Reviewing the model of a seismic upgrade, existing units, and remodel of the units. And i was discussing with a very experienced planner, max poutra, on what we were going to do with this basement, and how we could best incorporate this basement into the unit above. It was never intended to do this unit as an a. D. U. Un asn addition. It was staffs recommendation to be a dwelling unit. Im going to go to the computer now and run through a few slides and show you a little bit about this. This is what the basement looked like. It was storage in the back and a row of storage throughout. When the seismic upgrade was done, ceiling heights were increased, and the spaces were improved with windows as you see here. This is what the remodel looks like. This is the angle in the other direction. You can see the staircase that takes up most of this back yard patio. A new steel staircase was put in with grating such that the entire staircase that was there is no longer there. Here is a entry declaring it as a very clear entry to housing, and this is what one sees when one comes in that entry. So this is not a dark basement by any means. This is quality housing. We can turnoff the overhead, please. Id like to run through our findings a little bit. Because there is actually a flaw in the way the Zoning Administrator reviewed this and the findings that the Zoning Administrator made in disapproval. In the disapproval findings, the sewning administrator referred to substandard exposure to the Zoning Administrator referred to substandard exposure to light and area in finding three and finding four, stating the proposed a. D. U. Would create a dwelling unit with significant substandard to light and air. Light and air is a Building Code issue. Light and air in this unit is met light and air of 10 of the floor area, five for ventilation, and five for light, and we exceed that. The outdoor space, it is true that this looks an exposure to the outdoor space. You have an aerial photo of what the exposure to outdoor space is like. There is an exit that provides considerable access to sky, light, and air, but we do not meet the minimum standard set by the planning code, and i would argue that the planning code cant always capture all the needs for what defines quality housing. So id like to quickly run through the findings that i believe we have sufficiently made in favor of allowing this housing. That there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances is the first one. While the proposed unit would lack sufficient exposure to meet the Zoning Administrators limit, the lot faces a large protected midblock open space. Number two, that theres an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and that is always the most difficult finding to make. In this particular situation, the unnecessary hardship is not on the developer, its not on mr. Mallia, who has renovate this particular apartment building. Hes not a speculator, hes not flipping this for condominiums, this is for tenants. The unnecessary hardship is upon the community atlarge, its upon the Housing Stock of the city. That here is a quality space that could be inhabited by a tenant in this very dense neighborhood where basement units are far darker and far left exposed by this. I would suggest that in this case, the Zoning Administrator has erred in his discretion to not approve a housing unit that would add to the qualitying Housing Stock quality Housing Stock of this city. I have a tenant who wishes to move in who will make statements, and i will answer any questions about the project. Excuse me, sir. How come you didnt put all those lovely pictures in your presentation . I hadnt taken them yet. Commissioner honda and what would be the purpose of this . Can you give me a moment to speak with my commissioner honda what would be the rent of this . It would be 1750 a month. Commissioner honda and could you refresh my memory what the Square Footage is. Im sorry. You can come to the podium, sir. Actually, its a pretty spacious studio. I did some checking in the neighborhood. Its about 500 square feet. Commissioner honda and according to the pictures, nice job. Thank you. Believe me, i put an extraordinary effort into this building. I plan to keep it in the familitor generations. Sir, just for the record, youre ronald mallia. Yes maam. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me. Can you explain how you had had the building approved but did not have the variance yet . Why go through the expense without a variance in hand . Can you for the question, commissioner. The order that things took place is that we had a permit for the remodels of the rest of the building, and we had to resolve the use of the basement and the connection of the basement to the lower unit. Planning proceeded to approve the permit for the remodel of the rest of the building for the seismic upgrade without including a dwelling unit down there, allowing us to file a variance application. Mr. Mallia was the general contractor getting the work done, doing it on his own. He purchased cabinetry and materials for each of the units in the building. So he had those setup in the unit as he finished the space out. He got the permit finaled without installation of the kitchen. These materials are just placed against the wall, and its not currently inhabitable form. All right. Thank you. Commissioner honda you say that with a straight face . Im sorry. There are a few connections to be made, commissioner honda. Im sure those can be done fairly quickly or undone fairly quickly. Commissioner honda thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Good morning, planning commission. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Double surprise because i had no idea that the sunt wunit wa until the photos were put up. Thats not whats been represented to the Planning Department or Planning Department staff that there was an existing illegal unit ready for occupancy and theyve got somebody wanting to rent it. The photos looked like it was all finished and ready for occupancy, but that is not represented anywhere that i saw in the appellants brief nor the plans nor any of the materials that were presented to the Zoning Administrator. Its my understanding that the variance for this was filed in january 2018. There was a hearing on the case earlier this year. The Zoning Administrator denied the application. Its an rm2 dwelling unit. Theyre already over density by one, and they we wanted to add an a. D. U. The generally and historically, the compliant of the code require that each dwelling unit have one room that meets standards of a certain size that have windows of a certain size that face into an area of a certain size. And thats a street at least 20 feet in width, a rear yard that meets the requirements of the planning code or an open space thats 25 by 25 and goes up the larger the unit. The board of supervisors didnt want to remove the requirement entirely because exposure is an important factor for dwelling units, so they allowed variances, and allowed a space that was 15 by 15. At the time of Zoning Administrator, and some of at the time i was Zoning Administrator, and some we would approve, some we would disapprove, and some would go to you. But last year, they reduced it even further to 225 square feet or at least nine neat by 9 feet. So this doesnt meet the original coat requirement, the second code requirement, or the newly reduced. It could have just said that its a waiver and the Zoning Administrator would have great flexibility. I dont think the appellant has provided any information to demonstrate what the hardship here is other than they have a unit thats already constructed that they would like to occupy. And we very much encourage new dwelling units, but we do have to have minimum standards. In this case, you know, it is at the bottom at least its not north facing, but it is at the bottom level of a very tall building. Its four stories over the basement, at least buildings that are taller. And i could put more work on the overhead commissioner honda are your pictures as good as his . Not at all. But could i have the overhead, please . Commissioner honda thank you oh, that was in the package. No, thats a bad one. You can see in there, you cant even see the floor level that the building is going to be located at. Its four stories over basement. Its four, three, two, one, and at that level there. So and i have concerns with seeing the work that was done here without permit. I mean, the stairs look at if we were replaced, and i dont know that that was on any of the plans. Thats not showing as part of the scope of this project. It may have been other previous permits, and we can review that. But, again, none of that, to my knowledge, was made available none of that information was made available to the Zoning Administrator at the time of the variance hearing earlier this year. And i think the Zoning Administrator very clearly outlined the reasons i know this is not acceptable or appropriate exposure that has been justified by the board of supervisors. The new information that the unit is already constructed, its not anywhere in the appellants brief, and i can understand even more now why they want to have the variance overturned, but the fact that theyve illegally constructed the unit does not justify the approval of this variance. Im available for questions. Commissioner honda ive got a question, scott. So considering the lovely board of supervisors institutes all the laws that we have to file, doesnt he have to legalize it after . Yes, he has to legalize it after commissioner honda and we have lots of illegal units, that have wiring through the wall, and bare piping and substandard egress. And now, the citys goal is to legalize all those units. What happens if this case comes back to us seven months from now and its been rented out and he has to legalize it . So the code says you must legalize it, but if you cant legalize it and in this case, theyve gone through the even though they didnt ask for legalization, they tried to get the a. D. U. , they would be required to remove it. The code requires that you seek legalization, but if the legalization is denied, then, the unit is to be removed. Commissioner honda okay. Im not an architect or a planner, but looking at the pictures, and a picture is worth a thousand words. I lived at 101 suramonte, and that is way nicer. I would ask the appellant why they didnt present this to the Zoning Administrator . Why they didnt present this at the time of the hearing . Maybe it was still under construction. I dont know if these photos were available at the time. I spoke with the Zoning Administrator today, and i didnt ask him if the unit was there commissioner honda i talked to him today, too, but he didnt make any mention of that. I dont think any information was made available to the Zoning Administrator about those qualities of the unit. Commissioner honda so looking at the unit, i see lots of light and air in my thoughts. So why would it and im not trying to be argumentative. Why would it not qualify at that point . We are looking at the dimensional requirement. That photo is probably taken at the best time of the day and best time of the year to get that. Commissioner honda no one knows how to photoshop in this modern technology. But weve been very strict on applying the standards and again, this may be new information that was not available to the Zoning Administrator commissioner honda would you be interested in taking a look at it and us potentially continuing it . I could take this new information. We could certainly review the history as well and review it with the Zoning Administrator and get his updated view on the commissioner honda i trust you as a junior Zoning Administrator and joe duffy as a senior building inspector, i look at the pictures, wow, that looks like a really nice unit. If you do a site inspect, you can say hey, they probably brought in flood lights to bring that light . I can review it with the Zoning Administrator, and get his review on this, and report back to you. I have a question for you. In regards to a. D. U. S that the Zoning Administrator has granted or not granted since the more relaxed 225 square foot regulation came into being, does he tend to allow variances, in terms of this is half the required size or is it pretty strict, you dont meet the 225, youre not getting the variance fore exposure . Its my understanding that theres only one two units approved under the negate reduced standards. One, it has a street that didnt meet the minimum street requirements and set back. Independently, they didnt meet the requirements, but separately, they did, so that satisfied the intent of the code requirement. And then, the other one was had situated in a way that there were two very large light wells, and basically every room in the a. D. U. Had exposure on to one of those two very large light wells, that, you know, were each very close to meeting the minimum dimensions, so it was substantially different from what we have here, where theres just one area and its very clearly not meeting the code requirements. Okay. Thank you. Does the 110 measurement include or exclude the measurement of the staircase . It excludes it. Does anybody know what it would be including the staircase . I believe it would be a larger area. And before making these findings, did planning visit the unit at all . In this case, i dont know. Probably staff did not do a site visit and relied on the materials submitted by the applicant to demonstrate their case. I had another question. For finding number five, it says a requirement i was confused. It says a requirement for finding number five was not met, but then, the discussion seems to say that actually it is met. So i it looked like a mistake to me on that finding. Well, actually under finding two or a2 of finding five, it does say that the project will not be in keeping with the existing housing and neighborhood quality that the a. D. U. Is of substandard quality, falling below the requirements of such unit. So with that okay. So thats in keeping. Essentially, i read this as for all five findings, since its below the statutory number of 225, we shouldnt do it, which sort of seems like weird logic since the purpose of a variance is to go below the code. But its also based on the materials that are presented by the appellant, and they werent able to show that there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions. We cant make findings that dont exist. I see. Vice president swig can i grill you for a second . Or two or three. Vice president swig im like commissioner honda. We see these circumstances where people have been living in socalled your motherinlaw units or grandmother units where wives or mothers are picked on, and the intent of the legislation was to try to limit illegal rental of really bad units, and hoping that people would come out of the closet and say okay, weve been renting this unit illegally. Now, we can make it legal again. And with and this kind of flies in the face of that. I think commissioner hondas exactly right. If i was the Building Owner now, it wouldnt be me, but it wouldnt be unheard of that a Building Owner would say okay, fine, i lose. Im going to rent illegally, and we have another illegal unit on the streets of San Francisco. Here, we have a unit that may be out of compliance but it gives somebody who might otherwise be homeless an opportunity to live under a roof instead of under the stars. So im really trying to work hard to in the spirit of creating housing right now, its clear that the project sponsor blew it, you know commissioner honda jumped ahead as we say. Vice president swig jumped ahead and done a few things, and now hes being justifiably punished for that because youre not going to do that youre not supposed to do the act and then pray for forgiveness, but it is more Housing Stock in a city thats plagued with no Housing Stock. So what id like to know here and help me with this. Under finding one that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, etc. , etc. If if this unit were permanently designated as an affordable unit, and this unit could not be rented as a market rate but add restrictions on its rental to a person that met the affordable status, would that create a a an exceptional or an extraordinary circumstance . The planning code does not require an affordable unit for this proposal and one has not been proposed. Vice president swig i understand. But if this were conditioned, and the Property Owner were to mandate that i would discuss that with the city attorney, but that would be an ad hoc condition of approval usually, there needs to be a voluntary concession here on the part of the Property Owner. If they want to designate a unit as affordable thats not required under law, there would be certain other requirements to make that happen. But this unit has not been proposed by the applicant as affordable. Its not required under the code. Vice president swig for example if we were to continue this and as far as your oversight, you looked at it further, and during the hiatus, the project sponsor would voluntarily designate this as an affordable unit, would that create an exceptional extraordinary situation . I would id be careful in how i i want to be careful in how i respond to thatthat. I would want to discuss that with the Zoning Administrator before i get an out on that. Commissioner honda calling corey now. Vice president swig im not trying to pardon a misdeed on the clearly, there was a misdeed done. Clearly, there was an improvement that should not have been made. Clearly, it was done outside the permit. Clearly, all these things are wrong. At the same time, where im trying to go with this, at the same time, if this is going to find itself under further review, im just asking if that condition was voluntarily made, would it be something that the Zoning Administrator would consider as an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. In regards to this case, this is a de novo hearing, and its now before this board to make a decision to the variance, it would be up to the board to make that finding as an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. Commissioner honda mr. Vice president , may i interject. I think were trying to stream line conditions, but im personally leaning towards a continuance. We can stream line that instead of hearing all this process and potentially is that is that eveni even okay to suggest . Vice president swig yeah. We have to go through rebuttal and save this discussion for later. I would have to research if this is a condition that the board can impose. Vice president swig im hearing, counselor, that thats good advice, we cant suggest thation. Im just raising that query that if we were to continue this case and at the suggestion of commissioner honda on that the zoning honda that the Zoning Administrator take this under recommendation commissioner honda its a beautiful illegal unit. I used to be the standard in San Francisco several years ago, just so you know. Vice president swig then maybe another circumstance be considered, that it be permanently voluntarily deeded to an affordable situation. Thats all. And it would be already rent controlled. I can have the Zoning Administrator review the photos and get his opinion on the commissioner honda the new nonlegal improvements. Vice president swig why dont we move on to public comment. Clerk okay. I just wanted to say that Vice President lazarus has a prior commitment and has to leave. Madam Vice President . [inaudible] Vice President swig okay. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We are now on to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this matter . Commissioner honda good evening and welcome. Hi. Good evening. My claudine, and i have been looking for an apartment in the area. So far, the apartments that i look at, theyre either too expensive or its not that nice or too small. And mallia showed me his studio apartment on 1606 jones, i was very excited. I said oh, thats perfect for me and my son. However, he told me that its not been approved, and i was i dont understand. Its all very, very nice. Everything is all brandnew. I dont understand, and if you can give me a chance to move into this apartment, it would be greatly appreciated, and it would really for improve me and my sons life, and thank you for your time and consideration. Commissioner honda thank you. And cameras house has an a camerons house has an amazing story of what theyve done. Clerk thank you. We will now move on to rebuttal. Mr. Paul, you have three minute. Thank you, miss rosenberg, commissioner swig. There was no doubt that the kitchen was finished beyond the scope of issued permits. This would be legally active space under the permits that were active at the time and completed. So it is was the clear understanding of this contractor and owner that he was sticking his neck out in a way that he might be cutoff. But the economies of scale when youre doing a large about renovation like that, in tenants and trying to keep costs to as low as possibnarro so you can keep rents as low as possible, it made sense that he purchased those cabinets and put them in. It was a justifiable risk at the time. Its a cost that hes willing to assume to remove them. If this kitchen has to be removed, this scare will be altered this stair will be altered, and people will still be living there, but it wont be part of a dwelling unit, and it wont be part of a dwelling unit that people wont use very much. Where you have an option to give it to their tenant and son who really will make good use of their space. In with due respect to the Zoning Administrator and his position, i dont think that theyre able to really reconsider how they determine the quantitative vaulqualities exposure, although this board can take and make a de novo determination on this issue. There is the exact same scenario up four more floors above this, so it is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. It is a matter to create more housing. I would ask this board not to continue something for something thats going to be Housing Stock in one way or the other. I think its the best move for this board to approve it as a separate dwelling unit and allow rosina and her son to occupy it as quickly as possible. Commissioner honda so i just told you im willing to continue. I think if i vote this evening, i would be in support of the department. Lets continue it. Commissioner honda thats what i was thinking. Clerk thank you. Okay. Well now hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Its good to know the board was still tough on variances. Commissioner honda its commissioner fung. Come on up, we have an empty seat up here. So to correct something that the appellant stated. Its incorrect that each of the floors has the same situation. Each of the other floors get their exposure to the front. Theyre all four flats that face through, so to correct the record there. You know, i will take the information about the, you know, really nice, new, illegal unit and those photos if the appellant can email them to me, and i can discuss that with the Zoning Administrator and also review the Zoning Administrator and appreciate that to facilitate that, if the appellant would provide the proposed plans that show the required set of stairs within the required rear yard, and all the improvements that they show, including the habitable space in the back yard. Certainly reconstruction of stairs within the required rear yard can pose certain requirement code issues. I have a question going back to what you stated before. This variance was applied for in 2018 and heard in 2019. Is that correct . Im going to doublecheck that. It has a 2018 number. It has a 2018 number, but i believe do you know when it was submitted . I believe it was december 2018. Okay. So the end of 2018. Last question, and Everyone Wants to leave here. But so im not making light or giving approval of developers that that do work beyond the scope of permit and without a permit, just to be very clear. But at the same time, i am supportive of housing, and ive seen quite a few illegal units that are just horrible that have been legalized. And so i find it kind of a shame that someone has gone through such great energy to make a nice unit, albeit without the proper permits, be denied. Just going forward, right . I mean, this is a problem that when david chiu initiated this legislation in october of 2014 or 16, we knew what would happen. The city was based on many granny units that were based on improper plumbing, didnt have lights, improper ingress and egress. And in light of that, the city still proceeded to legalize these units, and not only dont ask, dont tell, and it made all those units legal units, and those units are now 2500. So i would love for the department to take a further look to see if we could do something. If that includes multiple penalties for doing work without a permit, im fine with that, too. And just to correct the submittal dates for the record, it does have a 2018 case number. It was submitted at the very end of 2018. The case was created on january 7, 2018, and the case was heard on january 7, 2019, and the case was heard on january 8, 2019. Clerk okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. I will make a motion to continue this. How much time do you think the Department Needs its on the Department Rather than the permit holder. Its when the appellant can give us the materials including the approved plans and the photo. The review of the Zoning Administrator would be relatively brief. If they could do that this weekend. Do you think you would want to make a site visit at all to inspect the unit in person or is that not necessary . I think the photos speak for themselves, but we can we would need a little bit more time to maybe would be interesting to see whats happening inside the unit. Dangjeremy, id be very nic. The Zoning Administrator does not like to be sacked. Clerk november 18. Were going to have a tight, busy schedule on the 6. We can test our new oneminute, twominute rule. Clerk would that date work for you, november 13 . Commissioner honda, if i may make a comment . Sure. I dont believe there will be a need for any further testimony on the matter when it comes back. Okay. It will be fully submitted before the board. If you have questions, well be here, but i wont have further presentation for you. Yeah, exactly. Can you provide the dimensions of the rear yard area when you return, the one the depth is not dimensioned on the plans. Yes. Thank you. In other words, wed like to know, i mean, if you include the stairway. When the board comes back, they would have to arrested clayton the find articulate the findings under 305 c. I will provide the dimensions of the rear yard, the characteristics of the open stair, and the five findings for your consideration. Thank you. So we have a motion to continue to november 13. November 13, whos making that motion . Commissioner honda . Were doing a joint. Okay. On the motion to continue to november 13 [roll call] so that motion carries, 40. Well see you on november 13. Thank you. This concludes the hearing. Hello. Im shauna with the leaving women voters of San Francisco. Along with the league and sf gov tv im here to discuss proposition d, a ballot measure before the voters on tuesday, november 5. Proposition d would impose a business tax on commercial Rideshare Companies for fares generated by rides that start in San Francisco. Currently the city of San Francisco does not impose a business tax on fares charged by commercial Rideshare Companies, such as uber and lyft. These companies provide car rides for fare and range shared rides where each passenger pays a separate fare. Typically, rides are requested using on Online Platform to connect drivers with passengers. The proposed tax is 1. 5 on a shared ride fare and 3. 25 on a private ride fare. The city would impose these taxes on fares charged by these company until november 5, 2045. Passenger rides in zeroemission vehicles would be subject to a 1. 5 business tax until september 21, 2024. The city will deposit the tax revenues, estimated at 31 million annually, into a Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fund to spend for the following purposes. The San Francisco municipal transportation agency, which oversees the citys transportation system, including muni buses and trains, bicycles, traffic, parking and taxis will receive half of the revenues to improve muni service and reliability, maintain and expand facilities and improve muni station access. And the San Francisco county Transportation Authority, a county agency separate from the city that funds and plans transportation projects would receive roughly half of the revenue to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. A yes vote means you want to impose a 1. 5 business tax on shared rides and a 3. 25 business tax on private rides for fares charged by driverless Vehicle Companies to Fund Improvement in muni service. A no vote means you do not want to impose this business tax. Im here with sunny from the office of supervisor aaron peskin and a proponent of proposition d. Welcome. Hi. Were joined by Howard Epstein and opponent of the measure. Thank you, both, for being here. Were going to start with Opening Statements and well begin with howard. Why do you believe this proposition is so important . I believe it should be defeated. Thats not important. This is not going to do anything. Its not going to stop the traffic. If you look at it, and look at, for instance, the fees charged on a 20 single ride, its going to add 65 cents to the ride. On the 10 rideshare, its going to add under a dollar to the ride. Thats not going to dissuade anybody from taking the rideshares. And frankly, given the state of muni in San Francisco, given the way the taxis work where i live in the richmond, its almost impossible to get a taxi. Rideshares are helpful. I use them all the time when im going downtown, out to dinner. Whatever. Theyre very handy. And to take them away and say, well, people are going to run down to take the muni just isnt going to happen. The other thing in this, there is a paragraph in there that allows this commission to add a 300 million bond to be paid for. I mean, were bond crazy now. We dont need another 300 million bond. So thats why i say vote no. Its not going to do any good. Its not going to curb traffic. Its not going to help anybody. Thank you, howard. Sunny . Well, many, many studies have shown that rideshares, uber and lyfts, have contributed to over 50 of our Traffic Congestion since 2015. This is just in the last several years. Frankly, unfortunately, it is an industry that we are preempted through state law from regulating. We cant cap the number of vehicles. We cant require them to do background checks. We cant require them to do the same Safety Training for example that our taxi cabs are required to do, but we can ask them to pay their fair share toward mitigating the impact on our streets and fund the maintenance and creation of the infrastructure, that they are utilizing every day. Thats our streets, bus stops, curbs. This funding is a very modest business tax that would go towards 50 toward increasing our muni fleet, hiring bus drivers, paying for operation and maintenance, paying for the affordability programs, free muni for seniors and youth. And the other 50 goes toward Capital Improvements which are regulated through our Transportation Authority, a separate body that the board of supervisors and their county designations help toover see. Thats everything from senior crossings to pedestrian safety, Disability Access as well as bicycle infrastructure in the city. So i mean i think that the city has identified a 22 million annual need. And these types of capital costs, whether its the downtown caltrain extension for whether its the neighborhood improvement. And this is projected to bring in 32 million to 35 million annually and i think its a great investment in our system. Thank you. So the first question is following up on that. It goes to howard. Sorry, to sunny, rather. So the proposed tax is estimated to generate 30 million in revenue, you said 32 million to 35 million annually, can you talk about how this money will be spent and why you are in support of that . Sure. So again, 50 of these funds i mean all the money goes into a Traffic Congestion fund, because numerous studies, numerous experts have all agreed that one of the best ways to get people out of their cars is having reliable muni, it is having safe Bicycle Networks with safe improvements where pedestrians, everyone can walk free of being hit by a car. And so 50 of the funding would go towards increasing capacity on our muni. We know from recent hearings that we are vastly understaffed in terms of our muni drivers. We dont have enough. And we need to be able to give them a competitive wage and hire more. We need to increase our fleet. We need to build out the rail network, including the richmond district, and make sure that Rapid Transit is operating efficiently. The other 50 goes to Capital Improvements that the Transportation Authority would be doling out. Thats bike lanes, protection. Same question to you, howard. The revenue, why would you oppose how this money is going to be . The city has enough revenue as it is. If you look at our budget, its very high. We spend the second highest amount per resident of any city in the country. Only washington d. C. Beats us. If you look at the spending, its inefficient. Look at the streets, look everywhere. What they do here, every time there is a problem, they throw money it at it. If that doesnt solve the problem, throw more money at it and nothing ever gets done. We need to bring people into city hall who understand how to manage, who understand how to plan, who are successful in the private sector and will get things done. Thank you. My next question is to first to you, howard, that is if the proposed tax the correct way to reduce Traffic Congestion in San Francisco, and if not, what is . As i said in the opening statement, given the small fee, its not going to dissuade anyone from taking the ride share. What they really have to do is plan. If you look at taking lanes away and giving them to bicycles, for instance, theyre taking out parking. Theyre doing a lot of things that add to the Traffic Congestion. If they had more parking, leave the lanes there, because there are more cars going down. And there are bicycles. We need some bike lanes, obviously, but not the way theyre doing it now, not the way theyre blocking the streets and taking out the parking. Same question to you sunny. Is the proposed tax the correct way to reduce Traffic Congestion . I think its one tool, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, look at this point we are our city has not kept pace with the population boom in the city. Were projected to have a Million People in the city and county of San Francisco within the next ten years. I mean, we dont have, you know, a bus system, a rail system that is able to manage that kind of workerresident traffic. And i think this funding is critical to being able to hire parking control officers. Weve seen that successful in helping to reduce gridlock and blocking the box, which is people double parking in our streets. This is one of many tools we need to be employing as a city to make a dent in what is going to be gridlock like no one has seen before. In the south of market, in the center of the city, you cant even frankly where all of the tc traffic is, is a heat map of just total gridlock. Thats where the tmcs are. Weve got to start employing some of the tools we can until the state does something. Thank you. Closing statements. Howard . As i said i dont think this is needed. Theyre going to throw money at it and they wont get anything accomplished as with everything else. We need to plan. We need to take a step back, check our budget, and look at everything we planned. Look at how many employees we have in every department. Again, we have 20something employees for every resident. That is very high. Other places like philadelphia have half that and three times the population. So we need to take a step back. And rather than raising taxes, issuing bonds every time something comes up, we need to step back and look, get effective people to plan and take it from there. Sunny . You know, i am not a proponent and i think the city is being very thoughtful about what kinds of taxes we are levying. This is actually a business tax. This is not on the riders. Its not on the drivers. Its not on everyday citizens. I think that is something were sensitive to given the fact that the sales tax that was supposed to go toward the same types of improvements we were never able to fund, failed miserably. Taxpayers are like, why are we the ones paying to build infrastructure, when massive corporations, including uber and lyft, are not paying their fair share. They identified 22 million needed in Capital Improvements and being able to hire muni drivers. Thats money we dont have. And the dedicated piece of this is so important to show the voters, this is exactly what were spending the money on. Were not hiring a new mta director, not spending it on pension plans, were spending it on these line items. Thats where taxpayers have told us they want investment. This is no not a bond. This allows us to bond against the revenue we bring in. I think thats also very important. Thank you, both, for your time and input on this measure. Thanks for having us. We hope this discussion has been informative. For more information about this and other ballot measures in the november election, please visit the department of elections website. Early voting is able november 7 from 8 00 a. M. To 5 p. M. If you dont vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 5. First off, i want to give a huge shout out to the Domestic Violences consortium and fearless leader of the event, beverly upton. [cheers and applause] Domestic Violence is an issue that spans many departments and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.