Otherwise stated. Ok. Thank you. Item number one. An amendment to implement charter section 16. 129 providing that the city should maintain street trees and be liable for injuries and Property Damage resulting from the failure to maintain trees and making appropriate findings. Thank you. I will turn it over to supervisor sheehy. Thank you. Good morning, colleagues. Today were here to consider an ordinance amending the public works doed implement charter 16. 129. In november of 2016, the voterses paed proposition e which provides that the city shall maintain street trees and thus is liable for injuries and Property Damage resulting from the failure to maintain street trees. Prop e passed with almost 80 of the voters support and set aside 19 million a year to run this program, which went into effect july 1, 2017. Thus public work code needs to be updated to reflect the city intention, which is that the city will be responsible for maintaining our street trees. I do want to give a shoutout to my predecessor, now Senate Senator scott weiner for his leadership. There is a threeyear holding time before thety is eligible to take a tree. New trees arened mraeed from a variety of sources, including individual Property Owners and developers. After three years, the city will look to see if the tree is established, meaning that it has met specific criteria to be accepted by the city. Simply, the street tree s. F. Makes it possible that the city does not take on maintenance for trees before designated time period and, thus, reduces the citys liability. It is important that we continue to work to sustain a longterm vision and strategy for our street trees. This will help us achieve beautiful streets and help the environments. Ill now turn it over to karla short which is part of the department of public works. Thank you, karla. Thank you. So, were here today to consider some proposed code changes as required by the ordinance to the public works code. Ill justs give very brief background to how we got here. As you all know, budget. Budget cuts to the tree program over the last decade resulted in inadequate public works through the public forest. As a result, they transferred them to property own ores. A hugely unpopular but necessary initiative. It was lousy compared to other cities. The report provided recommendations for improvinging the situation. One of the Key Takeaways was to adopt sustainable funding stream to provide public works with the resources needed to properly care for the citys 125,000 street trees. We looked at best practices in other jurisdiction and potential surrounding scenario and came up with a proposal that premiered on the 2016 ballot as proposition e. As the supervisor noted, the proposition was passed overwhelmingly by San Francisco voters. Street tree s. F. Guarantees public works 19 million a year in general fund money for street tree care without raising taxes. Street tree s. F. Went sbaoe effect on july 1, 2017. Transferring maintenance responsibility of all street trees to the city. The ordinance also includes a provisions to protect the city from liability when inheriting more than 80,000 for maintenance on july 1 and essentially if it was identified as an issue prior to the july 1 takeover Property Owners do share some of the liability for that condition. It also required a Code Amendment to bring the public works code in line with the new measure. So that is where we are today. There were a few key changes to the code that ill just highlight for you today. The obvious one is that it eliminates the section that makes Property Owners responsible for maintaining the tree in the rightofway adjacent to their property. And equally as important, it eliminates the provision to allow the department to relinquish responsibility. For example, if a developer is required to plant a number of trees as a mitigation for their building project, the city will only accept those trees for maintenance after theyve gotten established properly and we have inspected and determined that well take them on for maintenance. It also adopts a process to it a how Property Owners to opt out and hire a private contractor to perform street tree maintenance. We have many Property Owners who have taken great care of their trees over the years and they would like the option to continue to do so. So, the code change allows that. Another important provision from my perspective is it requires Property Owners who damage trees to take steps to repair the damage. And to remain liable for the trees until the city determines that they are healthy and structurally sound. If someone tops a tree and that results in damage to the tree, which is going to have a poor structure and be prone to limb failures, the city does not have to inherit that problem. And we can require them to structurally prune the tree and restore it to a structurally sound condition before we take maintenance responsibility back. And it also adopts rules and standards for contractors performing work on city trees. Essentially prop e does not cover planting costs of new trees so well have to seek other funding opportunities to cover the cost of planting and establishing trees. But we hope to grow the urban forest by 50,000 new street trees and the future vision of street trees in San Francisco will look something more like this. Thank you for your time. Colleagues, any questions . If not, we can turn to Public Comment unless supervisor sheehy had more. I think dan flanagan was going to be here. But i dont see him. Anyone wish a comment on item number one . Im gail bau, and weve been working with karla and d. P. W. On restoring the octavia boulevard where the street trees have been neglected. Ive also seen something similar on divisidero and potentially on cesar chavez where there are center medians that have trees and im not sure im really asking the question of karla, if those trees are covered by this new ordinance. Anybody else before anybody else wish to publicly comment on item number one . Ok. Seeing no Public Comments now closed, supervisor sheehy. Those trees are covereded, yes, karla . All right. Supervisor p esskin . Supervisor peskin . I just want to thank you to the staff for getting us up to speed on this longawaited change on policy and thank the voters and my former colleagues and supervisor weiner for gettinging this thing before the voters and finally solving a many decades problem and cant wait for it to be rolled out. Ok. Thank you very much. Any other questions . If not, colleagues can we get a motion . So moved. Move would you like the send this out as a Committee Report . That would be terrific. By motion supervisor peskin to send this item forward as a Committee Report and we can take that without objection. So, colleagues, item number two is sponsored by supervisor breed and i think were waiting on her getting here. Lets go to items three and four first. Call item number three. Item number three is an ordinance amending the transportation dozed prevent motorized scooters animo pedestrians to park in designated motorcycle spaces and making appropriate findings. Ok, mr. Thornly is here. Welcome. Ill take this spot. I dont have a presentation to make for you, if you dont mind. Ill just give you a verbal. Im andy thornly of the pr up transportation agency. We brought to the committee a little bit of legislative business. And pardon me. The sequence of things we are talking about, the motorized scooters first, i believe. Lets see. Let me verify that. So, we actually two items here. These are both mine. So, these both have to do with shared mobility. The s. F. S Municipal Transportation Agency having watched with a small pilot how small changes to parking policy would support a shared electric moped system. We have Scoot Networks runninging the system in the city. We tried a year of relaxing time limits in resident permit areas. We decided from our analysis and listening to neighbors and your constituents that we should create a permit. We now created a shared electric moped parking permit for 325 a year. A qualified moped operator can get such a permit and scoots moe mopeds are now all showinging this particular permit. Have a look at that. In the code, we discovered that the parking infraction for parking if a marked motorcycle stall was not quite exactly right. Right now in division one of the transportation code, its an infraction. You can get a citation. If you park something other than a motorcycle, in a motorcycle parking stall. Well, its been the m. T. A. s policy and practice for quite a long time that we allow mopeds, scooters, other motorized two wheelers in motorcycle stalls. So were asking for a very minor correction in the language of division i, in the infraction having to deal with parking in a motorcycle stall. Thats section 7237. And we are proposing to add a couple of words to that. So that you are now ok to park a motorized scooter or a moped or a motorcycle in a motorcycle parking space. Its taken me longer to describe this than the legislation. We respectfully request that the board of supervisors make that change to division i. Thank you. Just quick question. Would you mine just, for members of the public because we get the questions sometimes between where we are today, where weve been the last year and what were approving now . Where weve been, we have had now since june of this year, the m. T. A. Has had a permit program in place. For qualified moped sharing organization, such as Scoot Networks. Currently they are the only one recognized by the m. T. A. For an operator of shared electric mopeds, you make seek permits. The permit exempts the moped bearing that permit from a few parking regulations. You may first park in a permit area and not worry about time limits. You can also leave that moped in a metered motorcycle stall and not pay the meter at the motorcycle stall. And then thirdly, you can park that moped between vehicles and conventional parking spaces, metered spaces and not have to pay the meter. That last one we get raises eyebrows about. You say i can park my moped between two parked cars at a meter . Yes, thats been legal for quite a while. Youre able to share one of the stars or your vespa or your harley. That is all legal. As long as youre not obstructing traffic. But if you are the fellow on the vespa and pull up at that meter and it is not paid, you have to pay else when the parking control officer comes, you are all in jeopardy of getting a ticket. So, this permit forgives the moped of having to pay the meter. It basically liberalizes acts of mopeds from parking from a meter and the cleanup that were bringing to you for your help is the infraction for parking your own vespa or shared vespa in a motorcycle stall, strictly speaking, isnt legit right now. Even though for decades the m. T. A. And d. P. T. Have permitted motorcycles and mopeds and scooters from parking in stalls. This is Good Housekeeping on the infraction that if you parked a humvee at a motorcycle meter, youget a ticket. Were just opening up that infraction to say you can park a motorcycle or a moped so that we can take a permit and exempt the electric moped from that. Question for you. Have there many people, aside from scoot, who have been working with that applied for or gotten these permits . We have not had a second Party Interested in this. Sort of surprised. I expect at some point well have a second and third. This is not unlike the station of the spike share systems that the board has talked about and worked on. At this point, its just Scoot Networks who are operating. And they have 570 of these permits in effect. Got it. And we talked about this before. But my concern has been big parking spot, or a parking spot. And if residential zones and they come in and park in those parking spots. So now youre taking them away from people who have been coming home from work. And scoot has been good at alleviatinging that as much as possible and i appreciate their willingness to work together. My fear would have been, had there been a ton of them and there is no working relationship with them that that would get exacerbated. But potentially that is not the case at this point. Indeed. That is our sentiment as well that having this relationship with scoot and having a permit binds us to them. They have been good players all along and working with district two office, weve had good fortune. We find this appealing because it is an interesting and policy positive mode to get around but also to have a relationship that is built on this kind of bind or bound were bound together. It does have a little more control. Thank you. Supervisor . Its with regard to the fee per vehicle which i assume has to pass the prop 26 Cost Recovery . Correct. How did you determine the costs and how often is that fee nexus audited for accuracy . This is just only our first fiscal year. So were only a few months into this permit. But if Cost Recovery calculation includes lost meter rev gnueer, administrative cost, my time and some other folks time and a little bit of enforcement time. As you know well, its hard sometimes to gather up expenses to make a politically palatable cost. There are some folks who would say it should be much more than that. So, how much of the fee is dedicated to the admin side and your involvement timewise. Its been mostly mostly lost meter revenue and the other half is administrative time. So, i think we projected as as 1,000 permits, times 325 for a year. We will certainly be auditing and truing up when we come around the corper into next fiscal year with real data to look at the actual cost that we incurred. It sounds like you are getting off to the better start in the case of the google bus stops relative to that fee calculation. But lets look at nit a year. Supervisor tang . Thank you very much. I think our neighborhood had a little bit of a struggle when Companies Like scoot first came to the neighborhood and i say this as someone who is a who rode a scooter and i love scooters and i love that it is an electric moped that theyre using. Certainly when they were directing people to just flood certain neighborhoods with parking, even though it was like the little sliver in between driveways, thats legal, it really was creating a situation for neighbors where it was difficult for them to get in between two mopeds to get into their driveways and so forth. Im glad there are new strategies in place now. Im wondering did was there any analysis around the fact that these mopeds will be able to park in parking spots, where theres ample parking for motorcycles that are paying to use them . Great question. There is a finance supply of motorcycle parking, we the m. T. A. , places motorcycle parking not a systematic, premeditated way but in response to demand. Your constituents, for instance, will tell us. Im really having trouble. Three of my neighbors are with motorcycles. And well strike motorcycle stalls in response to that. Obviously opening up space, making it more accessible for mopeds and scoots right away were paying more attention to do we need strike more motorcycle parking and were looking for supervisor officers and constituents to let us know that its gotten tight. We know, for instance, at the cal train station at 4th and townsend, its always been contentious there so well make sure that we provide more parking at that location. But to supervisor peskins point, balancing and paying attention to how much paid parking scoot is using to provide all constituents access to that parking without throwing the balance off. So, excellent question. Were paying attention and please you and anyone watching at home, if you see a need for motorcycle parking, 311 it in and well get it on the list. Ok. Thank you. I do look forward to further analysis on this. Ok. Thank you very much. Anybody wishing to comment on item number three . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues can we take the same in house ok. Same house, same call . So moved. Ok. Ma dad clerk, item number two. Item number two is a resolution imposing for 18 po nls incoming zoning controls to limb offstreet parking for new development and remove the possibility to apply for c. U. Authorization to increase such parking in the area known as the hub or the Market Street hub and making appropriate findings. Ok. Thank you, colleagues. This item was, again, sponsored by supervisor breed whos just joined us in committee. Ill turn it over to her. Thank you. One minute while we get our microphones sorted out. Thank you for your patience. Colleagues, today im presenting legislation that will impose interim controls for the Market Street hub area, also known as the hub. The hub is the most eastern side of the market octavia plan and includes the intersection of Market Streets with valencia, haitt and goff streets. Its currently amended by the planning domestic called the hub project to better reflect the needs of one of the most dense and transitrich areas in the city. The hub project provides us an opportunity to better ensure that the areas growth supports the citys goal for housing, transportation, the public realm and the arts. Recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a highrise in the district. And a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c. U. For their parking. It brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. As long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become. All of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. We know it and we see it. Yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isnt a significant impact. We all know that is flawed. So, we as legislators have found our own ways of making sure that were developing in a smarter, more sophisticated way. Were the most expensive city in the country and we must be more responsible about how we build. In the hub alone there are about six projects in the pipeline. Imagine if every single one of those asked for 136 spaces. Imagine what kind of impact that would have on traffic, which we all know in that particular corridor on market and van ness, it is constantly backed up. This iss a matter a major transitrich corridor t. Traffic is crazy as is and the van ness v. R. S. , all the delivery trucks and ubers and lyfts and you get a big mess when you put all those things together on a consistent basis. With planning amendments what planning plans to do, we cant afford to have new projects movinging forward in the interim with Parking Options that are counter to what is the ultimate goal of the hub and the market octavia plan. This legislation puts interim controls in place for the next 18 months until the hub project is complete. Specifically it removes the conditional use option for conditional parking for new developments within the hub area. Those already in the pipeline will be grandfathered in. But all new projects will have to work within these guidelines until the final hub area map is approved. This is straightforward, practical legislation that will help prevent new development from coming to the hub before we have a final plan, new parking prevent new parking that will come to the area before we have a final plan in place. I have some clarifying amendments that have been distributed. They further clarify that these interim controls are intended for new development and projects that have not received an approval of a Development Application prior to the Effective Date of this legislation. Happy to answer any questions and i would appreciate your support. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, supervisor breed. Supervisor peskin . So, we have gotten a bunch of emails with regard to the exception on page eight. And supervisor kim has asked that we consider a compromise amendment that, rather exemptioning Affordable Housing projects that instead and i just passed this out to you colleagues and i would support this amendment, that subsection b would read will provide onsite Affordable Housing after the citys inclusionary Affordable Housing program and add where 25 are affordable as are defined under planning code section 401. So it kind of really requires a very robust Affordable Housing project before one can receive the exemption. Ok. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Supervisor breed, any comments . I just have a question for supervisor peskin on the amendment. Do you know if any of the current developments in the hub are actually doing more than 25 Affordable Housing . I believe that there is only one project, which is the former cityowned 30 van ness property that is proposing on site Affordable Housing and i do believe that that one is, or is said to be 25 . And just for clarity, your amendment will still require that if they want additional parking, they still have to go through a process. And get a c. U. , specifically, for the additional parking. So i believe the answers to that, that is current law and that is not affected by the interim controls at all. So, the answer to your question is, yes, they would still need a conditional use. So, basically they would have what they have based on my legislation by right in terms of if their percentage is. 25, if their percentage is. 40 and so what im doing with my legislation is requiring that there be no c. U. S granted and you are adding an amendment to do an exception and that exception would definitely require a c. U. No. Well, the currently the way your legislation reads, which can i am a proud cosponsor of, is that these interim controls shall not apply to any development that, a, has received an approval of the Development Application prior to the Effective Date of this resolution or, b, will provide onsite Affordable Housing under the citys inclusionary housing program, period. So, this actually further defines that as at least 25 onsite tooerable. Thank you. And thank you to the chair, to my cosponsors on this legislation. To supervisor peskin and supervisor kim, with that, i turn it back over to the chair. Thank you. Id like to move president breeds amendments as well as supervisor kims amendment that we just discussed and once we take those amendments, would send the entire matter to the full board with recommendations. Ok. We have a motion, before we do anything, well take Public Comment. Let me first do that. Anybody wish to comment on item number two . Come on up. Well have two minutes. Each. Good afternoon, supervisors. The executive director of livable city. We just wanted to thank supervisor breed and her cosponsors, supervisor peskins and kim, for bringing this forward. You probably recall the t. D. M. Ordinance that you all approved a few month ago. And the findings for that showed that and the project provides the biggest single factor in how many automobile trips it generates. Now weve seen the rezoning with the market in octavia plan and spot rezoning of the hub. A huge amount of development coming in here. High density Automobile Development is untenable. But what weve also seen is a real abuse of this conditional use process. Conditional use requires findings of necessity and desirability and excess parking requires an additional six findings per section, 304 of the planning code. 303, sorry. These get abused all the time. So, basically the only criteria in the Planning Department has been using for excess parking is did the developer ask for it. Thats not protecting the public. That is generating a terrific amount of automobile traffic in the downtown, in our transit corridors and so on. So, we think that closing this loophole in the hub is important. It should be thats all you get. Right . Its either permitted or not permitted since the c. U. Was so badly abused and we think less is better for automobile parking in the hub. Not only do you generate a lot of automobile trips, but there is a lot of data showing that if you add parking to a unit, you increase the cost of that unit. What were allowing developers to do is to up scale project, right . They can pitch projects in these transitrich areas to a more affluent market and make them Luxury Products where they might be more affordable without parking. It is an affordability by design strategy to reduce parking. That was included in the home s. F. Ordinance. Thank you. Next eke spaoer, please. Good afternoon. My name is jeremy pollack here speaking as an individual. I would just associate myself with the comments of mr. Radulovic, largely. One thing that would be helpful is to get some input from planning and the universe of projects that were talking about to understand what the actual effect of this is. If i could have the overhead, sfgov tv. Through my research, ive take and look at what i could find and i found five projects that were in the pipeline, in the hub. Three of which were requesting the c. U. For additional parking and sfgov tv, if you could show the overhead, that would be great. And so, you know, looking at them, i see that 33 goff is one project on the city college parcel where their preliminary project assessment shows that theyre subject to an 18 b. M. R. Requirements. There we go. And so i think then were looking at, and seeking a c. U. For an additional 130 jeremy, can you push that down a little bit so we can see it . Yep. Oh. Wrong way. Not sure how well that is coming through. Right. So, basically were talking about there are three projects seeking conditional use for an additional 400 parking spaces. I think at least one of them, 30 otis is one thats not seeking the c. U. The p. P. A. Says its already subject to the additional 25 b. M. R. Requirement. I think, you know, onsite Affordable Housing is an excellent idea whenever feasible. But this idea of trading parking for Affordable Housing seems problematic. And lastly i would say the uncertainty that the c. U. Creates for developers on the public is really problematic. That is something weve heard over and over again in the housing debate. Madame clerk, because of the sfgov tv problems, can you extend his time by 30 seconds . Thank you. I would just say the uncertainty that the c. U. Process creates a lot of difficulty for developers and not knowing. Developers look at this and expect that theyll get that c. U. , the public that you hear from here looks at whats principally allowed and expects that projects will abide by the 4to1 raich yo. And creates this uncertainty that is going to lead to, you know, each of these projects being debated again at the planning commission, which doesnt seem very helpful to us. I would urge you to just eliminate the exemption for Affordable Housing and clear up this process for all of us and save us all a lot of time. Thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor breed. I really appreciate your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Supervisors andy thornly, speaking for myself. Thank you, president breed, for bringing this. Thank you, supervisor peskin and kim for cosponsoring. I wanted to voice my support for the interim controls. I do want to echo what tom and jeremy and others have said. I really do think it is important to not bring the loophole for onsite inclusionary forward. Onsite inclusionary, very important. I would not argue against that. More b. M. R. , absolutely. To the extend that the city has existing policy and is found a junction between b. M. R. And parking, it is that we with Incentivize Developers by allowing them to provide less parking. Last year we had a triumph at the board, unanimous approval of home s. F. And under that program, the local density bonus program, a developer is incentivized to add below market rate by getting some exceptions. And one of the key exceptions is that the developer can provide less parking as an incentive. Down to a quarter of the minutes my permitted parking and down to 0 parking at 100 affordable. To the extent that this city and board of supervisors have adopted a finding that associates below market rate with incentives for parking, its to provide less parking, not more parking. So, i urge you to support this interim control. But i urge you to drop the loophole for the onsite inclusionary. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im gail bau. Along with the apellant and the develop, we helped negotiate a settlement to get the ceqa appeal dropped. The conversation and the negotiations never included b. M. R. S on site. It was only about the interim controls on parking. We have four sites in hayes valley that will be zero parking and 100 affordable. I dont quite understand the relationship to attaching b. M. R. I see them as completely separate. Thank you to supervisor breed for bringing this forward. The interim controls are very important for all the reasons she mentioned both now and in the past. Thank you for cosponsoring this legislation. I do believe the amendment is relevant to the issue here, which is the cumulative effect of parking. But in terms of this ceqa appeal, there was no discussion about b. M. R. S on site as a connection to it a allowing a developer to have additional parking. Thank you. Thank you. Next eke spaoer. Good afternoon. My name is robin leavitt. For over 25 years, ive been livinging three blocks from the intersection of market and octavia. So im very concerned about additional parking in the area. As has been thoroughly discussed, parking brings congestion and delays muni service and has very negative health effects. Safety effects and so forth. So, im i applaud the effort to put in these interim controls on future developments in the hub area. However, as much as i support Affordable Housing and law, the effort to add Affordable Housing to these protons, to compromise the environment and allow parking in exchange of that and all the congestion it would brung, i cannot support the amendment to this legislation. And so i urge you to pass the interim controls without the proposed amendment. There are already incentives in place, sensitive bonuses, height, increases to incentivize Affordable Housing in this area. We dont need to add parking as an incorrective to build more Affordable Housing. We should find more ways, other ways to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. And if i if i may just to the last speaker who ive known for many years, i think the amendment actually addresses not all of the concern but the exemption is in the existing legislation. If we pass it asis, the exemption for Affordable Housing is in the existing legislation. The amendment that im offering on behalf of supervisor kim can, further narrows the applicability of that exception. And i appreciate that. But i would eliminate the exemption all together from the legislation. Ah. Ok. I would want to youve had your two minutes. You can send whatever. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. And chair. Karen babbit just speaking for myself today. I came here prepared to ask that you eliminate the exemption for the onsite Affordable Housing. Im intrigued by what was said today. However, in the time weve been talking, supervisor peskin proposed to do one plan and jeremy mentioned a second project. So, i would ask, this is my easy ask, we not send this to the full board today until we can look at how this proposed amendment today amendment actually applis to whats in the pipeline. Just because i dont feel confident asking or saying this is great or not great until we can see whats actually planned. Im going to repeat jeremys request. Can we hear from the Planning Department, some kind of report. As much as i love this spread sheet, it would be nice to have something official. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. And thank you, supervisor breed, for sponsoring this legislation. As we look at the possibly of as many as 9,000 units going into a few block area here, we dont want to create any incentives to increase parking over the allowed amount for each lot. I dont know why supervisor kim has proposed this amendment. I agree that when i read the legislation or the digest, i thought it exempted 100 affordable. So, im confused at this point. Ok. Thank you very much. Im jim with the neighborhood Valley Association and once again id like to thank supervisor breed, peskin and kim for this excellent effort to improve our city. If as all the speakers before have said, our concern is with any exemption. It only creates confusion and we believe it is a much stronger document without it as gail bau mentioned, this was never part of the initial negotiation with one oak. And furthermore if you read, as im sure you all have, the market octavia c. A. C. Document to you with more where as in two minute, they also detail why there should be no loopholes or provisions for having the c. U. During this 18month period for any of the nonapproved projects. We strongly recommend that we not move forward with the exemption in any shape or form. Souled you for any reason decide to do that, supervisors peskins comments are certainly very to the point of improving the originally submitted loophole. But i would even be much more strong in reiterating the necessariability or the necessity and desirability must be clearly demonstrated as an absolute provision of any c. U. That is the piece that we seem to always lose with planning and including that should you not decide to ban it out right and eliminate the exemption would be some protection. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comments now closed. I do understand, though, this amendment would be precedent. Well have to hear if there is anything else in the pipeline that would be affected negatively or otherwise on this. Perhaps we can get a Planning Department next week to come as we rehear this back in committee. Other than that, though, id be very supportive of it. Supervisor . I was actually just going to say that Legal Counsel has advised us that this will require a continuance and depending on what happens in the intervening week, we, i think, out of an abundance of caution trying to get this done, sooner wrather than later would schedule it as a Committee Report for the 12th if it is the committees will to ford it out subject to hearing mo from the public. I do want to say that as supervisors kim and i were working with president breed in and around the one oak matter, that i was able to do a little bit of shuttle diplomacy from between the apellant, mr. Henderson, and the project sponsor and president breed because its in her district, and i do want to say that mr. Henderson, i think, is supportive. I dont want to put words in his mouth and he has another week to weigh in with all of us. But is supportive of the item with the amendment that i introduced on supervisor kims behalf. And he said i can say that. So i did. Ok. With that, we have a motion to supervisor breed, sorry. Thank you. I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and also many of the folks who we work with on the issues around the appeal for one oak, members of the hayes Valley Association, including the president gail bau and i know Jason Henderson wasnt able to make it today. But i just wanted to express exactly my understanding of and feeling of exactly why i i know the community is against parking. I know. People think, well, why why is parking such a big deal . And why are we putting parking above housing and thats not the case. I think the bigger issue here is we have an area that clearly is going to have thousands of additional units, an area that is already congested and the point of putting some controls on this is to just eliminate the ability for developers to get additional parking for their projects. And i appreciate supervisor kims concern about, you know larger projects that are in the pipeline and desire to have those projects build on site and not use the ability not to have the option of a c. U. For additional parking as an excuse to maybe fee out. Its a complicated issue. Its not as if by adding this particular amendment were suggesting in any way that someones just going to automatically be able to get additional parking space. There is still a c. U. Process. It still could be appealed. And potentially to the board and i just want to i get the desire of the community to say, look, you know this is our volunteer time. Were volunteering our time to come to the board of supervisors for legislation like this. Were volunteering our time to apale things like this. Were volunteering our time because we care about the community and we dont want to further see we dont want to see additional congestion as a result of development and additional parking and the number of other things. I totally get that and i understand that. As a way to work with my colleagues and come up with a solution, this particular amendment was proposed. Im definitely open to hearing from members of the public in terms of their feedback on their concerns about this. But i do think theres still a layered process that will still make this a difficult thing to do moving forward. Whether they choose to do onsite Affordable Housing or not. It would be interesting to know what specific projects in the pipeline are being proposed that have maybe an interest in doing this and whether or not those are projects that we would anticipate a larger percentage of Affordable Housing as a result of their desire to want desire to want additional parking. So, i think theres definitely more of a discussion to be had here. And since this item is going to sit for a week be reviewed by my colleagues next week, im sure that will give everyone additional time to of course submit emails to us and then also come back to provide Public Comment at the Land Use Committee next week. So, again, thank you all for being here and i appreciate my colleagues support on the amendment that i proposed. Ok. Thank you. So, again, supervisor peskin has made the motion to accept supervisor breeds and then the followon amendment from supervisor kim and then supervisor peskin can continue to add on this item for one week to next weeks Land Use Committee meeting. Supervisor peskin has made that motion. We can make it without objection. Thank you. Madame clerk, call item number four. An ordinance to change the term car share vehicle to share vehicle and park in designated spaces and making appropriate findings. Welcome back. Thank you. Andy thornly back from lunch. [laughter] sustainable streets, s. F. Municipal transportation agency. Committee members, were asking for the board of supervisors assistance, a very minor language change. Even more minor than the share moped we just brought. But the matter before you is to amends section 7. 2552, the transportation code which is the infraction for parking in nonpermitted vehicle in a designated car share parking space. The change that were asking for is to strike the word car and put a d after the wor share. Were beginning to move to talk about shared vehicles rather than car share and in changing the nomenclature, we realized we were bumping up to this infraction. The full essence is only that one word and one letter. Again, id be happy to give you as much background as youd like. Supervisor pes kin . Thank you, chair. And i think this is really relevant to the amendment thats being requested today but gets to one of the underlying issues about the pilot program. In the m. T. A. s letter of august 28 with regard to this matter, it says on the first page, based on the pilot experience, the sfmta found that only shared managed fleet vehicles produced enough Public Benefit to justify use of the public rightofway. Where does that standard come from and is it applied to other transportationrelated uses in the public rightofway . Thank you, supervisor. What that is speaking to is, and i think district three is painfully aware of this that we had three ridesharing organizations qualify to participate. Get around is a different sort of car share operator, peertopeer. I often say it is like the airbnb of car share, which you can take in a couple of different ways. I tough they were aptly named because they were getting around the law. But go ahead. Right. [please stand by] no interest in having a car idle or space because they dont own cars and dont have incentive to make sure that that space is being maximize for utility, theyre interested in the line of the mtas as closely as zip car or city car share, as are we getting good use out of that 20 feet of cushion russian hill or wherever. Both from the underutilization of the 20 feet and because theyre putting private citizens cars on the street, its a random supply. One week, there would be a monster truck. Next week, a mini. Neighbors need to rely on, there will be a 4door sedan there and i can count on that it will be clean and getaround was not able to i appreciate your analysis of the different business models, but im asking, is there an objective numerical standard for establishing what is enough to substantiate the rightofway. Where im going, the recently announced plan to designate curb space as loading zones. And do you believe that uber and lyft produces enough benefit for the curb space as it relates to the mayors recentlyannounced proposal. Got it. Numerical standard and triggers benefit and do you think uber and lyft in this scheme meet that criteria. I will take the first one, which is more in my responsibility area, that the pilot we ran for a couple of years was looking at some fixed measures for a given space, how many unique users each month, how many reservations each day . How far did it go . On that basis, zip car knocked it out of the park. They had cars that were being used by 50 and 60 different people in a month. So we didnt come in with an absolute metric in a month, but you could see from the field of participants, that if zip car could get 60 people using a car, other folks better match that. We dont yet have an absolute threshold for that, but well develop them for this program. Its an important point. Depending on the neighborhood. If you are further out, it may be a lower threshold than if you are on russian hill. Short answer to the first, yes, we have general, hard numbers on that. Well put more hard numbers on this on streetshared vehicle program. Your second question is tougher for me to answer and i cannot say yes or no that i dont have access to that. I will speculate, however ir responsibly, that at this point, no, the mta does not have a metric to evaluate whether a given piece of loading curb is at, below, above some standard for utility and Public Benefit. The mayors pilot as i read about it in the newspaper is reaching at that, but its not starting with, heres what success looks like as much as, is there a way to address this and make sense out of it . My understanding is, its a reach to say, can we do something to make it less bad, rather than saying, heres what good looks like and can we hit that point . I appreciate that candid answer and i suggest that in so far as the pilot you were in charge of that were discussing today, has given some data and shown what the Gold Standard looks like and what the getaround standard looks like when its not working optimally, perhaps there can be some communication between you and your staff and the folks who are reaching or overreaching in the uberlyft manner. Yes, absolutely. I will not just take that back. I will guarantee again, this is speculative, but i dont think its possible that the mta will participate in a pilot such as the one were talking about without setting some evaluation planning and driving some data and i know that you and other folks will want to know, what did you learn . Where did the meter go . It wont just be, lets put out curb and hope it works. I wouldnt want that. I will work from my side to make sure that doesnt happen. Thank you, mr. Thornly. Any further questions . Anyone wishing to comment on item 4 . Seeing none. Item is closed. Colleagues, questions or comments or motion to move the item forward . Ill move it. Motion by supervisor peskin. We can take that motion without objection. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Thornly. All right. Were on to item number 5. Surprise, surprise. Madam clerk, would you call number 5 . A hearing to examine the last 10 years of production and preservation of work force in middle class housing and development and preservation for the next 10 years, focusing on housing between 55 to 175 area median income. Thank you. Colleagues, this was sponsored by supervisor. I will turn it over to you. On october 3 of this year before we get to the presentation by departmental staff i called for this hearing to talk about work force and middle class housing in our city. And the reason why i wanted to talk about that in particular and to talk about what the projected development was and the preservation was and what had been done over the last 10 years is because its become extremely, glaringly obvious to this body and to the members of the public and to others around San Francisco that our city is polarizing. Many would argue that weve done a significant job of building enough marketrate housing, but statistics would say theres still a lot of demand out there for that housing. Same with regard