>> commissioner honda: we have a special guest in the back. maybe we could have former president frank fung vote on that. >> i think we'd need a charter amendment, and we're not prepared to do that at this point. okay. we'll hear from mr. paul. >> i was hoping that former president fung to testify in this matter. you might see him tomorrow. yes, those thursday afternoons. thank you, commissioners. dang jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor. i just learned of a personal tragedy in my life so i'm having trouble gathering my thoughts. lost a good friend, but i would like to tell you what happened that brought this case to where it is. a bit less than a year ago, i was meeting with a planner

reviewing the model of a seismic upgrade, existing units, and remodel of the units. and i was discussing with a very experienced planner, max poutra, on what we were going to do with this basement, and how we could best incorporate this basement into the unit above. it was never intended to do this unit as an a.d.u. un-- asn addition. it was staff's recommendation to be a dwelling unit. i'm going to go to the computer now and run through a few slides and show you a little

bit about this. this is what the basement looked like. it was storage in the back and a row of storage throughout. when the seismic upgrade was done, ceiling heights were increased, and the spaces were improved with windows as you see here. this is what the remodel looks like. this is the angle in the other

direction. you can see the staircase that takes up most of this back yard patio. a new steel staircase was put in with grating such that the entire staircase that was there is no longer there. here is a entry declaring it as a very clear entry to housing, and this is what one sees when one comes in that entry. so this is not a dark basement by any means. this is quality housing. we can turnoff the overhead, please. i'd like to run through our findings a little bit. because there is actually a flaw in the way the zoning administrator reviewed this and the findings that the zoning

administrator made in disapproval. in the disapproval findings, the sewning administrator referred to substandard exposure to -- the zoning administrator referred to substandard exposure to light and area in finding three and finding four, stating the proposed a.d.u. would create a dwelling unit with significant substandard to light and air. light and air is a building code issue. light and air in this unit is met light and air of 10% of the floor area, five for ventilation, and five for light, and we exceed that.

the outdoor space, it is true that this looks an exposure to the outdoor space. you have an aerial photo of what the exposure to outdoor space is like. there is an exit that provides considerable access to sky, light, and air, but we do not meet the minimum standard set by the planning code, and i would argue that the planning code can't always capture all the needs for what defines quality housing. so i'd like to quickly run through the findings that i believe we have sufficiently made in favor of allowing this housing. that there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances is the first one. while the proposed unit would lack sufficient exposure to meet the zoning administrator's

limit, the lot faces a large protected midblock open space. number two, that there's an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and that is always the most difficult finding to make. in this particular situation, the unnecessary hardship is not on the developer, it's not on mr. mallia, who has renovate this particular apartment building. he's not a speculator, he's not flipping this for condominiums, this is for tenants. the unnecessary hardship is upon the community at-large, it's upon the housing stock of the city. that here is a quality space that could be inhabited by a tenant in this very dense

neighborhood where basement units are far darker and far left exposed by this. i would suggest that in this case, the zoning administrator has erred in his discretion to not approve a housing unit that would add to the qualitying housing stock -- quality housing stock of this city. i have a tenant who wishes to move in who will make statements, and i will answer any questions about the project. >> excuse me, sir. how come you didn't put all those lovely pictures in your presentation? >> i hadn't taken them yet. >> commissioner honda: and what

would be the purpose of this? >> can you give me a moment to speak with my -- >> commissioner honda: what would be the rent of this? >> it would be 1750 a month. >> commissioner honda: and could you refresh my memory what the square footage is. i'm sorry. you can come to the podium, sir. >> actually, it's a pretty spacious studio. i did some checking in the neighborhood. it's about 500 square feet. >> commissioner honda: and according to the pictures, nice job. >> thank you. believe me, i put an extraordinary effort into this building. i plan to keep it in the familitor generations. >> sir, just for the record,

you're ronald mallia. >> yes ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> excuse me. can you explain how you had had the building approved but did not have the variance yet? why go through the expense without a variance in hand? >> can you for the question, commissioner. the order that things took place is that we had a permit for the remodels of the rest of the building, and we had to resolve the use of the basement and the connection of the basement to the lower unit. planning proceeded to approve the permit for the remodel of the rest of the building for the seismic upgrade without including a dwelling unit down there, allowing us to file a variance application. mr. mallia was the general

contractor getting the work done, doing it on his own. he purchased cabinetry and materials for each of the units in the building. so he had those setup in the unit as he finished the space out. he got the permit finaled without installation of the kitchen. these materials are just placed against the wall, and it's not currently inhabitable form. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner honda: you say that with a straight face? i'm sorry. >> there are a few connections to be made, commissioner honda. i'm sure those can be done fairly quickly or undone fairly quickly. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> good morning, planning commission. scott sanchez, planning

department. double surprise because i had no idea that the sunt wunit wa until the photos were put up. that's not what's been represented to the planning department or planning department staff that there was an existing illegal unit ready for occupancy and they've got somebody wanting to rent it. the photos looked like it was all finished and ready for occupancy, but that is not represented anywhere that i saw in the appellant's brief nor the plans nor any of the materials that were presented to the zoning administrator. it's my understanding that the variance for this was filed in january 2018. there was a hearing on the case earlier this year. the zoning administrator denied the application. it's an rm-2 dwelling unit.

they're already over density by one, and they we wanted to add an a.d.u. the -- generally and historically, the compliant of the code require that each dwelling unit have one room that meets standards of a certain size that have windows of a certain size that face into an area of a certain size. and that's a street at least 20 feet in width, a rear yard that meets the requirements of the planning code or an open space that's 25 by 25 and goes up the larger the unit. the board of supervisors didn't want to remove the requirement entirely because exposure is an

important factor for dwelling units, so they allowed variances, and allowed a space that was 15 by 15. at the time of zoning administrator, and some of -- at the time i was zoning administrator, and some we would approve, some we would disapprove, and some would go to you. but last year, they reduced it even further to 225 square feet or at least nine neat by 9 feet. so this doesn't meet the original coat requirement, the second code requirement, or the newly reduced. it could have just said that it's a waiver and the zoning administrator would have great

flexibility. i don't think the appellant has provided any information to demonstrate what the hardship here is other than they have a unit that's already constructed that they would like to occupy. and we very much encourage new dwelling units, but we do have to have minimum standards. in this case, you know, it is at the bottom -- at least it's not north facing, but it is at the bottom level of a very tall building. it's four stories over the basement, at least buildings that are taller. and i could put more work on the overhead -- >> commissioner honda: are your pictures as good as his? >> not at all. but could i have the overhead, please? >> commissioner honda: thank you -- oh, that was in the package. >> no, that's a bad one. you can see in there, you can't even see the floor level that the building is going to be located at. it's four stories over basement.

it's four, three, two, one, and at that level there. so -- and i have concerns with seeing the work that was done here without permit. i mean, the stairs look at if we were replaced, and i don't know that that was on any of the plans. that's not showing as part of the scope of this project. it may have been other previous permits, and we can review that. but, again, none of that, to my knowledge, was made available -- none of that information was made available to the zoning administrator at the time of the variance hearing earlier this year. and i think the zoning administrator very clearly outlined the reasons -- i know this is not acceptable or appropriate exposure that has been justified by the board of supervisors. the new information that the unit is already constructed, it's not anywhere in the appellant's brief, and i can understand even more now why

they want to have the variance overturned, but the fact that they've illegally constructed the unit does not justify the approval of this variance. i'm available for questions. >> commissioner honda: i've got a question, scott. so considering the lovely board of supervisors institutes all the laws that we have to file, doesn't he have to legalize it after? >> yes, he has to legalize it after -- >> commissioner honda: and we have lots of illegal units, that have wiring through the wall, and bare piping and substandard egress. and now, the city's goal is to legalize all those units. what happens if this case comes back to us seven months from

now and it's been rented out and he has to legalize it? >> so the code says you must legalize it, but if you can't legalize it -- and in this case, they've gone through the -- even though they didn't ask for legalization, they tried to get the a.d.u., they would be required to remove it. the code requires that you seek legalization, but if the legalization is denied, then, the unit is to be removed. >> commissioner honda: okay. i'm not an architect or a planner, but looking at the pictures, and a picture is worth a thousand words. i lived at 101 suramonte, and that is way nicer. >> i would ask the appellant why they didn't present this to the zoning administrator? why they didn't present this at the time of the hearing? maybe it was still under

construction. i don't know if these photos were available at the time. i spoke with the zoning administrator today, and i didn't ask him if the unit was there -- >> commissioner honda: i talked to him today, too, but he didn't make any mention of that. i don't think any information was made available to the zoning administrator about those qualities of the unit. >> commissioner honda: so looking at the unit, i see lots of light and air in my thoughts. so why would it -- and i'm not trying to be argumentative. why would it not qualify at that point? >> we are looking at the dimensional requirement. that photo is probably taken at the best time of the day and best time of the year to get that. >> commissioner honda: no one knows how to photoshop in this modern technology. >> but we've been very strict on applying the standards -- and again, this may be new information that was not available to the zoning administrator --

>> commissioner honda: would you be interested in taking a look at it and us potentially continuing it? >> i could take this new information. we could certainly review the history as well and review it with the zoning administrator and get his updated view on the -- >> commissioner honda: i trust you as a junior zoning administrator and joe duffy as a senior building inspector, i look at the pictures, wow, that looks like a really nice unit. if you do a site inspect, you can say hey, they probably brought in flood lights to bring that light? >> i can review it with the zoning administrator, and get his review on this, and report back to you. >> i have a question for you. in regards to a.d.u.s that the

zoning administrator has granted or not granted since the more relaxed 225 square foot regulation came into being, does he tend to allow variances, in terms of this is half the required size or is it pretty strict, you don't meet the 225, you're not getting the variance fore exposure? >> it's my understanding that there's only one two units approved under the negate reduced standards. one, it has a street that didn't meet the minimum street requirements and set back. independently, they didn't meet the requirements, but separately, they did, so that satisfied the intent of the code requirement. and then, the other one was had -- situated in a way that there were two very large light wells, and basically every room in the a.d.u. had exposure on to one of those two very large light wells, that, you know, were each very close to meeting the minimum dimensions, so it

was substantially different from what we have here, where there's just one area and it's very clearly not meeting the code requirements. >> okay. thank you. >> does the 110 measurement include or exclude the measurement of the staircase? >> it excludes it. >> does anybody know what it would be including the staircase? >> i believe it would be a larger area. >> and before making these findings, did planning visit the unit at all? >> in this case, i don't know. probably staff did not do a site visit and relied on the materials submitted by the applicant to demonstrate their

case. >> i had another question. for finding number five, it says a requirement -- i was confused. it says a requirement for finding number five was not met, but then, the discussion seems to say that actually it is met. so i -- it looked like a mistake to me on that finding. >> well, actually under finding two -- or a-2 of finding five, it does say that the project will not be in keeping with the existing housing and neighborhood quality that the a.d.u. is of substandard quality, falling below the requirements of such unit. so with that -- >> okay. so that's in keeping. essentially, i read this as for all five findings, since it's below the statutory number of 225, we shouldn't do it, which sort of seems like weird logic since the purpose of a variance is to go below the code. >> but it's also based on the materials that are presented by the appellant, and they weren't able to show that there are

exceptional or extraordinary conditions. we can't make findings that don't exist. >> i see. >> vice president swig: can i grill you for a second? >> or two or three. >> vice president swig: i'm like commissioner honda. we see these circumstances where people have been living in so-called your mother-in-law units or grandmother units where wives or mothers are picked on, and the intent of the legislation was to try to limit illegal rental of really bad units, and hoping that people would come out of the closet and say okay, we've been renting this unit illegally. now, we can make it legal again.

and with -- and this kind of flies in the face of that. i think commissioner honda's exactly right. if i was the building owner -- now, it wouldn't be me, but it wouldn't be unheard of that a building owner would say okay, fine, i lose. i'm going to rent illegally, and we have another illegal unit on the streets of san francisco. here, we have a unit that may be out of compliance but it gives somebody who might otherwise be homeless an opportunity to live under a roof instead of under the stars. so i'm really trying to work hard to -- in the spirit of creating housing right now, it's clear that the project sponsor blew it, you know --

>> commissioner honda: jumped ahead as we say. >> vice president swig: jumped ahead and done a few things, and now he's being justifiably punished for that because you're not going to do that you're not supposed to do the act and then pray for forgiveness, but it is more housing stock in a city that's plagued with no housing stock. so what i'd like to know here and help me with this. under finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, etc., etc. if -- if this unit were permanently designated as an affordable unit, and this unit could not be rented as a market rate but add restrictions on

its rental to a person that met the affordable status, would that create a -- a -- an exceptional or an extraordinary circumstance? >> the planning code does not require an affordable unit for this proposal and one has not been proposed. >> vice president swig: i understand. but if this were conditioned, and the property owner were to mandate that -- >> i would discuss that with the city attorney, but that would be an ad hoc condition of approval -- usually, there needs to be a voluntary concession here on the part of the property owner. if they want to designate a unit as affordable that's not required under law, there would be certain other requirements to make that happen. but this unit has not been

proposed by the applicant as affordable. it's not required under the code. >> vice president swig: for example if we were to continue this and as far as your oversight, you looked at it further, and during the hiatus, the project sponsor would voluntarily designate this as an affordable unit, would that create an exceptional extraordinary situation? >> i would -- i'd be careful in how i -- i want to be careful in how i respond to thatthat. i would want to discuss that with the zoning administrator before i get an out on that. >> commissioner honda: calling corey now. >> vice president swig: i'm not trying to pardon a misdeed on the -- clearly, there was a misdeed done. clearly, there was an improvement that should not have been made. clearly, it was done outside the permit. clearly, all these things are

wrong. at the same time, where i'm trying to go with this, at the same time, if this is going to find itself under further review, i'm just asking if that condition was voluntarily made, would it be something that the zoning administrator would consider as an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. >> in regards to this case, this is a de novo hearing, and it's now before this board to make a decision to the variance, it would be up to the board to make that finding as an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner honda: mr. vice president, may i interject. i think we're trying to stream line conditions, but i'm personally leaning towards a continuance. we can stream line that instead of hearing all this process and potentially is that -- is that eveni even okay to suggest? >> vice president swig: yeah. we have to go through rebuttal

and save this discussion for later. >> i would have to research if this is a condition that the board can impose. >> vice president swig: i'm hearing, counselor, that that's good advice, we can't suggest thation. i'm just raising that query that if we were to continue this case and at the suggestion of commissioner honda on that the zoning -- honda that the zoning administrator take this under recommendation -- >> commissioner honda: it's a beautiful illegal unit. i used to be the standard in san francisco several years ago, just so you know. >> vice president swig: then maybe another circumstance be considered, that it be permanently voluntarily deeded to an affordable situation. that's all. and it would be already rent controlled. >> i can have the zoning

administrator review the photos and get his opinion on the -- >> commissioner honda: the new nonlegal improvements. >> vice president swig: why don't we move on to public comment. >> clerk: okay. i just wanted to say that vice president lazarus has a prior commitment and has to leave. madam vice president? [inaudible] >> vice president swig: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we are now on to public comment. is there anyone who would like to speak on this matter? >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> hi. good evening. my claudine, and i have been looking for an apartment in the area. so far, the apartments that i

look at, they're either too expensive or it's not that nice or too small. and mallia showed me his studio apartment on 1606 jones, i was very excited. i said oh, that's perfect for me and my son. however, he told me that it's not been approved, and i was -- i don't understand. it's all very, very nice. everything is all brand-new. i don't understand, and if you can give me a chance to move into this apartment, it would be greatly appreciated, and it would really for improve me and my son's life, and thank you for your time and consideration. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and camera's house has an a -- cameron's house has an amazing story of what they've done. >> clerk: thank you. we will now move on to

rebuttal. mr. paul, you have three minute. >> thank you, miss rosenberg, commissioner swig. there was no doubt that the kitchen was finished beyond the scope of issued permits. this would be legally active space under the permits that were active at the time and completed. so it is -- was the clear understanding of this contractor and owner that he was sticking his neck out in a way that he might be cutoff. but the economies of scale when you're doing a large about renovation like that, in tenants and trying to keep costs to as low as possibnarro

so you can keep rents as low as possible, it made sense that he purchased those cabinets and put them in. it was a justifiable risk at the time. it's a cost that he's willing to assume to remove them. if this kitchen has to be removed, this scare will be altered -- this stair will be altered, and people will still be living there, but it won't be part of a dwelling unit, and it won't be part of a dwelling unit that people won't use very much. where you have an option to give it to their tenant and son who really will make good use of their space. in -- with due respect to the zoning administrator and his position, i don't think that they're able to really

reconsider how they determine the quantitative vaulqualities exposure, although this board can take and make a de novo determination on this issue. there is the exact same scenario up four more floors above this, so it is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. it is a matter to create more housing. i would ask this board not to continue something for something that's going to be housing stock in one way or the other. i think it's the best move for this board to approve it as a separate dwelling unit and

allow rosina and her son to occupy it as quickly as possible. >> commissioner honda: so i just told you i'm willing to continue. i think if i vote this evening, i would be in support of the department. >> let's continue it. >> commissioner honda: that's what i was thinking. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we'll now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. it's good to know the board was still tough on variances. >> commissioner honda: it's commissioner fung. come on up, we have an empty seat up here. >> so to correct something that the appellant stated. it's incorrect that each of the floors has the same situation. each of the other floors get their exposure to the front. they're all four flats that

face through, so to correct the record there. you know, i will take the information about the, you know, really nice, new, illegal unit and those photos if the appellant can e-mail them to me, and i can discuss that with the zoning administrator and also review the zoning administrator and appreciate that to facilitate that, if the appellant would provide the proposed plans that show the required set of stairs within the required rear yard, and all the improvements that they show, including the habitable space in the back yard. certainly reconstruction of stairs within the required rear yard can pose certain requirement code issues. >> i have a question going back to what you stated before. this variance was applied for

in 2018 and heard in 2019. is that correct? >> i'm going to double-check that. >> it has a 2018 number. >> it has a 2018 number, but i believe -- >> do you know when it was submitted? >> i believe it was december 2018. >> okay. so the end of 2018. >> last question, and everyone wants to leave here. but -- so i'm not making light or giving approval of developers that -- that do work beyond the scope of permit and without a permit, just to be very clear. but at the same time, i am supportive of housing, and i've seen quite a few illegal units that are just horrible that have been legalized. and so i find it kind of a shame that someone has gone through such great energy to make a nice unit, albeit without the proper permits, be denied.

just going forward, right? i mean, this is a problem that when david chiu initiated this legislation in october of 2014 or 16, we knew what would happen. the city was based on many granny units that were based on improper plumbing, didn't have lights, improper ingress and egress. and in light of that, the city still proceeded to legalize these units, and not only don't ask, don't tell, and it made all those units legal units, and those units are now $2500. so i would love for the department to take a further

look to see if we could do something. if that includes multiple penalties for doing work without a permit, i'm fine with that, too. >> and just to correct the submittal dates for the record, it does have a 2018 case number. it was submitted at the very end of 2018. the case was created on january 7, 2018, and the case was heard on -- january 7, 2019, and the case was heard on january 8, 2019. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i will make a motion to continue this. how much time do you think the department needs -- it's on the department rather than the permit holder. >> it's when the appellant can give us the materials including the approved plans and the photo. the review of the zoning administrator would be relatively brief. if they could do that this weekend. >> do you think you would want

to make a site visit at all to inspect the unit in person or is that not necessary? >> i think the photos speak for themselves, but we can -- we would need a little bit more time to -- >> maybe would be interesting to see what's happening inside the unit. >> dangjeremy, i'd be very nic. the zoning administrator does not like to be sacked. >> clerk: november 18. >> we're going to have a tight, busy schedule on the 6. >> we can test our new one-minute, two-minute rule. >> clerk: would that date work for you, november 13? >> commissioner honda, if i may make a comment? >> sure.

>> i don't believe there will be a need for any further testimony on the matter when it comes back. >> okay. >> it will be fully submitted before the board. if you have questions, we'll be here, but i won't have further presentation for you. >> yeah, exactly. >> can you provide the dimensions of the rear yard area when you return, the one -- the depth is not dimensioned on the plans. >> yes. >> thank you. >> in other words, we'd like to know, i mean, if you include the stairway. >> when the board comes back, they would have to arrested clayton the find -- articulate the findings under 305 c.

>> i will provide the dimensions of the rear yard, the characteristics of the open stair, and the five findings for your consideration. >> thank you. so we have a motion to continue to november 13. >> november 13, who's making that motion? commissioner honda? >> we're doing a joint. >> okay. on the motion to continue to november 13 -- [roll call] >> so that motion carries, 4-0. we'll see you on november 13. thank you. this concludes the hearing.

hello. i'm shauna with the leaving women voters of san francisco.

along with the league and sf gov tv i'm here to discuss proposition d, a ballot measure before the voters on tuesday, november 5. proposition d would impose a business tax on commercial ride-share companies for fares generated by rides that start in san francisco. currently the city of san francisco does not impose a business tax on fares charged by commercial ride-share companies, such as über and lyft. these companies provide car rides for fare and range shared rides where each passenger pays a separate fare. typically, rides are requested using on online platform to connect drivers with passengers. the proposed tax is 1.5% on a shared ride fare and 3.25% on a private ride fare. the city would impose these

taxes on fares charged by these company until november 5, 2045. passenger rides in zero-emission vehicles would be subject to a 1.5% business tax until september 21, 2024. the city will deposit the tax revenues, estimated at $31 million annually, into a traffic congestion mitigation fund to spend for the following purposes. the san francisco municipal transportation agency, which oversees the city's transportation system, including muni buses and trains, bicycles, traffic, parking and taxis will receive half of the revenues to improve muni service and reliability, maintain and expand facilities and improve muni station access. and the san francisco county transportation authority, a county agency separate from the city that funds and plans transportation projects would

receive roughly half of the revenue to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. a yes vote means you want to impose a 1.5% business tax on shared rides and a 3.25% business tax on private rides for fares charged by driverless vehicle companies to fund improvement in muni service. a no vote means you do not want to impose this business tax. i'm here with sunny from the office of supervisor aaron peskin and a proponent of proposition d. welcome. >> hi. >> we're joined by howard epstein and opponent of the measure. thank you, both, for being here. we're going to start with opening statements and we'll begin with howard. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> i believe it should be

defeated. that's not important. this is not going to do anything. it's not going to stop the traffic. if you look at it, and look at, for instance, the fees charged on a $20 single ride, it's going to add 65 cents to the ride. on the $10 ride-share, it's going to add under a dollar to the ride. that's not going to dissuade anybody from taking the ride-shares. and frankly, given the state of muni in san francisco, given the way the taxis work -- where i live in the richmond, it's almost impossible to get a taxi. ride-shares are helpful. i use them all the time when i'm going downtown, out to dinner. whatever. they're very handy. and to take them away and say, well, people are going to run down to take the muni just isn't going to happen.

the other thing in this, there is a paragraph in there that allows this commission to add a $300 million bond to be paid for. i mean, we're bond crazy now. we don't need another $300 million bond. so that's why i say vote no. it's not going to do any good. it's not going to curb traffic. it's not going to help anybody. >> thank you, howard. sunny? >> well, many, many studies have shown that ride-shares, über and lyfts, have contributed to over 50% of our traffic congestion since 2015. this is just in the last several years. frankly, unfortunately, it is an industry that we are preempted through state law from regulating. we can't cap the number of vehicles. we can't require them to do background checks. we can't require them to do the same safety training for example

that our taxi cabs are required to do, but we can ask them to pay their fair share toward mitigating the impact on our streets and fund the maintenance and creation of the infrastructure, that they are utilizing every day. that's our streets, bus stops, curbs. this funding is a very modest business tax that would go towards 50% toward increasing our muni fleet, hiring bus drivers, paying for operation and maintenance, paying for the affordability programs, free muni for seniors and youth. and the other 50% goes toward capital improvements which are regulated through our transportation authority, a separate body that the board of supervisors and their county designations help toover see. that's everything from senior crossings to pedestrian safety, disability access as well as bicycle infrastructure in the

city. so i mean i think that the city has identified a $22 million annual need. and these types of capital costs, whether it's the downtown caltrain extension for whether it's the neighborhood improvement. and this is projected to bring in $32 million to $35 million annually and i think it's a great investment in our system. >> thank you. so the first question is following up on that. it goes to howard. sorry, to sunny, rather. so the proposed tax is estimated to generate $30 million in revenue, you said $32 million to $35 million annually, can you talk about how this money will be spent and why you are in support of that? >> sure. so again, 50% of these funds -- i mean all the money goes into a traffic congestion fund, because numerous studies, numerous experts have all agreed that one of the best ways to get people

out of their cars is having reliable muni, it is having safe bicycle networks with safe improvements where pedestrians, everyone can walk free of being hit by a car. and so 50% of the funding would go towards increasing capacity on our muni. we know from recent hearings that we are vastly understaffed in terms of our muni drivers. we don't have enough. and we need to be able to give them a competitive wage and hire more. we need to increase our fleet. we need to build out the rail network, including the richmond district, and make sure that rapid transit is operating efficiently. the other 50% goes to capital improvements that the transportation authority would be doling out. that's bike lanes, protection. >> same question to you, howard. the revenue, why would you

oppose how this money is going to be? >> the city has enough revenue as it is. if you look at our budget, it's very high. we spend the second highest amount per resident of any city in the country. only washington d.c. beats us. if you look at the spending, it's inefficient. look at the streets, look everywhere. what they do here, every time there is a problem, they throw money it at it. if that doesn't solve the problem, throw more money at it and nothing ever gets done. we need to bring people into city hall who understand how to manage, who understand how to plan, who are successful in the private sector and will get things done. >> thank you. my next question is to first to you, howard, that is if the proposed tax the correct way to

reduce traffic congestion in san francisco, and if not, what is? >> as i said in the opening statement, given the small fee, it's not going to dissuade anyone from taking the ride share. what they really have to do is plan. if you look at taking lanes away and giving them to bicycles, for instance, they're taking out parking. they're doing a lot of things that add to the traffic congestion. if they had more parking, leave the lanes there, because there are more cars going down. and there are bicycles. we need some bike lanes, obviously, but not the way they're doing it now, not the way they're blocking the streets and taking out the parking. >> same question to you sunny. >> is the proposed tax the correct way to reduce traffic congestion? >> i think it's one tool, absolutely. absolutely. i mean, look at this point we

are -- our city has not kept pace with the population boom in the city. we're projected to have a million people in the city and county of san francisco within the next ten years. i mean, we don't have, you know, a bus system, a rail system that is able to manage that kind of worker-resident traffic. and i think this funding is critical to being able to hire parking control officers. we've seen that successful in helping to reduce gridlock and blocking the box, which is people double parking in our streets. this is one of many tools we need to be employing as a city to make a dent in what is going to be gridlock like no one has seen before. in the south of market, in the center of the city, you can't even -- frankly where all of the tc traffic is, is a heat map of just total gridlock.

that's where the tmcs are. we've got to start employing some of the tools we can until the state does something. >> thank you. closing statements. howard? >> as i said i don't think this is needed. they're going to throw money at it and they won't get anything accomplished as with everything else. we need to plan. we need to take a step back, check our budget, and look at everything we planned. look at how many employees we have in every department. again, we have 20-something employees for every resident. that is very high. other places like philadelphia have half that and three times the population. so we need to take a step back. and rather than raising taxes, issuing bonds every time something comes up, we need to step back and look, get

effective people to plan and take it from there. >> sunny? >> you know, i am not a proponent and i think the city is being very thoughtful about what kinds of taxes we are levying. this is actually a business tax. this is not on the riders. it's not on the drivers. it's not on everyday citizens. i think that is something we're sensitive to given the fact that the sales tax that was supposed to go toward the same types of improvements we were never able to fund, failed miserably. taxpayers are like, why are we the ones paying to build infrastructure, when massive corporations, including über and lyft, are not paying their fair share. they identified $22 million needed in capital improvements and being able to hire muni drivers. that's money we don't have. and the dedicated piece of this is so important to show the voters, this is exactly what

we're spending the money on. we're not hiring a new mta director, not spending it on pension plans, we're spending it on these line items. that's where taxpayers have told us they want investment. this is no -- not a bond. this allows us to bond against the revenue we bring in. i think that's also very important. >> thank you, both, for your time and input on this measure. >> thanks for having us. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website. early voting is able november 7 from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 5.

>> first off, i want to give a huge shout out to the domestic violence's consortium and fearless leader of the event, beverly upton. [cheers and applause] domestic violence is an issue that spans many departments and