect the water supply in public health. this is why in 2016, our three agencies actually cooperated to add this amendment to the plumbing code, and this proposed legislation would remove that reference. so puc and dph do not believe it makes sense to remain that language without offering replacement language at the same time. this proposed legislation would remove the consistency that the 2016 amendment creates. this will likely result in

confusion and government inefficiency if this legislation passes. dbi, if they approve inferior and unacceptable devices, it may put the building at risk where people would not be adequately protected from illness and the building could be out of city codes. therefore, we are respectively asking to continue this item. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: i do have a question. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai has a question. >> supervisor safai: is someone else going to speak? >> supervisor tang: okay. let's go ahead and finish public comment. >> good afternoon. hi. my name is ni too. i'm the senior inspector for the nonpotable water program dph. and i'm here to request a continuance for this item. as john scarpulla from puc

already stated, relying on just the california plumbing code itself is inadequate for the protection of backflow, especially for high hazard applications, such as using soda machine carbonators. there has already been a few backflow incidents as recent as 2018 in san mateo county where people became ill and 2017 in s.f., and in all these incidents, they had less backflow prevention, less stringent backflow preventions. specifically, they didn't have the reduced pressure devices which are required for more stringent applications and high hazard applications. we understand that our approach is conservative, but public safety is worth the more

stringent requirements, and one incident to us is too many. s.f. is a leader in public health and it is our duty as public servants to up hold a higher standard in public health protection. we respectfully ask for a continuance to this item. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. any other members who wish to speak? >> good afternoon. my name is mike mitchell, and i have a comment to make, if i may. i'm a senior plumbing inspector from san francisco. >> supervisor tang: since you're from the department, i'll let you speak after this, and you don't need the two-minute time limit. any other public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai, are you okay with letting him speak? >> supervisor safai: yes. >> supervisor tang: okay. we'll let you speak and then you can ask the questions. >> my name is mike mitchell,

and the standards that we enforce currently are national standards. they're reviewed by u.s.c. they're reviewed by the american association of plumbing and mechanical officials. a mechanical table, if the p.u.c. would like to go to a higher standard, i wholeheartedly support that, but the way we need to have it done is that table needs to incorporated either by reference into the plumbing code or incorporated just as incorporated into the plumbing code so that people can see it. two examples, the salesforce tower with the carbonation issues. during the time they were installing it, they kept coming back to me asking what the code said. to date, we have had no problems with any of the carbonated machines in the city and county of san francisco.

the health department has no record whatsoever of any poisoning or illnesses created by that factor. i can't speak for san mateo county, but i can clearly speak for the city and county of san francisco. furthermore, howard street has installed on it a fire main. it has been installed, sign off and approved for use in a pit for the last 18 to 20 years. the p.u.c. is now requiring them to locate the device out of the pit which is going to cross the property owner or contractor thousands and thousands of dollars to do so. if it was approved at first, it should be approved so it is allowed to say. with that being said, i don't want to take up too much more time, i think this is a bit of overkill, trying to enforce something that's not codified. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. so with that, we'll go to supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: with

that, if we're thinking about changing the standards -- and i'm not thinking of the big guys. and you're giving examples of large projects, so i am very, very sensitive to the fact that once something has been signed off, approved, and placed, the idea of moving that and doing a complete retrofit, for lack of a better word, and meeting standards that have been changed halfway through, i'm not in support of that. i'm in support of the way you presented. but also, how would this affect people that are on the small owners, like individual homeowners that have sprinklers in their back yards that have backflow preventers. are they required to change it? that would be a significant cost to thousands and thousands of homeowners in the city and county of san francisco. so whatever we do, it should be perspective. i can tell you from personal experience, having spoken to homeowners, never once has a

backflow prevent, any inspector that i've talked to, they've never presented a backflow prevent -- we have such high standards, things that we've put into the place. what would be the interpretation of the code that is written, how it would impact existing backflow prevention devices? >> your point is well taken and well made. if you can think of how many rain water catching systems, all the gray water systems, all the water systems that san francisco is asking people to get on board and put in, every one of those, as soon as they're touched, will have to be installed to a higher standard. they're going to be charged more money, not just for the installation, but on an annual basis. >> supervisor safai: for a backflow preventer, you're required to have tests. if you don't have that annual test, you get fined by the

p.u.c. i'm not sure why it's an annual test, but it is. it's a small cost to the homeowners on an annual basis. i'm not in favor of this being retroactive in any way. if it was going to be prospective, for prospective projects, but to be retroactive, i would not be in favor of that in any way. >> supervisor, i spent ten years on american association of plumbers and pipe fitters. i don't know where the health department stands or the p.u.c., but these are things that i have studied at great depth. >> supervisor safai: yeah. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor peskin has a question? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. it's more of a comment with all due respect to the three

agencies implicated herein. you're not supposed to do this in public, you're supposed to actually go to the principal's office and work it out. so i'm not an expert in this subject matter area. generally, when the department of building inspection comes with complicated code changes, we defer to the experts there. but the reason we have a city administrator is so that three departments can go get their you-know-what together, so why don't you do that, and why don't we continue this to the call of the chair. i do agree that if we're changing the rules in midstream, there better be some darn good reasons to do that. we do that every once in a while. we've done that around issues with fire sprinklers from time to time, but there better be a really good story as to why we're doing that. but meanwhile, p.u.c. and dph are a little late to this dance, so go work it out, and if you can't work it out, this

supervisor will probably defer to d.b.i. in the end. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you for those comments, and i think my colleague summed it up as such. but i see merit in what d.b.i. is proposing today, but i'd love for all of you to figure it out since we're not experts. there was a motion to continue to the call of the chair. can we continue that without objection? okay. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you very much. we have either bill stron or barry cooper here. nope? no one? [inaudible] >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. why don't we move -- we're going to move onto item three really quick then, and then we'll come back to item 2. item three, please. [agenda item read]

>> supervisor tang: thank you. i'm going to defer to supervisor peskin who will be speaking on behalf of prefer kim today. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i am informed by supervisor kim's office that there is no accompany general plan referral and therefore this item needs to be continued to the call of the chair until that general item referral comes up, and pursuant to public comment, i will make that motion. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you very much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item three, please come on up. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to continue item three until the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: okay. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. is mr. stron back? okay. let's go back to item 2. >> sorry.

bill stron, d.b.i. this item for expediting the electric vehicle charging stations is codification due to some recent state law that has passed. d.b.i. in practice actually already does expedite these types of permits, but with this codification, we'll be on board with all the other jurisdictions in the state, and we're very appreciative of supervisor tang moving this forward. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. stron. so i'm glad to hear that the d.b.i.'s already doing this in practice. i did see that it was ab-1236 which went into effect in january 2016 that mandated that every jurisdiction actually adopt such an ordinance, so i'm just wondering why it took us so long, and it's 2018 now. again, it's my name that's on this. >> there was a round of discussion that went back and forth with the department of

the environment and with some other departments, so i think it kind of fell between the cracks in terms of moving it forward as expeditiously as we'd like. we have a similar situation with expediting solar permits that supervisor peskin kindly agreed to introduce, i think, also last year, and we are trying to move that forward again, as well. so i'm afraid it was just some internal delays that resulted in this. >> supervisor tang: all right. so we have to expedite legislation expedite processes. >> we're already expediting the permits. >> supervisor tang: okay. that's good. and then, also, i wanted to clarify whether the permits issued to on-street e.v.i. charging stations or it could be for any setup. >> i don't believe it distinguish distinguishes. >> supervisor tang: all right. any other questions or comments? >> supervisor safai: yes.

if you could just add me as a cosponsor? >> supervisor tang: all right. i'll add supervisor safai as a cosponsor. i think we need more electric vehicle charging in our streets, not just the private properties. we have legislation already for private properties, new construction, but if we want deputy to adopt zero emission vehicles, then we need the charging, so i hope these efforts will continue. all right. any members of the public who wish to speak on item 2, please come on up. >> hi, everybody. my name is bob walsh, and i'm the general manager of for scoot networks in san francisco. and i would just like to support the proposal to stream line the electric vehicle charging stations. our charging network includes

over 40 charging stations located strategically throughout our service areas. we're currently looking to add more charging infrastructure in neighborhoods with limited shared transportation right now. so -- and we also look forward to converting much -- more and more of the power we use to clean hetch hetchy electricity in partnership with the sfpuc. so we're just big supporters of this and we wanted to let you know. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, and really happy to see these electric scooters. okay. all right. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item three -- i mean, two? seeing none, public comment is closed. can i get a motion? >> supervisor peskin: so moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. so we'll have to do that with one absence. supervisor safai is absent. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: item four,

please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, this is an item that i sponsored, along with supervisor safai. just passed recently the board of supervisors in land use committee, we are trying to make permanent. we are trying to attract more businesses in both of our districts which has struggled due to geographic locations. we want to make it easier if notices with principlely permitted in the neighborhood. however, it does not override the notifications and process required for formula retail, for cannabis, for massage, anything requiring a liquor license or routine payment. so this, as we are hearing about all the continuing struggles with retail, especially small businesses and especially with e-commerce, we

hope that this is one tool that will help make that a lot easier. i don't know if supervisor safai has any comments, but after, that i'll go over to diego sanchez to planning department. >> supervisor safai: yes, thank you, chair tang. just real briefly, i appreciate working with your office. i think this is something that has had an immediate impact. we already have a few of the small businesses, a couple of which would not have been allowed to locate and operate in a timely fashion. they don't have the start-up cost, they didn't have the ability to hold a lease during the time of neighborhood notification which usually takes six to nine months. we also were able to adjust that arts uses would go from not permitted in our quarter and i think in yours, as well, to principlely permitted, so we already have a location that's sat dormant for 15 years that is now being occupied by art span and performing arts workshop, and so we're

ecstatic, just ecstatic that we're able to tackle the empty storefront challenges that we have in both of our districts. so just excited to make these permanent and continue to see more businesses open up in an expedited manner. that's all. thank you for working with our office. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, and it was just in hindsight that we should have make this permanent to begin with. we've heard how this legislation is helping businesses in the pipeline, but also how many businesses wish this was in place previously. so with that, mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon, supervisors. diego sanchez with the planning department. supervisors, the commissioners heard this ordinance last week, on november 29. the commission voted unanimously to support the ordinance as proposed, with the minor modification to include a report back on the effects of making the pilot program permanent. and that concludes my presentation. i'm here for questions. thank you.

>> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i think in our original legislation, we already had a reporting requirement in there, so i just wanted to note that. but yes, i appreciate reflection on whether this works or not is important, but sometimes it does take a little bit of time for that to be visible. so with that, item four, if any members of the public wish to comment, please come on up. >> i'm here to speak on my own behalf. i was at the planning commission last week when this came before them. i urged the commission to continue the item or sever districts four and 11. the commission did express concern that this item came before them two months ago as a two-year pilot project. they did however vote to support it with supervisor tang stating that her successor could reverse it back to a

pilot project if necessary. so i would again urge the committee to continue this item. thank you. >> sue hester things exploded in the last week for my schedule that make it important that the board take a halt, slow this down a little. i've been dealing with the 600 block of cortland, 3600 block of sacramento and 2900 block of mission in the mission. all of them have existing businesses that are threatened by construction that will impact and possible put out of

business businesses that exist already. i ask you to slow this down just a teeny bit and weighing questions about what construction can happen, will it block the sidewalks, will it impact merchants? if a sidewalk is blocked from pedestrian flow, it has a big impact on merchants being driven out of business or their operations. i'm dead serious. there were no, no notices on cortland street to anyone in bernal heights except the notice that was mailed out this week for a hearing that is right before christmas affecting merchants on cortland street. i found out going through the environmental document on that case, the construction of a 40-foot building doesn't have any environmental review, it

just has a categorical exemption. that is dangerous. i ask you to slow down, take a rest on this legislation. the planning commission needs to understand what are the impacts on existing businesses if what you are saying, which is no notice means that existing businesses are driven out of business? thank you. i don't oppose this, i just -- >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak during public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: i do want to acknowledge the public comment that was just given about this. i do understand there might be concern around construction. our legislation does not remove any legislation around construction. that simply has to do with those uses that are in the planning code that are along our specifically defined

neighborhood commercial districts where they are principlely permitted, so we have been very thoughtful in going through all of our tables and making sure that these are the uses that are generally received by our neighborhood, both districts four and 11. this is just constrained to our two districts and none others. we certainly hope that it will expand in the future, but where there may be neighborhood issues, neighborhood notification would still occur. again, as i mentioned, formula retail, cannabis, massage, anything requiring a liquor license or a live entertainment permit. so again, construction and development, those notices will still occur, so i don't want to confuse the public with that. also in all of my time in office not only as a supervisor but as a lejs laytive aide, i have never -- legislative aide, i have never seen businesses be rejected with the permit. only time where we have seen issues are frankly around cannabis dispensaries.

i don't want to waste small business' time when they're struggling to open and we're left with vacancies instead. that's far worse. i think it is something that our businesses -- this legislation was sparked by them. they came to us saying this takes too much time, too much money, and they're sitting on paying rent without making money at that time. so this is actually a community-driven piece of legislation, so i would like to move forward, but with that, i don't know if there are any other questions or comments? >> supervisor safai: no. i just want to echo that. i would just affirm that i wish i had the challenges that north beach chinatown had in the sense that there are a lot of the conversation in other parts of the city is about redirecting a cacophony of businesses to other areas of district or to other parts of the city. in our district, we are wanting for, you know, full

restaurant-liquor licenses. we are wanting for restaurants to come. in we are wanting for family-serving entities to come in, and we have one of the highest rates of vacancies and storefronts. when small business owners do approach, and they take on a lease, when they're faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars of tenant improvement, to then be told this was a clothing store and now you want to open up a cafe, which there would be absolutely no neighborhood opposition for, to realize you're faced with almost up to a year of delay on a project that would be principlely permit and had approved by the planning department. what i just described to you is exactly one scenario that was faced in my district where this small cafe owner has had to wait an additional year because of tenant improvement costs and because of the neighborhood notification. we did not have this in advance. so this was spurred by the excelsior-outer mission

planning process. we have a blueprint for -- essentially for the future of our commercial corridor. we spend 1.5 years of outreaching to merchants, residents, planning, the office of workforce development, and this was one of the priorities that came out of that process and during that process. so i can tell you with full confidence that my district is 100% behind approving businesses that are in this over-the-counter process that are different in other parts of san francisco. i can tell you it's a conversation that supervisor peskin and i have had for over a year. he encouraged the conversation to take place in a more focused

area. i think the issues are different in north beach-chinatown, in the mission. we have issues, and those issues are vacancy, they're about cost of start-up. we spent a lot of time and energy, and i think it's appropriate at this point to make them permanent, and in the future, if we have any difficulty or issues. one thing that supervisor taeng sai -- tang said, the fact that we have formulated retail controls, if we get into the situation that there are businesses that rise above a certain number or have a different impact, that conversation is mandatory, as

well as there is no, sir ---for cannabis retail. i appreciate the thoughtfulness of this and the help from the planning department and my colleagues, and the fact that this was a community driven process. >> supervisor tang: we've had public comment. can i have a motion? >> supervisor safai: i would make a motion to pass this out of committee with a recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: okay. can we take that without objection? motion passes. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: next item, please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and we're joined by supervisor

mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair tang. thank you, colleagues. today. i'm here to speak on my ledge lation cosponsored by supervisor yee. i want to start by thanking planning staff and the commission for their support of this ordinance. additionally, i want to thank livable city for his work with our office to draft and bring this forward, finally, i want to thank mayor breed with whom i joined this past july in -- to stablize our existing board and care facilities. residential care facilities are a critical resource in housing our vulnerable population of seniors and people who are severely disabled, and the fact is we don't have anywhere near close to enough of them, and even more troublingly, we've lost 500 of them in the past five years. we currently have a dedicated team of experts and advocates

who are working on this through the long-term coordinated care council and i look forward to working with them in the months ahead. with legislation, we are clearing the path ahead, and making sure when the most vulnerable san franciscans in need of food and shelter, they will have somewhere to go. in offering this ordinance, i am reminded of my own mother who lived in bored and care homes much of her adult life. they were not always great, but without them, she would have undoubtedly ended up on the street. this planning fix of course is not going to be enough to address what is i think one of the more significant challenges

facing this city. streamlining the planning process won't make a difference if we don't incentivize development of the many more board and care homes we need. that means finding funding and citing, and i home that you will join me, colleagues in making this a top priority going forward. i'd like to introduce audrey butkus from the planning department to report on what occurred last week when this item came before planning commission. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. audrey butkus, planning department staff. the planning department voted on this ordinance last week and approved it. if you have any other questions, i'm available. >> supervisor tang: there was a little discussion having this applied to rh-2s and if that's something you're still considering. if not, why or why not? >> i think -- i mean, i'm not

conceptual l conceptually opposed to it. it seemed like a heavier lift bringing in rh-1 and rh-2, and i was comfortable leaving them out for now. >> supervisor tang: okay. any members of the public who wish to speak on this, come on up. >> supervisor mandelman articulated the profound public policy reasons why something like this should be passed. we agree because it increases access for patient care, and that is so important, that increasing and that nexus between the planning code and that of our public health priorities are complex to say the least, but thank you for your leadership on this, and we'd like to add our support. >> hi, good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm lawyura leeson with the

institute on ageing, and i'm here to offer my support. i've had the opportunity to sit on the subcommittee created as you mentioned, supervisor, which convened after supervisor yee's hearing in may 2018. as a group, we have had multiple meetings, starting in august, looking at the supply, the demand and then our strategies to increase access to this absolutely critical continuum of care. serving adults with disabilities and older adults, often times we don't need to institutionalize people. they support the transition into community of which institute on ageing supports through the community living fund. we currently subsidize 25 rcfe

subsidies for adults with disabilities and seniors, and i would appreciate your support. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tom radilovic with livable city. we -- you know, we're big advocates for housing and healthy cities. the realization that we're having and i think that's happening all around the world, housing and health care, you can't think of them in separate silos anymore. that really, for more and more and more of us, housing is our health care, and this ordinance is realizing it. the new term is the continuum of care, and it's this idea that as we move through life, we will at times need more and more care with our housing. so the intent of this ordinance is really to diversefy the types of housing in different neighborhoods, housing options that can allow people to stay in this city, receive the care

that they need, and be housed. residential housing, some people are going to live there for years and years and years, however our planning code doesn't treat it like it's he a residential use. it treats like what's called an institutional use. there are some protections, fortunately, for existing residential units, so sections 317 of the code will still apply to any multiunit building. can't be converted to residential care without a conditional use or that may not be allowed. we're saying residential care and housing should both be priorities. the thing we love about this is it's going to make our neighborhoods a little more diverse. we believe in housing for all ages, all abilities, and all incomes in every neighborhood, and this is an incremental step in that direction, so thank you, supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward. we know that this is an important part of your effort to house the homeless, but

seniors are another population that'll benefit, and we'd encourage you all to support this ordinance today, so thank you very much. >> i'm bob planthold. i'm one of the people that might benefit for this legislation, so i feel it important to give you a person view. some of my medical conditions might require different surgeries in the next few years, so even after i finish any rehab, i would not necessarily be able to live on my own, and yet, finding a place to live would be greatly difficult without this legislation, so i want to give you an idea. this is going to benefit people in the future who hadn't planned on it, who hadn't thought of it, but suddenly, they need it. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item five, please come on up.

seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: i want to thank supervisor mandelman for this legislation. i think it's a really great concept. also it's great for neighborhoods like ours for people who might have an adverse reaction just coming in and building something. i think it's great for not only neighbors but people who need these types of services, so thank you for bringing this up. so colleagues, do we have a motion to move this to the full board? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor tang: all right. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, item number six. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you, and i'll turn it over to supervisor peskin.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. so this item needs to be continued for the preparation of an amendment, and because this requires a fee notice, i would like to suggest that this be continued to a date certain of january t7, 2019, which would be your last meeting at chair of this committee. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin for giving me one more day of work in january . all right. any members of the public who wish to comment on item six? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. so there's been a motion to continue to january 7. we'll do that without objection. all right. thank you. item seven, your item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes,

madam chair, just request you continue this item for one week. >> supervisor tang: okay. so item seven to be continued, but any public comment, please come on up. >> sue hester, urging that amendment be sought to deal with the fact that ground floors of a building that have ground floor presumption of retail in the code don't occupy -- are not occupied and a -- lodged part of the time. we have a real problem with lighting on the streets because there's no ground floor beingtive retail. came up on one street, 444 market, which was trying to convert the ground floor to

office cafeteria. and i spoke at that hearing about the importance to have walkable sidewalks, and walkable sidewalks need lit first floors. if there is a decrease in retail use on ground floors, the sidewalks are dark, and they're dangerous for people that have impediments in walking or just feel -- women feel unsafe. there needs to be an amendment to the planning code and to the building code to mandate retrofit wherever possible to acquire lighting of the ground floors. the building owners don't pay attention to this, the planning department don't pay attention to this. they don't have the tools. you, the board of supervisors need to give them the code tools to say pay attention and

retrofit the ground floor lighting, especially if there's no restaurant or active retail there using the ground floor in the evenings. please. i've become a lot more sensitive to this issue because i've gotten older -- i have more problems. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item number seven, which will be continued. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai, would you like to continue this to the call of the chair or -- >> supervisor safai: no, i'll ask to continue it to next week. >> supervisor tang: okay. continued to next week. okay. i'd like to welcome supervisor

fewer, coming in for supervisor peskin, and madam clerk, item number eight. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i will turn it over to sponsor, supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair tang. colleagues, today, thank you for allowing this hearing and important discussion about the practice and policy behind our transit only lanes. we have been rolling out the red carpet, over 13 miles of red carpet and transit only lanes in the city to increase the reliability of muni. it's no secret we are a transit only city, however i was shocked to learn that our red carpet transit infrastructure we have invested so heavily in could be used by public and private buses. i called for this hearing to request a hearing on an

existing transit only lane network so we can have robust discussion of who should and who shouldn't utilize our transit only lanes. quite frankly as a matter of policy, i feel we should be prioritizing public transportation and our taxis first. public transit is impacted by private cars, the red lane needs to be dedicated space where muni isn't jostling with tour buses, private vehicles, or private operators. i would like to invite the m.t.a. to provide a presentation on this topic. >> hello. >> supervisor fewer: excuse me, mr. kennedy, if you wouldn't mind, there is a representative from supervisor ronen's office who is a cosponsor who would like to say

a few words. thank you. >> my apologies. bad times on my part. my name is amy binart. i'm a legislative aide to supervisor hillary ronen. i want to thank chair tang for opening up this hearing for us and certainly to supervisor sandra fewer for sponsoring and allowing supervisor ronen to cosponsor. i'm just going to read ea few remarks that supervisor row then wanted to share, and -- ronen wanted to share. i ride public transit, and i believe in public transit. i know that our red carpets have been controversial in themselves, but i'm convinced that prioritizing muni makes a lot of sense. in my district, red lanes have added speed and reliability for thousands of low-income bus riders who depend on the 14 mission to take them to work, school, shopping, and services. but over the past few months,

we've learned that our red lanes are not always just for munis, that they're being used by private buses in san francisco, private shuttles that offer selected routes for premium rates, casino tours and more. there's a confusing mix of red lane designations, and we need to get a handle on it. [please stand by]

>> anyway, you have a presentation.

>> okay, madam chair and supervisor fewer, thank you so much for having us. my colleague is coming from another meeting. i will be pitching for a moment. i have a sense he will walk through the door and i will tag out if that will be okay with you. we want to thank you for calling attention to this item expressly

as providers of service and for folks that are especially concerned with making sure our service is reliable, and fast, and efficient as is possible, we are vigilant about what is going on in our streets and within the transit only lanes. staff has done a terrific job by putting together this job with everybody that they need to be to talking up joe's to be talking about the legal ramifications of the transit only lanes, and what the overall benefits and drawbacks and trade-offs might be. to get us started here, to remind everyone a little bit and get everyone oriented to the system overall, munimobile serves 700,000 daily riders. 700,000 every day and that is more than part, caltrain, a.c. transit combined.

that is huge. it is not something to be taken lightly. there are over 25% of all trips and 30 3% of commute trips in san francisco made by transit. it is extraordinarily high for any city. and especially here in the bay area. approximately, and we also know how important this service is to our transit riders. fifty-eight% are minorities, at 50 1% of our writers are low income. i appreciate supervisor ronan and supervisor -- supervisor ronan's aid coming through here. here he is. the amount of the hour. coming up and expressing how concerned we are about providing service for people of lower incomes and students and everyone else. >> thank you. supervisors, i apologize for being late. shawn kennedy, deputy director for muni and in charge of planning and scheduling.

so thank you for going over the backdrop of the meeting system. despite some of these great things we have going for us, we have major concerns and constraints. one of those being in the last decade, two decades, we have been hearing a lot about how muni is unreliable. it leads to crowding. so we have been concentrating the last several years on trying to fix those two issues. specifically the reliability issue. we started a program called the tep, transit affect ocean effectiveness project. that is in the planning phase. we have come into the implementation phase. we have another -- a number of projects and elements within the muni program including transit only lanes and transit signal priority to improve our reliability. we put these into place and we have seen great improvements. we have gotten ridership

increasing 8-10% on our major lines. taken into context, it is really amazing. the country in general has a decreasing transit ridership share. we have found a way to increase that ridership through these projects. and not only are we working on the street, the three leadership at this board and the m.t.a. board to, we are improving our fleet. because of that, we have fewer breakdowns, and service -- more service on the streets in maintaining and staying on the streets. but both of those things really are about implementing the city 's transit first policy. the transit first policy was a drop -- adopted in 1973. as you can see on this picture, transit only lanes have been a mainstay of how the city has implemented those policies since then. this is an older picture on the left of gary in 1978. and how we used to designate

transit lanes was just with paint. or white lines in writing on the lane itself and signs. and then in 2013, we tried a pilot on church street between sixth street, a three block stretch to paint the lane it read to improve compliance and improve the lane itself. we reduced -- we were able to reduce violations in half by putting those red lanes on church street. this map depicts now where we hold out a red lanes around the city. this is a representation of the division chart. the vehicle code. essentially, it shows where transit lanes are, and what type of lanes they are. we have about 30 miles total of transit only lanes in the city. there is about 13 miles of red transit lanes, and a transit

lane must be 24-hour lane before it can be coloured red. the results from a strictly transit operations perspective have been very promising. we have seen travel time decrease by double digits and percentage of the trip pure variability which leads to reliability discussion we are talking about earlier has also improved. and because of this cat ridership has grown and we are seeing, as i mentioned earlier, 8-10% on the corridors. we are seeing double digit ridership growth. just because writers are responding to the idea that they can predict a trip and it works much easier. on the enforcement side, we have three drove a three-pronged approach. we have what is called a transit only lane enforcement camera. this is basically from the state that gave us enabling legislation to allow us to give tickets, electronic tickets to people illegally parking

adjacent to or in a transit only lane. most of these are related to double parking in a transit only lane. and last year, we gave out about 4,000 of those tickets. the second prong of this approach are parking control officers. those are employees of the sfmta and they give out tickets for parking issues and parking violations and they give out 55,000 or so citations last year the third prong is sfpd who does the moving violations within a transit only lane. there's a couple of different types of transit only lanes. the most prevalent is the bus and taxi only lanes. i will talk more in a minute about what is to find -- what defines bass, with those are the most prevalent. probably 90% or so of the 30 miles as a bus only lane. we do have a few muni only lanes

and that precludes taxis, shuttles, all types of buses. to date, those have been legislated where we have safety issues or safety concerns. the picture in the upper right shows eight -- hate to street. the buses go in the opposite direction of the cars. at the end of that streetwear runs, we have transit signals. we just didn't want other vehicles using that lane and getting stuck at the signal. we created a muni only lane. and van ness bart will be eight muni only facility. so that gets us to permitted users and who is allowed to use these lanes. obviously the lanes go back and predate the sfmta. the board of supervisors used to legislate the lanes and we have maintained that same basic legislation pa.