mr. peskin. his father passed recently. he took time off and i've never seen nobody give condolence to him pertaining to the death of his father. if i'm wrong, correct me. but i would like to have you address that, too. now also i want to credit mr. peskin for being the only person that gives credibility and recognition to my demonstration pertaining to a minimum of $217 billion in uncollected tax money, given to twitter. it used to be five. now it's nine high-tech companies getting the billions of dollars of tax-free money. when you have tax money, negative cash flow, you want people that want nothing to do with the money deficit to pay for it. for example, sf.com, would you please, in the year 2017, uncollecting payroll taxes and breaks given to twitter is $873,923,000. okay? in the year 2016, there's approximately $1,357,216,777 worth of tax-free money given to twitter and high-tech companies. for the past two years, it's the total of $2,231,141,349 worth of tax-free money that's called money laundering and tax evasion a

if you would like, i have some handouts i can provide for the supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. tom. >> on a higher level, i would direct the supervisors to page 4, slide 4, please. excuse me one second, i will grab some for the overhead. >> supervisor peskin: while you are doing that, because you are getting to the issue of peer review, mr. golesorkhi one thing we have long concluded in this committee and our investigations is that -- and this was a decision, however it happened, that your work was not independently peer reviewed. is that common? was it common at the time? is it common now? can you share thoughts about that? >> sure. it was not required, or common at the time. but for the past few years after a313 was issued by d.b.i., and we haven't been involved in many of the tall new buildings, myself, personally. peer review is an excellent process. and it works. and it's great that it exists right now. or it has existed for the past few years. >> supervisor peskin: and do you know if there was any push back at the time. because obviously there was peer review on the stru

thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you very much. mr olson, we. >> my name is ted olson. it was an honour, it is an honour to serve on the board for this project. i, obviously ask your approval of it, but i am here today to commend the director on the way he conducted and chose all of the participants for this, particularly his collegial work with the other partner departments which means that this is a uniform intelligence of all of your infrastructure departments. i also want to commend susan, and the entire team for leading our see wg through this process of understanding all of the technicalities that went into this decision. finally i say, about the importance, and as john said, the differences between airports and roads versus railroad, by the time high-speed rail comes to san francisco, and the importance of this is it is a regional plan that we have proposed, by the time it arrives in san francisco, we will have 1 million residents. i urge your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> mr chairman, members of the commission,

mr. peskin for follow-up. >> i wanted to come back to something i started off with that is bothering me. y in maryland, why are they not part of the program. the hardest hit referring to the states or the people who are the were made under a set of criteria developed by the proper administration. if you eria and talk about the other programs. >> are you actively reconsidering the criteria. it seems like there is a lot of money that is being wasted in other states. maybe not necessary for parts of maryland were devastated and demolished by the crisis. is that something that is under active consideration with you? >> we do not have authority to change the criteria at this point. the changes are to which dates are eligible -- >> why not? >> the criteria was set for the program and has been closed -- >> as a matter of administrative discretion, it was not built into -- itself. >> i can't answer that specifically. i would be happy to work with my team. >> you know a case called shelby county ffertly. here is a program that has been set up by the department of treasury for some states get the

. >> supervisor peskin:, mr olson, the floor is yours. >> thank you mr president. my name is ted olsen and i'm a third generation san franciscan and sit on the division zero task force. -- sit on the division zero task force. i want to support the approval of this. we've made such progress with vision zero. i think what's really impressive about it is how the departments of the city have come together, acting on such and an important thing. especially how they've been using surveys, media, to conduct such a survey and gather community impressions. i took the survey and i'm sure many others did. there's much discussion in the community, i know it certainly has been on the market. it has been discussed about removing freeways and stuff like that. i commend division zero team and command your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr olson. seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment, i think you have one more commissioner thacommissioner tho solicit a vote from on the consent agenda. if you could please ask commissioner kim how she would like to vo

you. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner yee i will communicate with the city lobbyist so they don't allow a repeat of what happened in the assembly of transportation committee and mrwatts will work the floor and the senate side. seeing nor further comment. next item. >> we need to take a vote. >> supervisor peskin: right, on the motion to support prop 69 assembly bills 2304, 2363 and oppose 2989, is there a motion? moved by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner fewer. roll call. >> breed aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. tang aye. yee aye. we have first approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next item. >> item 5 approve san francisco's lifeline transportation program cycle 5 program of projects. this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: ms. smith? >> i'm a senior transportation planner at the transportation authority, today i'm excited to present the lifeline transportation program cycle 5 recommendations and share the creative ways we're recommending the projects. so lifeline, is a regional program that is administered by the transportation commission. it has about $22 million available this cycle. san francisco has

peskin. we have a motion to move forward all three items, and we can do that without opposition. thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, and i want to thank and acknowledge my colleague and sponsor of the hearing aaron peskin for your continued determination in continuing our discussion on this topic. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair kim and thank you, president breed for your continued indulgence as this is now hour ninth hearing on the subject of tall building seismic safety standards after we learned a couple of years ago about the millennium tower differentially settling much more than we predicted than the four to 6 inches that was originally projected for uniform settlement over the course of its entire life. and of course the will i limmium building is actually in supervisor kim's district, so i want to thank her for allowing me to continuing to get to the bottom of why it is sinking and tilting and what we can do about it. when it was completed a decade ago on a very tight and expedited b

on behalf of supervisor trent four, on behalf of supervisor peskin, and mr lee radner. >> supervisor breed: colleagues cactus brings us to the end of our agenda. madame clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor breed: we are adjourned. thank you, everyone. [♪] . >> i'd like to call this meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission to order. it's tuesday, may 8, and i just wanted to start with a couple of announcements. first, for those of you that did not hear, our former colleague and counselor noreen ambrose was nominated to the ethics commission. on behalf of all of us, obviously, congratulations to her. our general manager now in the house. pretty good stalling, right? and then to our colleagues at sfgtv for being recognized for the sixth year in a row, for being nominated for a california emmy, working behind the scenes for making us look really, really good, right, harlan. i think they'll find out june 2nd to see if they won any of those awards. and finally, thank you, donna for sending me this

on behalf of supervisor trent four, on behalf of supervisor peskin, and mr lee radner. >> supervisor breed: colleagues cactus brings us to the end of our agenda. madame clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor breed: we are adjourned. thank you, everyone. [♪] - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - o

i agree with supervisor peskin's office and mr. hepner on you're asking for the same things we've been asking for on kind of what's out there as far as retail and office and vacancies, so that data will be good to get and evaluate every time we have these projects. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just one question for the project sponsor. how close are you to getting your building permit? >> so we have not filed yet, but we expect to get it in the january range at the latest. the idea and the timing is as soon as macy's moved out, we will get our permit. the only difficulty is. >> commissioner richards: so we will have it with the interim controls. >> the only problem is you have to have 18 months of vacancy, and with the permitting, i don't think you can get there. >> president hillis: i think the difficulty we've had with the sixth and seventh floors, so perhaps the interim controls can be fashioned that a project like this that has planning commission approval to move forward, but that's a policy call of the boa

>> supervisor peskin: we do. you can see mr. sanchez is nodding his head. we have that, we are the board of supervisors, we take anything up, simple answer i'm not comfortable inserting that. >> supervisor safai: not for central soma, for the transportation sustainability fee so we can see how this plays out. i'm fine with what you're proposing today, but what i mean is have the opportunity to look at the fee itself and what impact it has on nonresidential overall, so we can have a report back and see how the impact is. >> supervisor tang: if i can jump in, and correct me if i'm wrong, department staff, but the controller's office is supposed to do analysis of the impact fees every five year and the next time they would do it is next year. this feeds into my comments from the last committee meeting, but i would have liked us to be considering increases to any fees, whether in central soma or elsewhere after the analysis or future analysis would have been done. that would have been my preference. i also shared for about $12 million, you know, it's a small am

. >> supervisor tang: thank you mr jones for that run through. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam chair. colleagues, and thank you to miss jones for that, i think, startling -- starting startlingly important testimony. i realize that i submitted an amendment which i asked previously that a committee member make. but i would respectfully like to ask you to consider changing that amendment a little bit. which is, if a member of this committee would like to duplicate the file, and accept the centrosome in it's entiret, which we can then trail until after the commission hears this and i realize that that is where the bulk of the value is, and move forward with the five-dollar fee, particularly in light of which miss jones showed relative to nexus and described thi describedthe history, if wee central soma, i would ask that one of you, if you see fit, to duplicate the file and i guess i cannot duplicate the file, because i'm not on the committee anymore. and, so, take out of the title, be long title at line five, where the fee for such projects wou

mr. james k chan. come on up. >> thank you, supervisor peskin for this incredible honor and thank you to your fellow boardor validating and pulling focus on your individual community members and my fellow api honorees. regardless of our individual and collective political priorities, i think we can agree that we have one common thread out of many and that is a deep, deep love for this city. my family and i are refugees to this country. sponsored over to minnesota. and in the mid 80s we relocated to san francisco and lived in the tenderloin district. >> and it is also about the beloved neighbourhood of chinatown. and it pulls focused back on my neighbours and those are the human pillars of the community. and i could not do it alone. and i have two cat two of my team here who i proudly stand next to you. [applause] i have my researcher and our outreach coordinator. this recognition is for all of us. so thank you very much for this recognition. thank you. [applause] >> clerk: congratulations and thank you so much for your great film. looking forward to seeing it. with that we will go to supervisor ronan. >>

. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair, i want to thank ms. flood, mr. lazarus and mr. rutland and others who spoke during public comment. i do want to address one misconception which we have clarified with planning and i'm sure our deputy city attorney mr. givner can speak to it. but as to any conversion of retail to another form of less traditional retail, including but not limited to museum use, including some of the stuff that has been proposed for the 4th and 5th floors of 120 stockton would not be subject to these controls. if you want to address that, but that is our understanding from planning. and then with regard to the larger question of the 18 months. it is my profound desire and intention to have permanent controls and impact fee done within that 18-month period. if we can get that done this calendar year, these interim controls would then sunset when we had the permanent controls and the impact fee and we're working as quickly as we can to achieve that. i'm not interested in having interim controls in the sake of having them. planning has been talking abou

peskin: thank you. the last was an object lesson in the right way to have a confirmation. mr. rosenfield reached out, i believe to every single supervisor a long time ago and sought our comment and support and of course as with this case, this is an appointment of the mayor that is subject to confirmation by the board of supervisors. we were talking about the budget process. i think one of the most important things about the budget process is the annual moment we get to check in with a department, in front of the public, ask some questions about what they are doing and what their goals are. how they have succeeded in the previous year and what they intend to do in the coming year. and the reason i'm saying all of this, is because the role of the legislative branch in the confirmation function is very important. and i take it very seriously and i don't think it should be treated lightly, particularly in and around a body like the m.t.a. commission that we have by charter law, granted powers that are, in many ways, the powers that elected officials, legislative leaders enjoy in