Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee 31317  SFGTV  March 19, 2017 3:20am-6:01am PDT

3:20 am
sure that this is done appropriately and i want to be clear to my think we all fully support bike sharing and robust regional solution to our traffic congestion but we also want to make sure that this is done in a weight does not become a nuisance on the sidewalks of san francisco. to that end, i have before the committee this ordinance amending division one of the transportation code to establish regulations with regard to station must bicycle sharing programs and other like to note that division two, which is within the sole and absolute authority of the sf mta is going to be before the sf mta commission later this month on the 21st. i like to bring up katie price from the sf mta sustainable space division to give a brief overview of the mta's permitting program currently and with you guys
3:21 am
envision for a program update. >> good afternoon and thank you committee members. jimmy parks with the sf mta and i oversee the city's bicycle programs are excited to be here today for to propose a ordinance to amend division one of the station must bicycles go shepherd him and [inaudible] supervisor peskin just mention her by the mta board on march 21 we feel that these legislations are really strong and make sure station was by showing his right leg in a manner that's consistent with how we already treat station base by sharing and remote public health and safety. we appreciate working closely with supervisor peskin's office to develop this combined division i and division ii transportation code package that's been cordoned eight. i want to take a couple of minutes to provide an overview of bike sharing as it exists in
3:22 am
san francisco today. i describe the emerging trends and station was bike sharing. then describe the legislation that you are hearing today as was the legislation that the mta board will tour x fits into the overall framework. first some background on by sharing. san francisco already has a successful station vice bike share program to date launched in 2013 with approximately 350 bicycles at 35 stations in san francisco. in 2015 san francisco works with regional partners at the metropolitan transportation commission or mpc to form an agreement would motivate already is the operator of the bay area bike share system. to find privately funded a massive expansion of that. the resulting expansion of the station was by sure love about 7000 bikes throughout the bay area with a tenfold expansion in san francisco alone. in 2016
3:23 am
motivate announced a partnership with old ford motor, the work sensibilities eight expansion is already underway. we've got a new stations already in the ground as part of the expansion. we bishop harmon permits for 50 additional stations new permit has been ordered that we'll start seeing over the ground over the summer. expansion is well underway in this very exciting to see. at the same time our station is taking shape the concept of station was bike sharing in scheduling to involve a number just a bike share model. what is station was bike sharing? for people that don't know it totally new especially bike share bikes that don't need a dock. bike themselves have gps they have their payment. internal locking mechanisms so they can be left anywhere which is [inaudible] but by being left anywhere they can be left up ipod leaned against a tree or symbol in the middle of a sidewalk. some station with systems such as portland oregon software docs is way to organize and relate the use of public right away with station was bike share bikes. all other systems critically several marching chinese companies forgo docs altogether and the boys are simply placed wherever users choose to place them. i think
3:24 am
[inaudible] the best-known of these right now but really there's half a dozen or more competitors out there and if there's only one special station was bike shirt operator i think as an agency we would be very differently but knowing that great growing interest in stations by sure we want to get out in front of you as the supervisor mentioned two insureds well-regulated. that means treating it consistently with all ready how we treat stays this patient was bike sharing only along in the transportation would also means regular and station was bike shirt in a way that promotes public health and safety. in terms of the book registration is up division i legislation referred to a could violation to operate stations by sharing without a permit and essentially treats unauthorized station was bike share bikes like any other unauthorized item in the public right-of-way to be collected and disposed of by public works. the only purpose of the economy division ii legislation which will be heard next tuesday by the mci board which we made fully public available later this week, is to actually establish the station was bike should permit itself establish the conditions receiving this
3:25 am
permit. so while the full details will be discussed at the mta board in broad outline, the red requirements is really are trying to look at legislation that ensures any stations by sure system remote public health and safety in the slight details of those and that. two major things that we really put a lot of thought into developing legislation is first, equity. we want to make sure the bikes are available across a wide geography of san francisco that includes the kidneys and not simply the core of san francisco. also memberships are formal to be both low income. the system is truly at wearable and assessable to every ordered the second major thing is maintaining the public right-of-way with it doesn't allow bikes to be a nuisance whether they are blocking transit travel on the sidewalk or simply cluttering the urban space. we want to make sure that we are meeting the public right-of-way which is one of
3:26 am
the oversight rules of mca and finally the report is required data sharing to make sure operators are meeting the responsibilities we laid out in the requirements and so in summary we are excited at the legislation. that's an example being collaborative and also being proactive and as a result helps to ensure any use of the public right-of-way is in the public interest and that applies to private companies is welcome without him having to take any questions they may have. >> supervisor peskin >> i have no questions for mr. park said i would like to thank them for him for his colleagues for their help and collaboration and then ask mr. sanguinetti for the public department of public works to come up. this amends the public works code and gives mohammed and jerry their staff some new tools. >> thank you supervisor. so as it relates to our collaboration with the mta which you are familiar with, we will be
3:27 am
amending the public works code article 1603 which in the past has referred to illegal dumping . what we will do is include bicycles for the removal of bicycles found to be out of compliance if they were left stranded in the middle of the right-of-way is an example. left in violation of governing regulations. we will go ahead and catalog goes, route them catalog and store them at the operations yard. for specified period of time where they can be claimed could then public works is looking to draft a director's order that will discuss fees for that storage and for the reclamation of those bikes. >> great. thank you dennis with colleagues any questions? >> mr. chairman i don't know if you want to hear from doug johnson was available from the
3:28 am
municipal transportation commission with regard to the regional bike shared network and pvc reference by mr. parks but he is here if you would like to hear from him. if not we can open up to public comments. >> i think were okay and less you you're welcome to come up and say a few words but otherwise will open up this public comments. but why don't you have you, >> about ip your first public comment >> i tell you what will open this up to public, john anyone else who wants to make public almond, please sign up on the side. >> thank you doug johnson for metropolitan commission first off thanks to you and to the city staff for tackling this important issue. as you may know, five bay area cities san francisco, san jose, oakland and berkeley and emeryville work together to reach an
3:29 am
agreement to expand bike share tenfold in partnership with motivator with sponsorship agreement motivate and ford are close to bring 7000 bikes to the bay area. to these five cities. without diverting tens of millions of dollars in public funds to fuel the expansion. the agreement motivate negotiated in good faith amongst all five of the cities and mtc and motivate over the course of nearly a year seeks to maximize public benefit. mpca appreciates all efforts san francisco has and will take to protect the bay area bike share system expansion as a was negotiated. thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is janice lee advocacy director of the san francisco bicycle coalition. our organizations mission is to
3:30 am
promote the bicycle for everyday transportation weave over 10,000 numbers believe it's important this mission you honestly we never thought we'd be in this position to see companies competing for a chance to get more people biking in san francisco. yet here we are. so this is really exciting likely with that said, we really think this a move in the right direction and thank the city and the leadership from the supervisor peskin and farrell introducing the legislation before us today. initially these are strong concerns and opposition when the first by sharing company had plans of expanding their operations to san francisco. we heard a lot of unclear reports about how many bikes that there were and what their plans were in the fact that it's unlikely without working through the city. we really want to make sure the biking creates affordable and sustainable transportation not clutter are somewhat forthright and safe passage on our sidewalks and other places. so again we are glad to see that this legislation is being introduced and we think that it provides the right framework for these companies to be able to engage with city officials and really
3:31 am
give all by sharing companies what the right framework is for what these programs should look like in san francisco to make sure this really does promote the bicycle for participation thank you and we hope you will all move this on to the full board tomorrow. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon on darcy brown a second rector of san francisco beautiful. since 1947 when we save the iconic cable cars from demolition san francisco beautiful is been the only organization to advocate for cities civic beauty is an instrument till in creating and delivering amenity center artistic benefit while enhancing our unique and increasingly threatened neighborhood character. i am before you today in sport of the ordinance to regulate the growing concern of our members regarding dr. spike sure. san francisco beautiful is not opposed to bike share but we do want regulated and balanced
3:32 am
bike share to avoid our streets and neighborhoods from becoming a discriminant dumping grounds for piles of unregulated bikes. as we have learned many of these companies have policies which adopt the philosophy of better to demand or given us than ask for permission. san francisco suffer the consequences of rogue companies are thumbing their noses at our local laws and regulations and ignoring the valid concern of our public trustees. these companies have no interest in the unique needs of our neighborhoods with the participation of neighborhood groups. preferring to use the one-size-fits-all approach. by share is a growing and important part of our city's urban mobility. it should be planned as should all lucrative corporate schemes that advertise public benefits in collaboration with government civic organizations in the citizens is intended to serve. it should be regulated to promote the specific needs and welfare of san francisco's and not encroach upon the livability of our city. please
3:33 am
please, let's not allow the be somebody to turn the public realm into their private parking lot. let's not add another layer of obstacles to our increasingly crowded streets and litter our parks and lovely neighborhoods with thousands of cheap bikes that leave the city to respond to complaints and our citizens holding the cleanup bill. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm j walter president and ceo of motivate. motivate is a bike share leader partnering with governments and brands in some and the largest cities in the world. as has been discussed we are currently planning the rollout of four go bike in cooperation with five bay area cities the mta and the mtc. by way of background before i joined this company i helped run three of the world's largest transit systems in new york london and hong kong improving urban mobility has been my lights work. it's one of the reasons i joined
3:34 am
motivate. it's the reason i am grateful to be here with you today. there's an old proverb. if you want to go fast go alone. if you want to go far, go together. motivate believes in going far. it's the reason that we have undertaken a multiyear collaborative effort that will culminate with san francisco having the most advanced safe and robust bike share system of any city in the world. i want to briefly talk about what we have been doing and where we're going with bike share in san francisco. we spent the past two years working hand in hand with the city to grade a bike share system that this region deserves. when that provides a high-quality flexible on-demand transportation option that will complement the existing transit network. over the past year and a half motivate has held over
3:35 am
200 meetings with community leaders and 27 citizen, halls. the input of the community has been integral to shaping will soon be the second largest bike share program in the nation. the reason we are here today is because some operators want to disrupt that approach. they have a mentality that it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. now that is not innovation. it's just greed. the bill before the committee today provides a framework for permitting bike share programs and enforcing those rule so everyone including us, will be [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
3:36 am
my name is ariel fleischer transportation policy associate whispered. spur is a nonprofit organization promoting the planning and good government and the bay area to research education and inadequacy. we like to discuss our support for the legislation but by supervisor peskin to regulate speed fans by share operators. we believe by share is an important and necessary part of the city's transportation eight assembly need by chair that's planned regulated and accountable to the city and stakeholders. several by share starts are offering station was bike share system are seeking to enter the bike share market in san francisco. we like to be stored unattended for long periods of time or sidewalk and our parks and on our streets. there's a real concern about ice littering public face of becoming eyes were on our streets impacting safe patches. a robust integrated technologically advanced bike share system is fundamental to san francisco's transportation future. achieving this goal will acquire regulation and working in partnership with the city so we don't end up with the unattended negative consequences and also we could undermine the very important goal of expanding bike share.
3:37 am
the city needs a proactive measure to ensure all by share operators abide by standards and rule seconds was consistent with the larger mobility goals of the bay area. we are encouraged by the collaborative process undertaken by motivate. they work with stakeholders to ensure at google by share infrastructure that protects the safety of writers and promotes ridership. we believe the legislation now under consideration is consistent with these aims to support moving into the folder. thank you. >> thank you got any of the members of the public was to speak in public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] width supervisor peskin >> before i make a motion to make a move this is a recommendation i want to clarify mr. maybe mr. parks can come up for one second because i know there were some concerns which i think are abundantly clear in the legislation but i want to put on the record with regard to electric scooters which as i read this are not covered by legislation want to confirm that the staff.
3:38 am
>> yes that is accurate. the legislation weepers to specifically to bicycles in the transportation code refers not to the call for the "definition of bicycle. so refers to bicycle. would not comprise mother motorize [inaudible] >> thank you >> ended up questions were comments?. look for to seeing this deployed instantly will continue to be vigilant in our vigilance that seek to on our laws here in the city specially this regard. supervisor campos can make a motion? spews i will move what i stated with recommendation as a committee report. for hearing tomorrow at the board spews motion by supervisor >> we can take out without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item number one >> item number one is been cementing the planning code to great and the former housing bonus program established procedures by which these programs shall be reviewed and approved adding application
3:39 am
feet and projects of making appropriate funds. >> thank you this item was loved by supervisor tang so i will turn it over to her >> thank you so much. i just want to start by saying that i don't housing and especially for the housing is been a very hot topic here in san francisco for many many years and i have worked on legislation previously without planning department and community members to address this issue of affordable housing and in particular, as a relates to middle income and workforce housing. so first of all i will start by taking a couple people work on this would make kiersten disinterred from planning pablo [inaudible] and a reed rogers [inaudible] and audrey kiersten who's here with us from the city attorney's office. i just want to quickly as much as i can recap what has gone on since the introduction of this item and some of the actions we take in. again just
3:40 am
to bring it back to why they been introduced the legislation in the first place, as you all know our city really does not invest any dollars into housing that sports are middle income and workforce households and families here. the vast majority if not more than 90% of our city's public dollars go toward supporting low very low income households which is absolutely necessary but i do think we are missing serving a hugely important segment of our population here that are struggling to remain here in san francisco. so that is how we came up with a local program to incentivize the development of 30% affordable housing in markedly projects. by offering certain incentives such as additional 20 feet of height and some other zoning incentives. so the goal of this program overall is to develop potentially 5000 promenade affordable units over the course of 20 years and that's the affordable side alone. we also know that given the
3:41 am
existing state density bonus law that's been in existence since the 1970s, that is a tool that does actually get to invoke at this very moment. we want to exceed the goals of that state law. so what we have before us today is a program called home as half which is an optional program. again it applies to having it incentivizes 30% of formal house with it applies to buildings with three or more units rh-one or rh-two are exploited. area programs are not included as part of the strategic development bonuses include 20 additional feet and some other zoning incentives the affordability and comments on that. 40% of the new units required must be two or more bedrooms this again really to foster more family size housing especially those with children. we printed merging of loss the resultant more than 125 feet lot frontage and a bird
3:42 am
commercial district. we also limit projects to new construction and exclude any project that includes in addition to existing structure. most important, we do actually all go over the amendment we made into nanosecond, but i want to remind everyone this legislation does also allow developers to utilize state density bonus law which is required of us to do so. of course we will receive an evaluation update every five years. just to remind us what happened back in june of 2016 i introduce a set of a amendment then to also see a copy before you today colleagues. they are also double underline and so the summary sheet i passed out to you allows you to see which amendment were adopted in june of 2016 and which ones are merely introducing today. so in june of 2016 put in a amendment oh no displacement of existing residential commons and no demolition or removal or conversion of any existing residential uses. we also were required any project using this
3:43 am
home has a program to go through a conditional use permit process and it requires the placement of ground-floor level active uses of like size for any number of commercial space that impacted by project using home sf. we also built into the legislation as comfortable as we could at the time, information on how we can support commercial tenants the mighty impacted by project. that point we included early notification to small business tenants of no less than 18 months from the relocation date. again this was all due to restrictions that we have at this a level regarding commercial rent control. so for today's purposes i'm going to be introducing another set of the amendment and then further after that i will ask the chairman to continue this item to the call of the chair so that the full home sf item will
3:44 am
be able to say that committee for some time for public discussion. the amendment today i will introduce will remain the local federal housing bonus program to home sf. to distinguish between the factor we've already passed last year the 100% local affordable bonus program and so again reducing was the fact that now we are just focusing on the market great program. i will also be amending the income levels for the below market rate units to ensure equal distribution of low moderate and middle income units. so rental low market rate units will be offered at three different income levels that 55% ami, it percent a.m. i am 110% ami. in terms of ownership, bmr units to be offered at three income levels and 90% ami, when 20% and 140%. all these income levels mirror dmi level that are also in the inclusionary legislation sponsored by supervisor safai.
3:45 am
we also write into this legislation some family-friendly amenities we encourage our developers and the inclusion for example of three or more bedroom units the distribution of larger units on all floors and to the adjacent open spaces are play yards incorporation of family-friendly amenities such as backup stroller storage and open space and yard. we also have a few more things to protect and provide options for existing commercial tenants. again as much as we possibly could running up against the commercial rent control laws at the state level. we also have lastly a few technical cleanups could for example exude the northeast waterfront area plan south of the centerline of broad white to make that consistent with the height limits within the general plan and also we do make some technical changes in response to weaselly adopted state law ab - 2501. again is a summary sheet i passed on that i apologize for the long summary of what has gone on. we will
3:46 am
have a definitely a more robust conversation after this legislation --after we adopted a amendment and we can have a more full on policy discussion in the future land-use hearing. so with that colleagues, i'm open to any questions you might have a suggestion. i'm sure we have a lot of input hear from the public as well. i'm happy to turn it over to college or public comment >> colleagues any questions we supervisor peskin >> first of all i want to thank supervisor tang for approaching this. we don't with this last year we end up with the percent density bonus legislation which in conjunction with a lot of things were doing is expanding our toolbox whether it is the accessory dwelling unit legislation that supervisor farrell and i collaborated on or actions that we've taken to make sure that short-term rentals don't gobble up existing housing stock and host of other things. i think it's
3:47 am
time to have this conversation again. i also think it's important to see it in the context of a changing regulatory environment at the state level. i think many of us were surprised that density bonus law said been on the books since 1979 and no one had availed themselves of it until very recently. i think the fundamental concern that ie and other people had was the fact that this could actually dilute the amount of inclusionary housing that we required locally. to that end, part of the changing laboratory environment is a bill that our own assembly member building introduced ab --915 in the current legislative session which would recognize that state density bonus not undermine local inclusionary law. that might change things
3:48 am
as well. then of course the conversation is happening at the state legislature with regard to buy right and whether or not that brings other preemption issues in the months ahead will show us more and finally, i want to be iterate some of the concerns that expressed the last time i we have this relative to ensuring that density is equitably distributed to graphically through the city and i say that through the lens of a supervisor who represents the smallest geographic district albeit and has the same number of people crammed into much smaller area. so i do have concerns relative to district 3 which is mostly rh-three zero log line or in many cases denser. i hope to work through those issues with you over the months ahead and then finally, finally, i would like to point your attention to i think a very well thought-out letter from a neighborhood organization in my district,
3:49 am
the middle polk neighborhood association from a three-page letter dated march 12 that is i think worth our consideration. as relates to soft sites. as a relates to what zoning districts and what areas may want to be removed from the market rate affordable density bonus program were home sf or whatever we call. so i would point your attention to that letter and think the middle polk neighborhood association for offering that letter without any prompting from the supervisor. >> thank you supervisor peskin supervisor tang >> thank you for your comments. i appreciate it. you talk about density equity geographically speaking that's actually what i'm very much trying to do here. as we all know the westside especially district for place like district 1 we really don't see a lot of development and there are benefits i think that come with certain types of
3:50 am
development especially vigilant transit and commercial corridor. again we don't want to [inaudible] shook the neighborhood is [inaudible] something worth thinking about. i have suddenly seen the letter from the middle polk neighborhood association and a lot of the feedback we are certainly going to be taking that into consideration but i do want to point out that many of those elements were discussed previously as well and i want to remind everyone this is an optional program. the state density bonus slot is still and will continue to be available unless divisadero changes in state law but again we want to make sure that we the local level here in san francisco has stronger affordability requirements better place and leave a program that really actually reflects what we want to see here in san francisco. i think when the first project approved at planning commission to this board that utilizes state density bonus law i heard from any planning commissioners that why don't we have our own local
3:51 am
density permits program. we are has that been? crinkly we have been working on it for a long time but there are many reasons both political and policy wise where it has been stalled and so i am really hoping if we truly do stand for wanting to provide for middle and our workforce families that this i think is a great solution especially as we put in stronger protections last summer so that no existing residential units were tenants are going to be evicted or any of those units can be demolished. so with that said, at this moment i'll call up some public comment cards and we will you looking for to hearing from you. >>[calling public comment cards]please, come on up.
3:52 am
>> also help those born in sunset and now i live in richmond picking from a working-class family because my union job i was able to buy a home there in san francisco any years ago. the union worker could not do that to. it would be impossible. i'm retired yuni operator and minimize oh operators were born in the city moved to the use paid most of them they said god wish i could afford to live here. to avoid this big commutes. i'm here because i care about the future of the city that can give we really want to be a diverse city that also means economic diversity. that's why it's so important i think it's to support supervisor tang's proposal. thank you >> thank you and thank you for your service. next speaker, please. the afternoon supervisors. my name is- jaramillo polk neighborhood associated as supervisor mentioned, we have been following this program and offered some thoughts to it. i just want to say at the
3:53 am
forefront i think we are one of the few neighborhood groups that actually dug into this program and is supportive of the concept offering density incentives in exchange for greater levels of affordable housing. i think that this board and the city did a great job last year by passing the 100% affordable density program which has been utilized by couple of projects so far and that's exciting. the question is, do we want to take such a large action or more gradual or piecemeal steps? we would argue that would be the wisest course. put simply, adopting a program for our districts along van ness ave. higher density parts of the city, could be done without much controversy. if you can push 30-40% levels
3:54 am
of affordability in those districts which are already able to take on that height that would be great. c districts i don't think anyone could have a problem with that. and see three and nct three, if we are going to do a gary biaggi it make sense to do some work there. but when we start talking about the ncd's think we are to be very careful to limit to larger sites because i'll give you the example of polk street. many small one-story commercial buildings are owned by multigenerational trusts. once developers are combining lots they can put something there. you cannot replace that essence of that commercial corridor. so i urge the board to review the letter. there's some specifics and there where i think it would be
3:55 am
great to get a program past. that focus on the districts that are not very controversial and of course, different parts of the city particular the westside want to add this further and cds that sounds great but development will go with the highest u-turn is. that is, polk st., union chestnut, sacramento street, noe valley domitian. that's where the highest rate of return is. >> thank you >> thank you very much could i just want to clarify that again we do branded the merging of lots resulted in more than 125 feet lot frontage in and cds. next speaker, please. >> my name is norman depoe over-when i'm coming to here is that i believe in affordable housing. i do great opportunity to have housing at the cornets and like i said and
3:56 am
for many years, for six years i've been at the cornets. before i was in completely homeless and like i said, everybody deserves a chance to have affordable housing. i'm also with the institute of aging. they provide my services but it's very important for everybody to have a chance like i did to have housing. with the housing has done, like i done many things-i participated supervisor campaign and other things that i would not have been able to do i have not had the chance to the cornets and the institute of aging and the department of public health job programs. i'm here because i
3:57 am
have a chance and like i said, i feel everybody, the whole city, every race, age, money bracket, should have a chance for affordable housing. it's for everybody. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is dick morten resident supervisor tang's--11 supervisor tang's district. i support the proposed legislation and i'm going to have you go back to the way back machine of 1979 when the city adopted residential and neighborhood commercial zoning which
3:58 am
generally down zones of the city. if undermined, gary craft, is that the planning department worker brief paper and he's in the economist said that housing costs would go up, increase runs, increase homeownership costs and will be a lot of pressure and low in moderate income homeowners. and people. supervisor tang had a series of meetings in her district and i was surprised that roughly 40% of the residence supported higher density housing on commercial zones. that just floored me. i thought it would be not in my neighborhood kind of mentality. her recent newsletter also had a youth council out there and if i read it correctly, the second highest priority for youth was housing. i am also speaking on behalf of my daughter who cannot afford to rent in this city. i would like
3:59 am
to have you consider whether or not there's a way to of any expedited permit processing as part of this. whether we can evaluate how the development fees are handled so they could be pro rata over several years to reduce the impacts or whether a percentage of property tax from the new development could be applied to offset the development fee. >> thank you. your time is up with you to wrap up your sentence. >> the last thing i would say is i think good design is essential. secondly, we have to pay attention to people because people will oppose it unless there is parking. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i miss kevin burke and i am a
4:00 am
renter and i run a software consulting business. other than district 3. speaking in support of the legislation and i think people are going to want to move here could this not that much we can do about that and that we can try to accommodate new people that we can try to accommodate our city's kids by building new projects so we can [inaudible] what prices continue to increase. i think we should doing what we can to increase number of housing units in the city. the sole factor this was watching prices drop since 2015 of these fair market rate rents. the down about 6-7% i believe. there was a large result of building a lot of new housing in the city watching prices drop. lower prices help everyone. lower ends help everyone they reduce demands for innovations make it cheaper for the city to build, make it cheaper for cities developers to build here and they help put money back in people's pockets. renter's pockets and people trying to
4:01 am
get by. i'm a small business owner myself. only to grow my business and hiring employees but it's really difficult and housing are so expensive that it just makes it a tough proposition that more housing we can build the lower prices the easier it will be to have people move here and help them get hired. in terms of your common supervisor campos cannot afford housing be distributed, i think that's important but i think we should start somewhere i think this is a good start. i think this is a fair proposal considering how difficult is to build housing in san francisco is about $4000 per door buster to run the gamut of losses discretionary review, multiple pieces of the real prospect that if you're willing to run the gamut we should reward you with a little more density in the process. i don't think any the developers are making a ton of money office so i love to see it go forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. before the next peter comes up i'm going to call a couple more cards. >>[calling public
4:02 am
comment cards] >> hello. supervisors christie one from spurt committee planning policy director. thank you for the opportunity share support for the home as a program. i was here last year to speak in favor of the prior -under the ironing and i would reiterate a few those reasons for why we support it. that's increase in the number of homes in san francisco affordable and market rate, that it's going to encourage housing the right places and in the right places we mean, by transit but also not just in the area plans we plan for housing extensively over the last 10 years getting into some neighborhoods where there have been sites that are being underutilized or underused and things we can use them better. it will create a much-needed middle income housing program that also pays attention to the needs of families. this is something that is not been addressed
4:03 am
completely by san francisco housing strategy. we can always do more but were doing a pretty good job on the low income side and i think we've seen some recent success on market rate but it's getting increasingly difficult because of our market to address market rents for the modern and middle-income households. then i want to say also the smart alternative to the state density bonus program which doesn't take our local inclusionary levels into account or a local design and planning priorities. so this is a great way to incentivize developer to do some of the right things and provide more benefits for this more desired by the city to get more in return. i guess i would just say i think this is a fairly targeted program. it's awkward to transform the city overnight. we appreciate supervisor tang's vision from last year and i think probably would argue that some of the things we agree with the original version in terms of demolition
4:04 am
of units. there's more nuanced ways to replace units and said of losing him. so we support the program. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> eileen-district for resident support the continuance of the items so it can be heard after the planning commission action scheduled for march 23. this item is déjà vu of the previous affordable housing density bonus program. the previous program was based in part on blueprints of the sunset. it included four components. this legislation version number five appears to add the three components back in. this version adds a small business protection. these protections and relocation assistance had previously been deemed inadequate by the small business commission. this version has the same issues as
4:05 am
the affordable housing density bonus program which are exceptions to the rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, height, paul, floor area ratio, usable open space, parking, offstreet loading, and instructions over alleys. they two additional stories could be more stories with setbacks. this legislation includes the urban design guidelines, which shall be applied citywide. unfortunately, the latest version of the urban design guidelines will not be out until march 16. if this would move by four before my 16th work it would basically approve the urban design guidelines before they're even released. so the timing of this hearing both before march 16 and also the 23rd continuation date being semi-personally it's not clear
4:06 am
but these are two issues about the urban design guidelines and the 16th and the planning commission action item on march 23. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervised my name is [inaudible] all a very and amir to support homicide. is a major gap in her housing infrastructure. the housing market in san francisco is [inaudible] force working people out of this a good processing when the most wonderful weather starting out their careers. of families start out there is and veterans whether it be integrated back into society need to protect these people from being priced out of the city. in fact we need to welcome these people in san francisco to create a sustainable communicate currently there's no public housing programs were subsidies for moderate or middle income households. all my stuff would
4:07 am
alleviate some of the issues surrounding the affordability crisis in san francisco by focusing precisely on the housing best way needed for families making between 60,000-$150,000 in. we think but that's not a lot of money at all if you live in the city. $60,000 a year people working in san francisco living in san francisco. these are our teachers, our nonprofit employees, the city employees. these the people working for the greater good in the city and decent people just starting out. i urge you to these, protect them. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervised my name is nick lonnie and i'm here to act support this because i was talking to some friends and one of them is a friend of mine that i been born and raised here in san francisco. she has been the same way. she's a single mother was in a single bedroom home. she kind of on a two-bedroom place for her and her daughter. unfortunately, the prices are incredibly scary for her. she has a decent job as a cpa for well-known law firm in the city. she can't basically move out of the one-bedroom with her daughter growing up and kids as
4:08 am
we all know grow. so that's where she is. that's why this is so important. we need to find places that families can be here like the last speaker said, city employees. also my girlfriend is in the same boat. she has to live with a group of roommates to stay in the city. so to end this, to and what i'm saying is to support this. have you guys have a great day and thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is steve boyle am an artist and immersive theater company and one of things that binds together all the collaborative work with you they actors, hip-hop artist, drummers, ballet dancers across class culture treat and if the city,
4:09 am
is the threat of displacement. you know the story i think. first you had off to the east bay and out of the bay area entirely. san francisco has a thriving arts ecosystem at its core to the identity of this town and its economic driver a lot of hard-working san franciscans and a lot of small business. i'm here to tell you it's a genuine risk and peril because of the human tragedy of our housing crisis that's why i enthusiastically support home sf that comes to build more affordable housing without displacing existing tenants. it seems to me that the cost of height whether they are shadows were blocked views or architectural inconsistency, pale in comparison to the human needs a place to live the ability to lay down roots in your community the ability to start a family. that's why i support home sf now you will, too. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. if any must like to comment on item 1, please, come on up. >> good afternoon my name is angela [inaudible] supervisor peskin that's been an honor to see you again. supervisor tang
4:10 am
great to see. having said that i'm a native san franciscans and upset on several community boards. [inaudible] district improvement association, etc. etc. what we have in common with those things that was the people that are on the boards with with mercy high school. i the class of 179 people six them still live in the circuit so we have been displaced. i had the opportunity to work at [inaudible] the first time in over 15 years i saw people actually own to school with. so no more city employees could in fact most of them were firefighters, cops good was them within [inaudible] in the east bay so i am with a little bit of trepidation, but still very excited supervisor tang has stepped forward with some sort of proposal that actually addresses workforce housing. i applaud >> great. try to work with those the least of us. housing has been address where people that were the worst among us
4:11 am
and that's definitely honorable but things are lost and also people like me who appeared and if i did not inherit my own for my mother, which believe it or not [inaudible] i would not be able to live and i do make $60,000. i would not be able to afford to live here. so i think it's important that when we have our policies in place i think we really need to take these into account not just for the artists which is very important but for people actually have lived here and experience the san francisco community deserve the right to be able to raise multigenerational people and other kids have experienced with her just as much as anybody who comes in. i think of your times to supervisor farrell it's good to see you as well and i definitely hope you take this important is legislation into consideration. >> thank you been much. next speaker, please. >> hello. moorcock gimme action. i just want to say it's time. it's past time. it's a long past time. we need housing
4:12 am
and we especially need it on transit corridor and especially in the west side. think katie tang hit it right on the head. the westside and the south side has consistently not done did the development that is been needed in the city. it is time for everyone to take their share to welcome more families into these communities. we can build dense vibrant diverse communities out in our outlying neighborhoods. we can original's communities. we can have workforce housing. we can have families come back to san francisco. because they are leaving right now. we are losing those families every day. the best time to build a house was yesterday. the second best time is now. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
4:13 am
troy smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition they for the opportunity. as mentioned by number of previous speakers, we know san francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any major metropolitan city in the united states that this legislation will specifically help families by requiring 40% of all units to be family-friendly and if we are truthful about having a goal of keeping families in the city, we need to be passing home sf as soon as possible we also note we've seen at the claimant across. about 30 years ago the middle class made up of about 50% of san francisco's population are closer to date to 30%. a portion that's been entirely replaced by high income earners. by requiring 30% subsites affordable housing on-site for emts, firefighters, for teachers, electricians, construction workers, and for all the other folks that make san francisco a working-class city, passing home san francisco is critical to we can keep working folks in san francisco if we pass home sf.
4:14 am
lastly, there's been a lot of discussion around displacement specifically in the mission district. because this legislation excludes area plans we know that passing home sf and are leaving the house in pressure on the mission will reduce displacement of logan middle income tenants in the mission district. for families, for working people and for the city's most wonderful, we look for to passing this piece of legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisor of this beer [inaudible] this legislation is not perfect. however it's a great solid start. i'm not enthusiastically pro-developer but just like corporate farmers over in the hunter valley are necessary evil but we need to worry about less about the greed of developers and more about housing human beings and holding the rest of the city accountable because we can just shove all our housing needs onto district 6 onto district 9 and district 10. this particular piece of legislation is great to provide equity and
4:15 am
fairness to all the citizens of san francisco and hold all the districts of san francisco accountable for building more homes for families and for young people. we can simply keep pushing out dumb people and the homelessness and those who are unable to afford more than people that make more than $20,000 a year. because most of the bmr units are for those folks that only make about between $5000 a year-$20,000 a. the of a working-class group of folks and they need our help getting a leg up here in the city of san francisco housing crisis is a regional crisis and the other cities around us look on san francisco as an example. so if we can work our small nuances and differences and work together with the housing crisis, helps the rest of the region to encourage them to build more and take pressure off the old city including the mission from displacement and even actions. thank you. please, support home sf be thank you very much. next
4:16 am
speaker, please. and animals please, lineup >> good afternoon pat ballfield i'm sure my personal capacity as an affordable housing attorney involved with the south beach mission bay business association western and present of the board of tomatoes in part i work on a lot of housing issues both at work and committee support. i do support this home sf program. this legislation. with the amendment. i guess all come seven pretty much made that was going to make except for one. i think it is important that as far as we're geographic placement i know there is concern about different neighborhoods carrying their share beat affordable housing special middle income housing but i think it's important to let in part the economics decide to not be afraid of living economics decide where development takes place. that means it can happen-i would rather see places already existing to take on more housing if necessary so that
4:17 am
housing gets built this post would not getting done in some of the outer name is it yes, it's important to enhance the transit corridor but not at the cost of the project not getting done at all. having worked with real estate developers and though state investors over 20 something year or not, sometimes the bottom line doesn't have as much of a analysis as to the social dynamics which is very unfortunate but i think at this point production of middle income units is extremely important. so my common is to let hot when let's allow for permission for middle income units to be built along possibly already existing areas instead of just favoring were trying to force people [inaudible] thanks a lot >> thank you any other members of the public was to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment >> public comment is closed. >>[gavel]
4:18 am
>> be thank you for everyone who came up and provided feedback and i want to remind everyone that last year or even the or before that actually our office and also any department staff had gone around 210 districts in the city . sometimes more than once. to actually do a listening tour of what everyone feedback was on the legislation. while the amendment you see we really tried hard to listen. it's not perfect we tried everything we could to a lease at this point incorporate those comments. it wasn't 11 districts only because one of the district want to combine the meeting with another one. as one to remind everyone that this is an optional program. so supervisor tim haskin mentioned in his comments, this is just one of many other tools, other programs out there we certainly don't have anything to support our middle and workforce housing units here in san francisco. so that's what i am here to achieve and at this
4:19 am
time then i circulated a summary sheet as well as the actual legislation with the amendment. i would like to ask the committee members to entertain a motion to adopt the minutes and then we will continue this item to the call of the chair. >> motion by supervisor tang just want to personally thank supervisor tang crawler efforts and leadership on this effort but i know things i knows that a long time in coming i thank you for contingent work and your approach is what the supervisor peskin okay for is there a second? weave a motion by suppressing second i supervisor peskin we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk call item number three please >> item number three urging california state legislature and governor to pass california state a summary bill 342 automated speed enforcement policy in san francisco and san jose >> thank you very much. so we have our colleague supervisor chinese is a sponsor of this item. will >> well, us with this is worth.
4:20 am
supervisor yee, welcome >> thank you. thank you chairman farrell. thank you for allowing me to be heard. colleagues, last month and used a resolution edges urging state legislators or and the governor to pass ab - 342 and hopefully it's not a surprise to anybody because this is something that we talked about for several years now ever since we've adopted the policy of vision zero in 2014. in fact, last year over in january the board of
4:21 am
supervisors we unanimously passed a resolution supporting the legislation to authorize an automatic--automated speed enforcement program and why did we do that? because that particular item is something that we can do at the local jurisdiction since the state controls a. so without having some support from the state legislation to allow us to do this we cannot move forward and now we have this bill that would allow this as a pilot project for two cities. san francisco and in san jose and this is authored by our assembly member choose office can choose office this is something important to us ever since we adopted it. asian zero
4:22 am
because we know that number one, speed is the main ingredient that accident causes the fatalities versus injuries. and depending on how fast you happen to be moving it is something that we know as a fact that, indeed, if you are going let's say 20 mi./h and you collided into a pedestrian there's probably a 90% chance that you will survive but if you're going 40 mi./h the chances goes down to 20%. so we know this is a major major ager factor and from other jurisdictions, we have learned that once they implemented such a program with a of automated speed enforcement capacity that actually the fatalities
4:23 am
were reduced enormously. this action 142 jurisdictions in the united states that have this capacity. if you places to indicate the effectiveness of this. for instance, in washington dc they found that once they implemented the programs it was 70% reduction in fatalities and in you are city where i heard about it in the first place, reported that violations dropped by 59% in terms of speed in the first four month period. so allowing the automated speed enforcement is common sense and a survivor of a near fatal collision i'm committed to san francisco being a vision zero city and more than just words but action. so are we alone in
4:24 am
supporting this? what we have now is the mayor of not only san francisco, mayor lee the mayor of san jose, police chief scott department of public health, staff at the zuckerberg general hospital, center, san francisco bay area families for safe streets, walk sf, and by coalition. numerous neighborhood organizations who have come out step forward to support this legislation. as policymakers we must do everything in our power to step i can stop these preventable deaths. ab - 342 allows automatic eight as he only high injury records were speed has proven to be cause of coalitions. but let us be
4:25 am
clear. despite the overwhelming data of this technology that saves lives, and the overwhelming local support it will not be easy to win in sacramento. there are organizations that are against it were seems to be against it raising issues such as well is his can take away jobs? so what is the argument here read her stories are really going to take away jobs? we lose one job we save three people. come on, do the math. the reality is this. people might use that argument but we had in san francisco alone, when we implemented having cameras at the traffic lights, installed to catch violators, did we reduce the number of police officers in san francisco.
4:26 am
because of that. that answer is, absolutely, no. when mta decided to put cameras on their buses to catch those that are double parked in the lanes, did we reduce the number of staff that was going to take it-this is an sf mta staff-two ticket parked vehicles? the answer is absolutely, not. to me the argument is stupid and i don't understand why people would even use that argument to say, well maybe i don't care about the people that died. so that is sort of my spiel for this and eight as you can see him passionate about the good i think we need to support it wholeheartedly. we give
4:27 am
everyone of us on board with this. as i said it seems like it's still going to be a battle at the state and if we could do this and get save lives in san francisco, i think we did the right thing. today, there are some speakers are they to bring up if that's okay chairman farrell >> absolutely. width i want to bring up tom maguire from mta and megan we hear from dph here they are here to call present. >> thank you the opportunity to speak at my name is megan we are within a prominent public health. i cochaired a vision zero task force and director of the program on health equity and sustainability i'm here with, choir director of sustainable streets from mta. also want to mention we have staff when the mayor's office is ugly members chiu's office as well as advocates to make remarks. thank you again for
4:28 am
the opportunity to speak regarding automated speed enforcement which is our number one seed policy priority for vision zero in san francisco. what a vehicle collisions are leading cause of death due to injury in the united states. exactly on the rise in this recent year we've had 40,000 people killed in traffic collisions 10% of those people are in california. proximally 30 people a year die in san francisco in disproportionately impacts people walking and biking are seniors as well as our low income committees and committees of color.. we adopted vision zero as a city in 2014 and core two mission zero is a framework that really shows traditional traffic safety approaches from focusing on individual behavior to focusing on the save system. we know that it's an imperfect world and people want to make mistakes but when you make a mistake the consequence should not be death. envision zero originated in sweden and core
4:29 am
two mission zero is reducing speeding. that's why again this policy is so important to our efforts to eliminate deaths on our streets. as a part of vision zero we have been really collaborating with, surgeons. as zuckerberg san francisco general hospital to better understand not only the burden of fatalities but also severe injury and we were actually surprised to find that a full half of people seen at the trauma center either for transportation related injuries. proximally 500 people year hospitalized with severe traffic injuries and again seniors are disproportionately impacted it when we look at medical costs direct medical costs alone are $35 million annually in a third of the people of the most severely injured comprise 75% of the cost that really speaks again to vision zero or opportunity to reduce both social and monetary costs by dressing this
4:30 am
serious public health issue. again speeding is really core as supervisor yee of the gated oh twisted speeding is core to reducing most severe injuries and because and that's because when a fast-moving vehicle hits a pedestrian speed at which a vehicle is traveling predicts their survival. so 20 mi./h roughly 9/10 people will survive good at 40 mi./h it significantly reduced to only 20% of people surviving a crash. with that i'll turn it over to tom maguire to continue our presentation. >> thank you megan. as megan said we know that we have a public health crisis traffic fatalities in san francisco. we're speeding is the primary behavior that results in nasal townies. fortunately we also know there's a tool that's proven in jurisdictions around the country to help stop the
4:31 am
speeding problem is not something me to reinvent her. her 42 carries are currently using automated speed enforcement and their achieving some really remarkable results. [inaudible] reductions in rates how these reductions and speeding reductions in number of vehicles speeding. these are the things we need to be able to do 22nd number which is a 30 number of favorite fatalities we have area. the results you simply bill prefer to language is visibly drafted to address the speeding problem. i would just give an overview of some key features of the legislation. ab - 340 we create a five-year pilot program which is two cities san francisco and san jose committed to vision zero. would allow those cities to deploy carrots on a limited number of streets the documented history of fatal and serious injury coalitions. so it's on every street in the city not even every city in the high injury network. the sheets of the most of your speeding and could tally and injury problems. we define speeding as the and being 10 miles above the speed limit. again were going after excessive speeding. this is not a gotcha. this is
4:32 am
going after associate [inaudible] the penalty would be to mention that it will be equivalent of parking target, $100 on a motor vehicle violation or moving violation. the of talk to jurisdictions on the country who influenced what we call asc cities like portland seattle new york federal court any reductions and forces of their police or law enforcement to the concerned this could somehow displace one person jobs not been borne out by the city that are already doing [inaudible] intact refine its with a call if force multiplier which allows them to extend the influence of targeted enforcement without bringing on additional costs. i've also put them operate in places where they be unsafe for law enforcement officers to either parked beside on this standard busier or narrow loyalties and extensor coverage to those unsafe streets in our city and
4:33 am
of course cameras are able to enforce the law very impartially. strictly speaking not based on any opinion the officer may have but the vehicle. we have an impressive list of supporters. i won't repeat with supervisor trainee said with crosscutting speak [inaudible] san jose city council was debating a similar manner as what's before you passed unanimous resolution in support of ab - 342. without having to answer questions. as vacant said art thinker is ugly members chiu's office and mayor salazar here >> i don't see any questions oh -supervisor tang >> thank you for the presentation. one of the things i know there was something which in ab - 342 the program evaluation given this was a pilot but am wondering if you go into a little more detail about what we are sfmta is an agency are looking for specifically around percentage introduction of collisions or fatalities. if you can go into
4:34 am
more detail about that? >> that's right. the legislation provides the [inaudible] in san francisco would prepare evaluation parts on how it's doing and primarily about the key measurement have we reduced fatalities have you reduced collisions and injuries and on the specific corridor where we are enforcing cameras are we reducing speeding. so one of the things that counterparts in the cities like new york have found when the cameras are out for a period of time they see not only fatalities reduced but they will see drivers react to the cameras by slowing down. they shoot fewer violations in the program and doors. >> is that the way your full wage whether to evaluate whether the speed is going just by looking at the number of citations issued or are you actually cannot some people out to monitor or so forth?
4:35 am
>> we also do a before-and-after speed started. back the legislation requires to do in engineering speed study which we need to income we change as the permit and will make sure you have before and after. >> in terms of the corridor would've been located so as is only to put on streets with documented collisions due to speeding resulting injuries and deaths. imagine you probably don't have exact locations where you deploy the cameras in san francisco but i am wondering if certainly the high injury corridor map before but i heard for example potentially you could not do this on streets maintained by caltrans for example so that would mean no turning [inaudible] >> of foresight that is right. [inaudible] caltrans owned roads like the ones mentioned. we know those are also high injury corridor but the way the pilot program is really about
4:36 am
getting the cities because cities are leading on vision zero summary person country and definitely in california chile cities have authority over their shoes to test this idea >> okay. of course, when we were deploying scammers there will be clear signage to indicate especially if those visitors coming they were no that there's a camera there? >> the legislation citizenry requires us to note the locations of video. >> okay. thank you very much. >> any other questions? thank you. let me bring up jennifer-from-she is the district director at the somewhere number chiu's office. >> good afternoon supervise that my name is jennifer court battle assembly member david chiu's office. just want to thank you for considering ab - 342 and four this board support of automated speed enforcement in the past. as you just heard,
4:37 am
every year dozens of san franciscans are involved in fatal traffic incidents. hundreds more are seriously injured in traffic collisions which would easily be avoided by satan responsible drinking habits. speeding is a leading cause of fatal incidents in san francisco has biased number of these collections per capita in california. data shows 70% of these fatal and severe collisions occur on handful street and roads in san francisco. often these incidents occur in communities with a large number of low income disabled and minority residents. research from the national highway traffic safety administration and dozens of other studies have indicated that automated speed enforcement systems result in measurable safety improvements at high-cost locations and produce the streets run the city. as a part of vision zero, san francisco has certainly stepped up its enforcement in cracking down on dangerous speeding but we can and should do more. this bill is about
4:38 am
giving san francisco and your counterparts in san jose the flexibility and the new set of tools to effectively reduce speeding and cut down on the number of fatal and serious traffic incidents. the legislation is about using every available tool to save lives to improve the safety of some of our most honorable travelers but which kids going to school, cyclist going to work and seniors on the way home from the grocery store. so automated speed enforcement targets drivers and vehicles that put the public at a greater risk. as part of vision zero article is to illuminate series fatal collisions from our city and automated speed enforcement will help us get there. so just want to thank you for your consideration and hope we can count on the sports continue support. >> thank you very much. next up, i like to bring up katie and god he. she is from th mayor's office. >> good afternoon. chairman
4:39 am
farrell, supervisor peskin and supervisor attending by name is katie-i can work on the federal legislative affairs for the mayor's office and i'm here to support the resolution could i want to first thank you supervisor attorneys for introducing this and supervise peskin for cosponsoring this as well as kim safai sheehy. i also want to [inaudible] sfmta a police department and the department of public health and the vision zero stakeholders walk sf by coalition just to name a few transforming this vision zero best practice into a bill. in order to a limited traffic related deaths is imperative we target top contributors of these deadly topic collisions in san francisco which we all know by now is unsafe speed. to address this dangerous and systematic driving behavior it's important that we use all the tools in our toolbox but speed enforcement is a proven method
4:40 am
to reduce excessive speeding and reduce traffic related deaths and injuries. automated speed enforcement is not a new technology. it's currently being used in over 140 two maze across the states including our fellow vision zero cities such as portland, seattle, chicago and new york city. the cities have seen increases in speeding on the streets. basing reductions in collisions and reductions in traffic fatalities. the state law currently prevents us from using the toilet must be changed. ab - 3.2 changes a lot and give the city county is san francisco the opportunity to test the technology are streetscape like to applaud the leadership of the somewhere number-- i'm sorry - assembly member chiu for offering the legislation. we look forward to putting the bill into action in saving lives on our streets. >> thank you. questions? seeing none, other to bring up the
4:41 am
call-from walk sf. >> thank you supervisor yee. thank you chairman farrell and commissioners committee members. the call-with walk san francisco and we have been working hand-in-hand with the city and the supervisor, the assembly member, and the community to support this really incredible i saving tool and great policy. i urge your support today. you have heard a lot from city leaders here about why this policy is so important though i want to take some time to put a face to the stories behind those numbers and those stats. every 18 hours someone is severely injured or killed in traffic. five times a day a surgeon from sf generals
4:42 am
pager goes off to let them know someone is being rushed through their doors and might not come out back out because of a traffic crash. one in four of those crashes are people who were hit from a speeding vehicle. we know that we can address that and that's the importance of this tool. so i want to share a few images. these are members of families for safe streets. this is jim jones. jim is a father. his wife passed away from a heart attack. he has one daughter. his daughter got a phone call one morning that her father was hit and killed. thankfully, jim recuperated it was a miracle. you literally was killed his heart stopped and was brought back to life in a miracle
4:43 am
weight. jim was able to make it to his daughter's wedding who is shown here. this is dylan mitchell. he was 21 years old. and hits and kills dylan did not have the same fortunate fate as jim. dylan was riding his bike on 16th st. in the mission and hit and killed by a truck. this is armand laster. sen. alvin lester alvin's only son. hit and killed at third and cargo from a speeding vehicle. he took a quick turn and ran him over. armand was studying to finish his college degree and working three jobs he was a great person outstanding member of our community and his life was taken away in an instant. this is little eileen's-who was
4:44 am
three years old walking in a crosswalk in the school cross walk in san jose holding her aunt hand and her siblings hand and hit by a speeding vehicle didn't yield. she lost her life in the school cross walk. finally, this is judy--who was hit at [inaudible] and park presidio pay speeding driver. judy was in the crosswalk and judy suffers everyday. her daughter, jennie, takes care of her helping her code but everyday life unsure of what kind of future she will have each day. imagine change the life around this result. so these are just some of the people behind the figures. these are six people time that
4:45 am
30 person statistic of people killed every single year in the 500 more get severely injured. they could be any of us in fact. so i can't reiterate home for this technology is. i know you all led in adopting vision zero unanimously at the board and this is really one way, one of the very very important ways you to continue that leadership and show that we are all here as a city united to support automated speed enforcement. so i urge you all to to support it and fax cosponsor the legislation if you're not already. thank you. >> thank you. next up, i like to call generously from the by coalition. >> thank you supervisor lee. hello everyone generously
4:46 am
director of the bicycle coalition i think we further statistics, the story so much why this is so important. so my chocolate about the bill. of course as you know last year all four of you and mr. russell board of supervisors meeting emily passed a resolution in support of automated speed enforcement. i'm incredibly proud of the work has been achieved thus far to get to the current version of the bill which is ab - three free to introduce as mentioned by a summary member david chiu and also the support of the san francisco delegation with the somewhere number to obtain ctr., scott weiner on board as well. we say what support we really hope this committee was for this board position as well. this is just such important bill but when i'm actually proud of your efforts in the past to get it version of this bill introduced that did not happen until this year
4:47 am
but what happened in 2006 and was incredible amount of work to really use this pilot opportunity to look at really progressive ways to shape the bill that makes the most sense, make sure that the right streets are chosen and not chosen at random because we know he finds in the structure of the data privacy structure, just the operationalizing of this very massive program, and all the details as part of it could be replicated in all california after the pilot happens and we want to make sure that all the details are correct. so really applaud the work that has been done at every single level through the sfmta a department of public health, along with the leadership of a summary member david chiu get the bill where it is today. we note it will still be amended, still have to go to sacramento processes but we would not have done those amendments were not also for the fee that we were hearing from all of you run the privacy concerns around making sure that this program is really solving the issue and bringing to light the real issue of
4:48 am
speeding in the dangers on our streets. so with that said just want to echo what nicole has said in that we really hope you move forward with a support position for recognition to the board. thank you. width actually this is public comment at this point. >>[calling public comment cards] width you'll notice him a slow walker now. i'm going to tell you why the california [inaudible] retired americans and senior disability action are really supporting this bill. in fact it's one of the few bills that i is a legislative director of the california alliance for retired americans that has over 1 million members and taking as a priority bill and we are cosponsoring this bill. one of the reasons is that our members are people who are hurt in
4:49 am
traffic accidents. 40% of the traffic accidents involve a senior. they're the most severely injured. they have less of a chance of making it. every time there is an accident on our streets involving a senior that has to go to the hospital, many of them don't come home. if they do, they still are severely impacted by this. if you want to save money, you've got to look at how much it costs to send them to the hospital. it's about 78,000 hospital admissions for serious accident. but it's not that that am talking about. what i'm talking about usually changing everybody's mindset
4:50 am
about getting through the city and helping our citizens. i think the two highway impacted our small children on their way to school and old children like me on the way across the street after i parked my car. this is a pilot program but every city where it has been use has cut the deaths and has cut traffic accidents. we really wanted san francisco and san jose to do this is a pilot project so we can show the rest of california how we can make california safe for all of our residents. i hope that you will vote to pass this on and that the full board will vote in favor of it. even
4:51 am
more than that, i hope that you joined the california alliance for retired americans and sponsor this important bill. because speed kills. because it kills real people. the people you saw in the pictures and the people close to you. i was hit by a car when i was four. my husband was hit by a car when he was 54. we understand the whole thing about how this changes if family and changes their lives. i hope that we can pass this and we don't have to say, that we get into something
4:52 am
that could help all of those people who live in the city. so please, vote yes. >> thank you. next up, laura clark. are you here, laura clark? okay so any other of the comment? okay. width supervisors, thank you. >> supervise, think. how can you [inaudible] safety. you can't. what i've heard >> please speak into the microphone >> i've heard maybe the speed cameras are a good thing to do. i think it's worth trying as an experiment but i also think that since they are enforcement measure we should put them
4:53 am
under the control including placement of the sfpd. sf mta has not had a very good record with experiments. the red lane experiments including the one in the mission, we were never told they were at an experiments. it was a debate as to whether the mission was even included in the area they asked the state to experiment and the sf mta to not report back to the state is required in either a timely or complete the fashion. so i think if we move forward with this, we have to have some really good oversight of the sf mta's reporting and if it stays with sf mta i think we should strongly consider putting it would sfpd. thank you. >> thank you any other public comments? seeing none,
4:54 am
>> public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, again i would love to have you pass this out with a positive recommendation as was mentioned. i like to think my cosponsor supervisors kim safai, peskin and sheehy. to support this legislation that would provide actually the most valuable tool we can have in san francisco to prevent these collisions that take people's lives and ruin people's families. so i will leave the rest up to you. >> thank you supervisor trainees. colleagues, no further comments or questions, can i entertain the is there a motion? this just to be clear would be considered as a committee report for tomorrow's work meeting. speakers on the
4:55 am
commotion to semaphore to the full board with a positive recommendation is a committee report >> okay. motion we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> >> thank you these call item number four >> item number four approving a easement agreement between the city and county is san francisco and pg&e along 9035 galvez st. >> mr. updike, welcome back. >> thank you. john update director of real estate. good afternoon members of the committee. this item secure approval of a easement agreement with pacific gas & electric for about 3600 ft.2 of the easement. the project comes from the pending relocation of our central shops from its current location at 1800 gerald to this site near selby and galvez. as part of the
4:56 am
development process for the new central shops it was determined that the current pg&e facilities need to be relocated. it was also discovered that this area where the current facilities like his former galvez street which was vacated and sold in 1969 and in 90s and nine the board of supervisors directed that an easement be reserved to pg&e predecessor and interest but no easement was actually reserved. so it's an odd situation. normally they would simply be existing in the street under a franchise right then have to be relocated. it's a little bit different as an easement is required because of that history this season will be delivered at one dollar cost a
4:57 am
nominal cost to them even though the property has value that's the rationale for the no-cost delivery and easement because of the prior rights in the property. the easement itself ranges from about 10-15 feet in width running the distance of the property on the northerly edge and pg&e has agreed to the terms of an easement agreement that easement agreement is in your package. of course, given that the only party who uses this easement is the utility, there is no need for competitive process so that is noted in the resolution. it's also consistent with the general plan referral in this file. happy to answer any questions you also joined by my colleague from dpw if you have questions about this particular relocation effort. >> okay. thank you. colleagues, any questions? supervisor peskin >> to think that one is a housekeeping matter that generally easements like this
4:58 am
there's usually a map that shows the current easement and the future easement that is being exchanged for an here that flat map of the easement area is blank on the attachment to be filled and it would be nice to have that for us and the public to see. >> thank you supervisor peskin. that's an excellent lawyer recognize we do not have a map in the board filed this depicts that easement running as i said between 10 and 15 feet in width just off the northerly edge of the property that this moves it out of the path of our future development envelope for central shops project. >> than the other thing i was
4:59 am
can ask some the larger context of 1975 galvez. it doesn't have to do with the value of this easement but insofar that i have it in front of us, it has to do with the original purchase price, plus the purchase price for the acquisition of the balance of the leasehold interest and whether or not, as i said to your staff last week we have insofar as we never had an appraisal of the original purchase but we had some palms and listings whether or not we believe that the $1,650,000 for the purchase of the 10 or so your balance of the leasehold interest together with the approximate 59 dollar purchase price is still within the fair market value of the property?
5:00 am
width supervisor, not exactly this item before the committee right now, yes, we believe that is justified particularly based on the new brazile information. i believe that the subsequent item later this week in front of a different committee where we'll have a robust discussion about that. he was i figured insofar as i had that one of those committee members here i would pollute his thinking. >> okay. collects any further questions or comments? will open us up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on the easement for a dollar? no public comment. public comment is closed >>[gavel] he was collects the data is there a motion? without objection make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. as a committee report >> thank you baroness. mdm. clerk motion by supervisor things that my supervisor peskin. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item number five. >> item number five a five-year
5:01 am
monitoring port on the eastern neighborhoods plan. >> okay. thank you mdm. clerk. i tell you what, do you have one of our colleagues here to speak on this item. i tell you what when we go on a >> we are back in open session. i'm clerk please call item number five. >> yes >> item number five five year monitoring report for eastern neighborhoods.
5:02 am
>> supervisor cohen >> good afternoon colleagues good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. thank you for hearing this item today. i believe most of you are very familiar with eastern neighborhoods plan could just by way of background this particular plan was adopted in 2009 after more than a decade of a public process. with community in the central waterfront the potrero hill, showplace sq., east soma, westerns, and the mission neighborhood. so for the last 10-15 years these neighbors have been changing and growing and of seeing the land-use conflicts that have arisen. the residential and office the moment have begun to compete with industrial uses. so the user neighborhood plan represents two very key policy goals could first, is to ensure a stable feature for pdr businesses in its production distribution and repair, special planning terminology
5:03 am
that we are going to be using today, pdr businesses by preserving lands to the these types of uses. the second key policy goal of the user neighborhood plan is to provide a significant amount of affordable housing for low moderate and middle income households with the emphasis on providing quote complete neighborhoods and spiegel. you'll hear that term brought the presentation and public comments. providing an in providing complete neighborhoods that provides amenities for the existing and also since. so the ordinance that enacted the eastern neighborhoods plan required that the planning department produce a five-year report monitoring residential and commercial development in these particular neighborhoods. as well as monitor the impact fees generated in the public and
5:04 am
private investment in community benefits as was the infrastructure. so that is what we are going to be discussing today. we have also be hearing directly from the user neighborhood citizens advisory committee regarding their respective i think regarding the response to the monitoring report should also be are going to be hearing about how most of the development in our city's happening on the eastern neighborhoods even eastern part of the city impact in eastern neighborhoods. so i believe it's critical for all of the collective board of supervisors to understand that these changes are occurring that they are directly related to many the land-use decisions and policy changes that we are making and without other to bring up pager peterson from the planning department to make a presentation. colleagues, i had handed out to you a copy of the presentation that you should have that before you and following pedro's presentation we we are from keith goals seem
5:05 am
represented on the user neighborhood cac. welcome. thank you >> thank you supervisor cohen. thank you supervisors for having me here today to talk a little bit about the user neighborhood monitoring report for the period between 2011-2015. three presentation outlined.. i will give a libido brought down about the [inaudible] to have what supervisor cohen just discussed. and go over the reporting requirements that were in the legislation that adopted the plans. talk a little bit about the commercial development activity in the eastern neighborhoods and the jobs trends we saw during the period of monitoring reports. discussed residential the roman activity and affordable housing within the planning areas and then finish the discussion of the impact fees and 20 benefits programs that enabled by the
5:06 am
plan. so as supervisors and mentioned, these are neighborhoods area plan there are five separate plans. four of them were at dr. david 2009. mission, e some commercial place where and potrero hill in central waterfront. the western soma community had a parallel process and the plan was about 2013 adopted. in addition to neighborhood specific goals and objectives the plans have a twin set of overarching policy goals that span across all the five project areas. the first is the stabilization of pdr activity. predominant industrial zoning in the neighbors prior to the adoption of the plan was m zoning does allow for broad range of uses including office and residential with conditional use authorization so the idea of the plans were to carve out some areas that would be
5:07 am
appropriate for protection as pdr protection zones. as well as to produce more housing at higher levels of affordability and to generate impact fees that would allow for complete neighborhoods and for the installation of infrastructure to support that housing them in combination with other city resources to improve infrastructure in general. the ordinance also created a citizens advisory committee to provide input and oversight on implementation of the plant that like to thank the cac for working closely with us on the production of these monitoring reports. we worked with them for nine months and they provided crucial feedback on our data in on even the scoping of the monitoring reports to make sure it really answered the policy concerns. so the
5:08 am
reporting requirements for the eastern neighborhood area plans are that we report on all development activity that took place during the monitoring period. so for these monitoring reports to the. period 2015 and the current pipeline at the end of that permit. december 31, 2015. so the issue with that is that a lot of the development activity that occurred in during that time within the boundaries of the eastern neighborhoods were not entitled pursuant to the plan. were projects for example entitled prior to adoption of the plan projects that will seek entitlements under separate plans and ers. for example central soma pier 70 and annexed copacetic husband there's convergence of pdr space taken prior to the plans and legalize to the embassy program that ended in 2013. as
5:09 am
all smaller projects that do not rely on those zoning. for examples all residential projects. the numbers that i will present today include all of these. if you have questions about the numbers that don't include these kinds of projects by the table that we can talk about after the presentation. but this is what the legislation required. so this is what i will be reporting on. the reporting requirement also include a discussion of the public benefit could included the impact fees generated by the plant in the community benefits program and other sources of revenue addition to the impact fees that fund the program and implementation good agency responsibility on budgets.. so the commercial activity commercial development activity, that took place between 2011-2015 this table
5:10 am
summarizes that but i will sort of walk through some of the highlights of the table. in that sort of first column their cultural institutional educational space we had about 4000 square feet but premature all of that is attributable to the sf general hospital expansion in the showplace potrero hill neighborhood. those about even development of office and conversion of pdr space close to 1,000,000 ft.2 and the total amount of commercial square feet that developed that was about 460,000. as i mentioned, some of these projects for example converted pdr were projects approved prior to the plan. so for example in 1880 mission st. we convert about 63,000 ft.2 of
5:11 am
pdr into about 200 units of housing in the project proved in 2006 before the plans were adopted they were completed in 2013. so this is why it shows up as a loss of pdr during this period. another example is that 15 50 bryant there's a loss of 93 at 9000 feet of pvr shows up here but this was the conversion to office that happened well before the plans were adopted and was legalized under this program at sunset it in 2013. as far as jobs, we these are neighborhoods added roughly 32,000 jobs three 2010-2015. the greatest gains by managers were in office occupations, which added about 20,000 jobs as well as we joke that added about 9000 jobs. even though there was a loss of pdr space as i mentioned, we
5:12 am
actually added 2000 jobs during this period in pdr activity. b was could you explain the acronym cie? >> sure. cultural institutional and educational institutions >> is that like an art gallery? >> it would be our gallery for example a sf general is classified under here. schools >> you said it's a cultural institution >> and educational >> okay. thank you. >> there some data issues here that you look at other it went down while cie one out there think some of it had to do with how the state pacifiers like personal medical services that were classified under other and now it's under cie so there are some nuances there but >> have you explained visitor?
5:13 am
>> visitor is a tourist hotels. i think you would include like short-term rentals and things like that. or, restaurants. restaurants would be under retail. >> what falls under the other category? >> you know i am not sure. i can back to you on that. you might be things like personal services and things don't fall neatly under all of these. i can follow-up >> thank you. okay. >> so one of the interesting things we found here is the edited 32,000 jobs without adding a whole lot of commercial space. so a couple of the puzzle of nations that we think is well first of all 2010 was the during the recession 2015 the economy was growing. part i might just be formerly vacant spaces occupied but we especially office jobs.
5:14 am
there's a lot of stuff being written in the literature got out their specification of office occupation. we have more jobs given amount of square feet. maybe some of that is happening as well. so as for the pipeline, we basically see a similar trend happening where we are seeing again in office space and a loss in br space. we see here there's about 5,000,000,000 ft.2 in office and 1.4 square-foot loss in pdr but of the 5,000,000,000 ft.2 and office space, 4 million is located in central soma were pier 70 so these are projects though under review that where
5:15 am
the planning commission for the supervisors has discretion over those projects. as for the pdr, 1.4 million loss of pdr in the pipeline could of got about 1 million is still projects under review. projects have not received entitlements. for residential development, during this period we added about working hundred residential units. 20% of which were affordable so if we remove the 1% affordable from this project from this total, just look at with the inclusion of program added, it was about 17% of the units could so higher than the 12% that was amended by the city during this period. 69 units were in the euro hundred
5:16 am
percent affordable project in 221 were developed through the inclusionary program. one example of this is the [inaudible] where we added 202 units 40 of which were below market rate. a couple of other examples. the top one 1880 mission is one i mentioned. there was a bbb in 2006 bonnie completed in 2013. that was eight and depressed i got developed in a most 200 units of housing. so in the pipeline, release as the end of 2015 we had about 11,600 units. of that, 7400 were still under review and then about 4000 were
5:17 am
entitled. either under construction about 3000 actually under construction, or about 1000 that were entitled and had not broken ground yet. here it is by land area. so 1800 units in the mission, about 2600 in central waterfront though a lot of those are in pier 70. 1300 in western soma and eastern soma again some of those are part of central soma projects still under review and subject to approval of the central soma plan. then, in showplace potrero hill, there are 4500 units in the pipeline. 2600 are still under review and that includes 1000 units at the hopeless of project potrero annex. so the impact fees and committee benefits programs.
5:18 am
through the end of 2015 we collect about $50 million in impact fees that are divided between these five different buckets. the biggest buckets, if you will commodity transportation and transit and recreation and open space that get about $17 million each of the 50 million and they were collected from all five of the different area plans. so the major infrastructure projects that have been received funding from the impact fees program include daggett park opened last fall, 17 temples and park in the mission that is set to open this spring, major rehabilitation of south park there was also just completed as well as pedestrian and transit projects, for example 16th st. in mission in showplace potrero hill area
5:19 am
plans fulsome and howard and eastern and western saw some of its own. just to give you the id of the geographic dissolution of the projects, they're kind of sort of distributed throughout the five plan areas. with that, i can do my presentation and welcome to take any questions you have. >> thank you. i was wondering if you had one of the things that perpetuated me to bring this hearing request is because i'm in agreement with my constituents that are concerned the projects moving forward then i pay attention to the commode of impact of the neighborhood. your presentation didn't really talk about that it was more high level about the fax of the five-year evaluation. that is fine but is wondering if you could offer any kind of insight of your process for these inning be sitting as it relates to
5:20 am
paying attention to chemo the impacts that these multiple projects are having vertically on the showplace square area particularly in the sure he'll dogpatch even northeastern mission. >> sure. well before the plans were adopted the eir studies the cumulative impact on these projects and estimated a set number of units that would be residential units and commercial development to go in the neighborhoods. i can show you if we are looking at the projects entitled under view just pursuant to fisa neighborhoods plans, for example, the eir preferred project alternative estimated that there would be about 9000 units built across the eastern neighborhoods and when we have
5:21 am
released as of the end of 2015-no, this is the end of september of last year there have been about 1 million units completed about 1600 units under construction and the entire pipeline if everything gets built approved dental, would be about 8000 units over the next 5-7 years or so. so we understand that it's a pretty >> so is also the brand doesn't necessarily take into account the concerns that i am hearing about the impact. your knowledge there's an impact but it sounds like okay i know there's an impact but so what, who cares were i am sorry. what we are trying to do is to find a balance that sits on just a much of a cavalier attitude zane, okay we hear you. we need to account for these impacts. we need to make an adjustment. is there room and if so, where
5:22 am
would we be able to make this type of adjustment in the eastern neighborhood plan? >> so the monitoring report the purpose of the report was more to track the progress of the plan. so we sort of shied away from offering suitable policy discussion in their good other than to note that some of the impacts were accounted for by the eir and by the plan and also that the nature of impact fee funding for these kinds of things is that developed happen and we collect the fees and that money lacks. she might see the infrastructure might lag somewhat from the actual >> do you have an idea of how much that lag is? i mean i can give you an idea. in terms of to quantify, we are talking but i think it's anonymous taken it's like a $26 million gap during development and infrastructure improvements that are needed. so-that's just
5:23 am
the financial side of things. usually, things don't materialize to have the money could i would imagine the timeline is even further behind the gap. so you can see you are familiar with the plan you just made a presentation. so really it's a policy discussion am trying to push for us to begin to have and i think this most appropriate place to begin have this conversation. it is frustrating to shoulder such an awesome responsibility with all of that involvement happening in a small little section of the san francisco and you're kind of almost like promised that you're going to get infrastructure dollars little and infrastructure improvement yet not really seeing that ketchup with the development project itself. for example we got projects already built but we don't have simple things like street lights were in some
5:24 am
parts of the district, sidewalks and cost walks. it's a very hard into graciously accept projects that are entitled before i got on the board of supervisors and probably entitles well before many of the current advocates that are at the table now. to graciously accept this and say this is the way when there is no benefit. there's no community neighborhood benefit. that the impact fees were promised to deliver. >> matt snyder i think might be able to >> yes@welcome to mike >> a couple things to note about the infrastructure ladder first of all for the iraqis they 50 million we received as of the close of last fiscal
5:25 am
year probably a percent of that came in here before with the two years before the money has not really come in until fairly recently that the stories a little bit different of each of the impact types. we had generally the freeman carries transportation transit, complete streets streets giving an open space. the transportation and transit part of the lab may be the reason that we committed to having become partnered with the other agencies we said let's identify some priority projects but about 80% of our money towards those projects we can commit to them. those projects are fulsome st., howard through south of market and then 16 street 22 fillmore crucial pl. and the mission. those as you said they've taken a long time to get through the environmental to get going. also in howard has not yet completed through its environmental. on that side that's one reason for that live. we've also been trying to be
5:26 am
very working with our agency partners to be flexible to be nimble and to kind of fill holes for you possibly can.. we are now contributed about a third of the money to the second street project through south of market and that's going to be a great project. both streetscape vliet streets project. 22nd st. to central waterfront is another project that we prioritize the on the priority projects. for open space for minor there's a lot of frustration and i think probably some of the frustration is that they feel like we should've committed to more open space from the beginning but these are neighborhoods plans are specifically committed to one new park and one rebuilt. parking each of the five neighborhoods. we are actually making some good progress on that. again, three purchase recently have finally opened her about to open that the supper rehabilitation part, in
5:27 am
south of market, dr. park, and showplace square in the 17th and posting part for the mission street. we are looking at sort of a second part two by genotyping projects that spending the that are somewhere in the plenary sages. >> thank you mr. snyder i appreciate that explanation. look six supervisor katie tang has a couple questions. >> thank you very much. i know that there's a lot of talk about lhasa pvr space and so forth and originally when the ballot measures on for november for example had initially included i believe user neighborhoods but we taken it out. one of the questions i asked during the hearing was whether there's been any analysis as to the quality of the pdr spaces. so i know there's a lot of talk about this placement of it and lots of it but it was some cases and not particularly in eastern neighborhoods but some others where they were pdr spaces but not necessarily open to the public or well utilized by the
5:28 am
community. so i had hoped for a deeper analysis on billy the quality of the pvr space and for example why i disagreed with about measure was one of the reasons was because i do not feel like just one-for-one replacement meant that you were going to get a great community space in lieu of what had previously existed. so had there been any thoughts or analysis around that? >> we are not done an analysis in our department about the quality of the pdr space. we been talking about perhaps doing something like that is part of the pdr strategy but it's not something we started yet. so, yes, for example the space i mentioned that 1880 mission was to construct that are not bemused and was converted to 200 units of housing. i think any that
5:29 am
conversion is typically given the industrial tradition the standards will be contentious. so i would agree it would be [inaudible] >> yes i think we have producing a because recently i want to pick a pvr use against housing. right? with that sony has that scenario has come up before but i would if that's okay with supervisor cohen as well, i would like or our department planning department to look at that because i think it will help inform future projects coming up again just to say there's a lot of pdr, deauville sometimes it's actually a fair analysis of what's really going on in the community. >> so to the chairman, i've no further questions. thank you
5:30 am
for the presentation. >> okay. thanks very much. at this point will open this up to public comments. if anyone wishes to comment on item number five, supervisor dan has some speaker cards. >> >>[calling public comment cards] i'm sorry you are right. keith closing is making a presentation. i'm sorry keith. so sorry >> pacer allowing us to him keith closing by sure the user neighborhoods cac thanks for a much to supervisor cohen for arranging this presentation today. we have been meaning of the last 70 years and so as part of the monitoring report the cac presented the response letter written by more on the ground perspective which doesn't paint quite a rosy as picture is you been hearing
5:31 am
from the planning department of what is going on that. just to quickly summarize, stable pdr affordable housing, complete neighborhoods, with the main goals of the land. then it stops four different principles. lots of pdr again, new industries, new housing, and complete neighborhoods. so our response letter took each of those principles and although we agree with the planning department that some aspects are working there are some things that we don't think are working and so but i like to present to you today on behalf of the cac is what we don't think is working and also some propose strategies that we brainstormed that we thought might help the situation. so looking at the pdr situation, first, basically there's a whole change in the nature. it
5:32 am
appears all pdr businesses. the traditional blue-collar jobs are disappearing on not really talked about blacksmiths or buggy whip manufacturers of right? good auto repair shops, plumbers, sheet-metal manufacturers. i own a waterproofing, the myself and i see the businesses that i do work with disappearing and businesses like mine offer well-paid jobs to unskilled workers to immigrants, to previously employed >> just to interrupt him want to bring to sfgov tv's attention of a powerpoint presentation. because you're speaking but we are not seeing it. >> thank you okay you are not seeing it >> sfgov tv the powerpoint presentation. there we go. continue >> as we are seeing the ground for buildings now they don't have pdr uses anymore. they're not point to have a painting contact at the bottom of a building with $2 million units there. there is an increase in
5:33 am
them makeup of the community definitely but it's the repair and distribution the production that's contractors, distribution, warehousing. you don't see warehouse jobs anymore. the makers are doing quite well to the other categories are disappearing. this gesture reiterates the points i just made. that there is no mechanism here to keep these pdr businesses in the eastern neighborhood. i think i want to reiterate this is not backwards looking there's always going to be a need for a repair shop. buildings are always quick to leap. people always going to need a plumber. so we need to keep those businesses around to have a complete community and we are seeing terrible losses among the small artists although we see it 1275 minnesota the galleries stuffed in your so independent artists are just
5:34 am
performance faces are just getting kicked out (and center. so we're seeing a lot of growth the methodology and biotech industry and that's where roxie seen some houses broad definition of these biotech industries of the new pdr jobs. we don't want to stop those but you've got to keep the other types of jobs because from what i see the biotech industries do not attract these immigrants previously incarcerated people previously unemployed people that might go and work for a waterproofing company or an auto repair shop. this cac is very concerned about the affordable housing issue. i think we don't need to really harp on this too much. everybody seems to know that it costs a whole hell of a lot more basically [inaudible] a nominee spaces left for people on moderate to low incomes were even above-average incomes. to
5:35 am
live in the city. and of course overseeing and our neighborhoods is pressure on rent controlled units. and the umu seems to mean builders much luxury space while meeting that affordable housing requirement as you possibly can. not creating a complete neighborhood . so we've seen a tremendous surge in units. it would nice to see a surge of the same level in affordable housing units. just as the impact on her neighborhoods it's really extreme. the plan is eight years old and we've already gone way above-not way above-we've marginally exceeded those of her projected in the plan and we are still several
5:36 am
years to go on the plan. the infrastructure development as you are from supervisor cohen is lavender we don't have enough money to fund the improvements that we don't know how we will get more money and this seems to us to be a clear failure in how this plan was developed. so the lag time according to the planning department, money is coming but they mentioned that 80% of the impact these are dedicated could basically 2 16th st. and fulsome street. so that scrape you will have a great bus line and rode down to the warriors stadium in mission bay nice transit down fulsome street so you can go to work at the tech industry on second street but we have hardly any money left for neighborhood improvements within our community. 20%. so in the community comes to us with requests for more money, to build a park or crosswalk
5:37 am
there isn't no money because all the money set aside for these two big projects which i'm not so sure have that much of a direct impact on the communities most affected by all the developments. the green space is not quite as rosy a picture again as just was paid. ashley 17 and fulsome part which i went by just a few days ago is far from opening in the spring. finally, the first new park in the neighborhood did open about two weeks ago dr. park. you would be amazed how little of a park you get for $3 million. and how small 1 acre park can be good it's remarkable. south park has opened up. so the plan says that they're meeting the goal of the amount of new open space in green space but the plan was wrong to be needed more. then there is the non-eir projects
5:38 am
which massive projects like the warriors, the john's, mission bay ucsf, potrero pier 70 those are thousands of thousands of units that are not further impact and they will are not included in the projections for the eastern neighborhoods plans. so those impacts put further stress on all the infrastructure needs. so umu as i said before is not really given us this mixed use. basically given us a developer has no reason to try to lease a space on the ground floor to a grocery store or dry cleaner when they can sell that unit per couple of million dollars. so no neighborhood served in retail commercial ground floor is really an issue and we need to see that for more complete neighborhoods. terrible
5:39 am
[inaudible] very poor public transit service especially the slow placed potrero and i don't need to tell any of you if you do drive about traffic congestion. i think this applies throughout the city. i here every week is on the head of the local merchants association we have a lot of nonprofits that members of our merchants association which is keep on hearing about being forced out and that seems to be another on projected impact on these neighborhoods planted width can you expand on that that comment but the merchants being pushed out and how that relates to these neighborhoods plan? >> well, just how the >> how do the eastern
5:40 am
neighborhoods plan or the plan as it stands-[cross-talking / off mic] >> it's an indirect impact these to neighborhoods plan but i want to make a point then maybe think about some legislation to try and encourage space for nonprofits.. to maybe include some sort of program to include nonprofits as pdr and some sort some program to pursue space for nonprofit pdr uses. if we could classify nonprofit as pdr. but we can keep seeing all that nonprofits disappearing from the eastern neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> so that's what we are seeing and i just want to reiterate about the infrastructure and the dogpatch neighborhood, i believe the population is objected to grow about four times from 2000 to about 8000
5:41 am
may be as much as 10,000 with plan projects in the pipeline this is a neighborhood that still doesn't have any new parks. it's got one tiny children's playground. minute. it doesn't have sidewalks in many areas. it does not crosswalks it does not street lighting. so there's a huge deficit particularly in the central waterfront. so cac came up with some proposed strategies that we would like to suggest that we think the city agency can probably take it a better look at these things and supervisor tang alluded to this just now with studying trends of specific pdr sectors to see where the jobs are being created where they are being lost in pdr and what sort of population is getting these jobs. maybe put a side some plans for pdr were trying to
5:42 am
vote bayshore. i look at bayshore. this a lot of space on bayshore and maybe we could zone back that there may be some funding mechanisms are zoning to encourage new pdr within these districts. affordable housing. obviously prop or charlie helped and we hear about this all the time and we don't have any magic elixir for solving this but maybe purchasing some sites were increasing the affordability levels for for the housing might help the situation. i am trying to figure out the infrastructure needs. the impact these meet 30% of the infrastructure needs and i was part of the eastern neighborhoods plan at the start. as i said before we've already reached the limit of development there. increasing impact the levels, i know oewd
5:43 am
will tell you and maybe they're right to develop [inaudible] to back off there's a certain level they can get but maybe we could do an analysis and see how much they could there and then magically, let's think about spending the money we impacts actually occurred. as i stated before, 80% of your money is going down fulsome street and 16th st. a lot of non-neighbors that would like to see it right on their doorstep. this is asking for this infrastructure again. so let's think about how to bring infrastructure improvements in advance of developments. i know this blockage constipation is apparently being stalled somewhat and maybe we can figure out some way to leverage the impact fee revenue to other sources. they be some sort of bond against revenue stream
5:44 am
that might help that and then just to encourage in general the city to make a more holistic approach to projects not just look at how eastern neighborhoods were our particular boundary but everything in general and so that some of our strategies for solving the situations we see and i would just lastly like to ask if the board of supervisors might consider taking a look at all of this as old and then think about some amendment to the eastern neighborhoods plan address some of these concerns. >> do you have any suggestions in terms of a amendment to the plan? maybe not now but something constructive thing about >> think some of my fellow community members may have some insight on that. i'd like to-cac
5:45 am
cac bruce chair would probably like to speak to that as well. >> okay. well thank you very much for your presentation on time. clerk mr. jericho to speaker cards economy >> absolutely. we will open up public comments. please, feel free to line up on the far side your 2 min. >> >>[calling public comment cards] >> hello. on the house and either district and speaking on behalf of potrero responsibly. the user neighborhoods plan protected development two 2025. the monitoring report cuts it off at the end of 2015 with 10 years left to go. per chair available plan anticipated at 3180 residential units will be built in the showplace potrero it area by 2025. the report shows that as of late 2015 participating 4526 units. a
5:46 am
near doubling the population. suggestion that infrastructure improvements are keeping up with the pace of development is false. the plan identified a number of laudable objectives complete committees and so on but the promise was broken and said we are falling further behind overbuilt and with funding for benefits depend on either of further development on potrero hill were told will get a transit which area as we witness daily increasing traffic and gridlocked due to the abysmal failure of the city to provide as adequate transit options. currently, there are no viable mechanisms to fully fund our infrastructure requirements impact fees as keith mentioned are artificially low at a third of the knee. the adoption of the plan board mayor and city agencies were supposed to identify and implement future
5:47 am
revenue opportunities. that never happened. but we are here now asking that you take this up with a full board. as noted by john king in today's chronicle, the danger is that when the construction does settle dust settles on one be what we see around us this ability out of >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon on jude [inaudible] 25 year resident of potrero hill. while not an impact number i do go to all those meetings and all those nine-month meetings working on the monitoring report some very familiar with this plan. today i'm here representing friends of jackson park. jackson park is the part that at the base of potrero hill was to showplace square. as of jackson was born seven several years that safety of this part of those was a needlestick or neighborhood advocacy group opening to create and save what little green open space we have in our
5:48 am
neighborhood. i'm going to focus my comments today on the showplace square open space land for potrero hill showplace square. the analysis is and i quote reveals a total of about 4 acres of new open space should be provided in this area two, the expected growth. what we have seen so far is less than 1 acre was opened this year might not last fall at daggett as keith said is sorely lacking. objective 51 was to provide public [inaudible] meet the needs of residents and visitors the planning, will continue working the recreation and parks department 20 in a fireplace for public park and will continue to work to choir additional open space. objective five was too great a network of green streets that connects open spaces the walk ability is that it's an ecological sustainability of the neighborhood. the potrero hill and dog patch is historically underserved in terms of open space and were digging a deeper hole with
5:49 am
[inaudible] little or no investment but i would come here without a solution as our lovely supervisor said >> overhead, please sfgov tv we see it >> we are working on a project or renovation of jackson park. the see a connection through related couple california development plans there. the maxwell with open space there's 2.7 acres there that we would like to rate this land and work with sfusd >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. on j >> great. is in of potrero business paper scissors just for somewhat obese or neighborhood citizens advisory
5:50 am
committee for the response to the monitoring report. the highlights quite well some of the efficiencies and plan implement it over the last decade. but probably these amendment plan has not filled his promise of providing complete neighborhoods. he talked a lot about how we do struggle to achieve the max in urban mixed-use zoning in particular providing. are businesses. so essential to the neighborhood character. that we have in the developed parts of the city but don't happen in those areas that are developing. was not simply the use mix that these are neighborhoods incomplete whether were discussing traffic, transit or open space with the subject to the ad hoc processes that are used for the city's more astonished infrastructure which neighbors. have some of that is because as keith pointed out he impact fees only need 30% of the disputed developer impact. we dig ourselves deeper with every new approval we make. all we are clean catch up on projects with the piece we do receive such as the fix 16 street between omission admission they cannot quest for infrastructure designed specifically to mitigate these neighborhoods
5:51 am
plan lack. so why do we raise this now and widely want to raise this with the full board? welcome we see two things. one several large projects adjacent to but a part of the user neighborhoods plan are imminent including ucsf is bashing the dogpatch [inaudible] these large projects provide us with an opportunity to review impressed to find both attorneys infrastructure needs rather than just those parts. second, somewhere along the line will run out of building capacity under the user neighborhoods in er. minor importance in complete review of the data. but whether it is six months ago or six months from now, we can get there soon. it will require cogent legislative oversight and correlating with cedar city agent with goals making good the promise of complete neighborhoods in order to provide for sustainable path for. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please.
5:52 am
>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is bruce hughley. president of the dogpatch neighborhood association. chairman of the [inaudible] when the founding members of progress park which is a street park in dogpatch and also founding member of the playground that keith referenced in the statement. we actually are looking for more open space in dogpatch and more amenities infrastructure just to give you a perspective on keynote of impacts, within the next 9-12 months three apartment buildings will open up good 650 indiana, 800 indiana, and 1201 hennessy. they will have about 725 units. we calculated 02 persons per unit, they're going to double our population within a year. so in terms of cumulative impacts we don't have a grocery store we can want to. we can get to transportation that sometimes is reliable and if we want to try to focus in on is more sooner rather than later. thank you. >> my name is rick fall. i
5:53 am
think one of the things we need to--ashley might get to the bottom line. my ask is that the full board does something to start digging into this and reviewing policy. not only for the user neighborhoods clan itself but for all the other stuff in it impacts us and i think we really need to look at how we do these plans. they seem to be done with a construction with the zoning as the only tool. our planning department doesn't even have a sociologist on staff. the problems we are seeing are about square feet of acres of park or numbers of buses. it is the sociological impact that this new construction and the
5:54 am
new residents bring with it that we need to address. i think if we address it to the sociological lens in addition to a land-use lens, we will have a lot better is old for the people of this city. and i think that's not going to happen at one hearing. i do think we need to begin to dig into this big is your war plans coming and none of these plans-they all sort of tearoff eastern neighborhoods plan and they will use the same mitigations, the same transportation etc. and really, we need a new lens to look at the stock. none of the plans-one of the things we learned there was no peace in the plan. anything could be built at any time as long as it was within the full window of
5:55 am
the plan. fans need sociology and a new pace. thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> eileen-district for resident. i am here to express solidarity of the website with user neighborhoods. and to echo the concerns of the community members of spoken today. and also there asked that this come before the full board as this needs i think the entire board to become involved. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public was to speak on item number five? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor trenton >> thank you i appreciate the participation from the constituents. thank you for being here. i want to also thank max snyder and pedro peterson. for your presentation. thank. i liked things for during this item. supervisor farrell you can file this
5:56 am
>> okay. colleagues no other questions or comments all entertain a motion to file >> on the commotion about hearing >> moved and seconded and we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >>" any other business in front of us >> no further business. >> thank you everyone. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
>> good morning. today is wednesday march 15, 2017. this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off our electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> president commissioner clinch. >> here. >> commissioner konstin. >> here. >> commissioner complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. >> here. >> commissioner warshell. >> here. >> we have a quorum and vice president walker and walker are excused. the will all parties