Participating in the meeting remotely at the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comment will be available for each item on this agenda, both channel 26 and ff gov. Org are streaming the channel across the sf gov. Org are streaming the channel across screen. You can call 8882045984. The access code is 3501008. Then press pound and then press pound again. When you are connected, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the qu queueu to speak. The system will notify phi you when you are in line and waiting. All callers will remain on constitute mouth until their line is open. Everyone must account for the time delay, speaking discrepancies between live coverage and stream. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, you may subfit myth Public Comment in two of the ways noted. Email me at erica major, erica erica. Major sfgov. Org. If you submit Public Comment via email, it will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. Written comments may be sent via Us Postal Service to city hall, 1 doctor carlton b. Good let place, San Francisco, california, 94012. And ms. Major, would you please repeat the call in number again for everybody so they can write that down slowly . Yes. The callin number is 1888204 18882045984. When prompted youll need the access code. The access code is 3501008. Thank you, ms. Major. And now can you please call the first item . Yes, item one is an ordinance amending the planning code to consider smaller commercial spaces when creating large large lots, limiting lot from frontages to 50 feet on ocean avenue, creating an exception from neighborhood notes for certain uses in the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial Transit District and adding arts activity as a use to the neighborhood commercial Transit District, and adding arts activity as a use to the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial Transit District. To provide comments please call the number. This was brought to us by supervisor yee. It is my understanding chief of staff jen lowe is here to present. And then we will go to the Planning Department in the form of mr. Sanchez as this item was reviewed and recommended to the board of supervisors by the Planning Commission with sucks for three modifications. With that, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin and members of the committee. I hope you can hear me okay. Thank you for hearing this item it was brought forth to us by our Community Benefits district partners on the ocean avenue corridor. We have been quite successful before this Health Emergency in terms of supporting our Small Businesses, particularly familyowned businesses and as well as promoting legacy businesses along the corridor. And we want to keep it that way. This legislation aims to do two things. First, its to disincentivized any lot mergers that would result in large storefronts that would be difficult for Small Businesses to occupy. Number two it helps streamline some of the notifications that already require a conditional use to not have to also go through 311 notifications for desired businesses for the corridor. We know now more than ever we have to support our Small Businesses. And we want to keep ocean avenue to have that granular, mom and pop feel moving forward, beyond this crisis, and a way to do that is to ensure the physical spaces are designed so that we can keep smaller businesses and restaurants on the forefront. So im happy to take any questions, and thank you for hearing this item. So, this is aaron peskin speaking. With regard to those categories that would no longer require 311 notification, are you saying perhaps mr. Sanchez can also address this, that those are all uses that would be subject to conditional use and to the notice that is required pursuant to conditional use . Is that correct . Im talking about tobacco paraphernalia let me just scroll down, nighttime entertainment, private and Public Community facilities, restaurants and limited restaurants and general entertainment . Are all those subject to cu and thats why you are taking them out of section 311 of the code . Mr. Sanchez, can you help answer that question . Definitely. Some of those uses require conditional use authorization while others dont. You would have to speak obviously to the legislative sponsor to determine why they are taking them out or not. But not all of them require cu. Okay. In so far as the board has over many years taken steps to reduce tobacco use in the community, i think the one i would be most interested in is tobacco paraphernalia establishments. If they are not subject to conditional use, it would seem a little odd relative to the other body of policies that this board, including the sponsor, president yee have pass. If its subject to cu, i get it, but if it is not not, you would think you want want to send neighborhood notification. I agree with that. Let me see the planning code to make sure it does require cu. I would bet it does but give me one second. Take your time. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments from ms. Lowe while mr. Sanchez is looking that up . Chair, this is safai. Ii wanted to say this is very similar to what we did aid couple years ago in our commercial districts. Im really exciting adding for art uses on ground floor retail. We had to change our table to allow for that because they were not permitted at all. Even with the conditional use. So allowing for that changes the dynamic of arts organizations, and it provides for more activation, in fact we have been able to activate a few of our empty storefronts with arts activities. So that was a positive thing. The other thing we found was for Small Businesses not having to go through the neighborhood notification, it saved many of them thousands and thousands of dollars on businesses that we understand, and i think the Planning Department as well as the sponsoring supervisor understands would be principally permitted. So at the end of the day, we are doing something thats very important in terms of helping Small Businesses. And i think as we move into this crisis and then eventually out of the crisis, it will be really helpful in terms of recovery. I will say that i do agree, i mean, and i dont think it would be in the intent of the sponsor to remove any barriers for tobacco paraphernalia. So, other than that, i think this is the important piece of legislation. So i support supervisors intent. The other thing i think is very important is that when we are building mixed use projects that there is space for, by design, theres space for Small Businesses. So ensuring theres space for Small Businesses in terms of limiting the size, that would be presented for storefront retail is also very important. So i appreciate that as part of this legislation as well. Thank you. Any questions or comments from supervisor preston before we go back to mr. Sanchez . No comment. Thank you. And chief of staff lowe, does that conclude your thing and can i turn it over to mr. Sanchez now . Yes, i do want to emphasize that we have no intention of removing any notifications for those uses that would be particularly of interest of the public. So ill send that off to mr. Sanchez now. Mr. Sanchez. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you. So day go Diego Sanchez with Planning Department staff. After taking Public Comment and a deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the ordinance with three modifications. The first was to eliminate the requirement that lot mergers resulting in a frontage with a greater than 50 feet within the ocean avenue nct would also create a corner lot. The second modification was to principally permit flexible retail within all stories within the ocean avenue nct. Currently that use is not permitted. The third modification was clarifying language, for example defining square feet, Square Footage and calling out commercial space as nondenial uses, essentially using more nonresidential uses, essentially using more planning code language. So that was the Planning Commissions recommendation. To get back to your question, tobacco paraphernalia does require authorization on the ground floor and not permitted on the second or third stories. So that concludes my remarks. Thank you mr. Sanchez. The only difference between 311 notice and cu is a 20day notification as compared to a 30day notification. Is that correct . Its that and also the deliberate notice is 150foot radius of owners and occupants of property and the cu notice is a 100foot radius er radius and less got it to wider radius and less time. Yes. I also appreciate the fighter planesgrain intent of this legislation and want to also note that portions of it are not just for the ocean nct, but are citywide, specifically subsection 3 set forth at section 121. 1 at the top of page 3 is citywide in its applicability. And i absolutely support that. Ms. Lowe, relative to the three suggested modifications, does the office of supervisor yee want to make any amendments . Are you offering any amendments today . Or would you like to proceed with the legislation as originally introduced . I do not have any amendments to introduce today nor do we have any strong reservations on any. We want to leave that to the committees to deliberate if you feel strongly. So i think the first two modifications are policy calls, and if the sponsor is not interested in making them, i am not interested in making them. The third seemed to be technical and explanatory in nature. Just relative to what mr. Sanchez described about using gross Square Footage. So i dont know, mr. Sanchez, if you have any suggestions, and i would ask or i assume those changes, madame deputy City Attorney, would not be substantive in nature, and could be undertaken today or could be done at the full board. Ms. Pearson . They would not be substantive, at least as they are described in the Planning Commissions recommendation, but we have not been asked to prepare them, so i dont know how extensive they are. I think you could choose to continue this for a week, and wed be hane to draft some amendments to be happy to draft some amendments to provide Additional Committee but that could also happen at the full board. Thank you for that advice. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment . Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item, item number one . Just checking in to see if there are any callers thank you, ms. Major. You have one question remaining. Please go ahead and make Public Comment hi. This is tom with political city. Thanks to you all for hearing this item today. Thank you, supervisor yee for bringing in forward and all your hard work on it. We are fully in support. I think for a few reasons. One, its a great fit with the uses that the community has wanted on ocean avenue. For me, the arts use is allowing those is going to be a great thing for the avenue, especially for the efforts to rebuild and recreate from the theater which is now empty as an art hub for the community. We ask that all of you think about legalizing art usage in the corridor, supervisor yee spoke eloquently to the reasons why. We are probably unfortunately going to have a lot of vacant storefronts around our city in the months and years to come. And arts organizations and nonprofits along with these neighborhoodserving commercial uses are great uses for those. Supervisor peskin, you spoke to the citywide nc district piece of this. And we are particularly excited about that. Large developments, 5 to 10,000 square feet, a lot of ground floor retail, that it would ask the commission to consider as one of the conditions to approval that the developer provided a mix of retail spaces. What we are seeing is a lot of big commercial developments for mixed use developments go in with very few large storefronts, but they are expensive. Only larger businesses can rent those. So allowing that diversity of storefront sizes, in fact, requiring it, means that more small and local businesses can find spaces suitable to them. Some Good Research showing those are more affordable to locallyowned businesses we want to encourage. And theres Research Showing that commercial districts with a lot of those small storefronts as well as large ones are more resilient. After economic downturns and so on. As for flexible retail, thats made up of six different uses. All the uses are principally permitted in the corridor, and you relax the notification requirements for the uses, youve effectively allowed flexible retail without calling it out as a separate use. We think this is a good way to achieve the same ends that the flexible retailer does. So we have to support we ask that you support it today and we hope in your own commercial districts, if you see anything here in those neighborhoods as well. Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired, sir. You have zero questions remaining. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item . Mr. Chair, that concludes Public Comment. Theres no other speakers wishing to wish. Thank you. So Public Comment is closed. Chair, can i ask a couple questions. This is ahsha. Supervisor safai, of course. I wanted to clarify one thing. So one of the recommendations that the Planning Commission made with regard to lot mergers, it said in ocean avenue, it said if it was over 50 feet it would be permitted if it was a corner lot. Can you talk about that a little bit . Yeah. Right now what we understand the order to require is if someone wants to merge a couple lots and the resulting lot frontage is in excess of 50 feet, it may not b but not at a corner . The recommendation is to allow that to happen midblock. Thats because that would allow flexibility for midblock properties that want to assemble a parcel or two for the sake of housing development, for example. Its still permitted under this ordinance. It would just require a cu . Met lets me check that one more time. Im looking at that too. What i thought the read the ordinance to say was that if its over 50 feet, it would require cu. Yes, i think so. Then theres the set of things that the Zoning Administrator is empowered to do through an administrative waiver that are set forth in administrative exemptions right. If one of the lots is less than 20 feet and the other is larger they allow for the administrator to go, if its a government institution, those are some of the administrative decisions that the za can make . Thats right. Those are pretty well defined, the five or six, the five exceptions. And then subsection d says conditionally permitted exceptions. Planning commission may approve as a cu pursuant to section 303 mergers exceeding the restrictions of b c, only when they can make one or more of the following findings. Now, then theyve removed subsection e, which was the nolot merger. So and maybe ms. Pearson, im looking at b and c above. But is supervisor safai correct that this could still be done by conditional use . Im looking now at the top of page 4, line 5. Yeah. Lots larger than 50 feet are permitted to create corner lots only and shall require conditional use authorization. So it reads to me as if the corner lot is a requirement. Yeah. I think you are right. All right. This is a policy call that, given the fact that this comes out of the ocean avenue Business Community and cbd, and feel free to weigh in, that i would completely defer to the legislative sponsor, president yee on. So ms. Lowe, what is your will, assumes that my colleagues agree . It is an aspect about the corner lot was part of the original, i think it was struck out. And we contemplated this on the commission to a point. At this point, the type of projects were seeing that are of this scale are usually near corner lots and intersections. So we felt that we should start off with that first and really keep this legislation to be a little bit more prescriptive should there ever be a need to open it up, i think we would be open to that. But we didnt have a clear indication at this point in time that that was required to provide lot mergers on midblocks for other parts of the district. Thank you, ms. Lowe. I think as to the three modifications that were suggested by the Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff, as to one, the answer at least for the time being, is no, or not yet. Number two, i think mr. R. Answered relative to effective allowing of flex retail, and i think that this leaves us with number three. I would like to make this suggestion, colleagues and to the Planning Department and to supervisor yees office, which is that we send this item to the full board with recommendation and in the intervening week, if ms. Lowe, you and the department want to work with the City Attorney on putting in just those clarifying bits of language, that would not be substantive, would not require rereferral to committee, we could send this out today with recommendations subject to whatever you recommend that we adopt and insert at the fall board next week. Can i ask one last question, chair . Of course. If in the intervening week it was decided that rather than just the corner lots would be allowed over 50 feet and decided they wanted to do midblock with the cu, does that require, i mean i understand its a recommendation from the Planning Commission so it wouldnt require rereferral. Would it require a continuance of the board or would we be able to make that amendment and vote on it in the upcoming week . I think ms. Pearson indicated we would be able to do it at the first reading. But ms. Pearson . To the extent that you would be proposing to allow to longer impose the restriction so its only happening at corners, i think that would require a continuance. It would not require a continuance to make the clarifying edits that were recommended but to change the underlying policy would. Okay. All right. That was my only question. Ms. Lowe, is that acceptable with what i outlined, acceptable to the office of president yee . Yes. Thank you. Okay. So colleagues, i would like to move that we send item number one to the full board with recommendation. Can we do that without objection . Or no, excue me, the new rule. Can we have a roll call, please. On the motion to recommend, supervisor preston. Aye. Preston, aye. Safai. Aye. Safai, aye. Peskin . Aye peskin, aye. You have three ayes. Thank you, madame clerk. Could you please read the next and final item . Yes. Item number two is a resolution urging the Municipal Transportation Agency to refrain from any fare increases for fiscal year 2021 through 2022 budget cycle. Members of the public who wish to speak on Public Comment on this item, shall call the number and press one and zero. The number is on the screen for channel 26 and live streaming. Thank you. This item was brought to us, this resolution was brought to us by supervisor preston. The floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin. So, you know, just wanted to start by thanking the hundreds of operators, all the folks at mta and muni who are on the front lines right now doing their best to ensure that our essential workers are able to continue taking care of san franciscans and help our neighbors have the food, supplies, medical care, that they need during this covid19 crisis. We appreciate everything that you all are doing to keep us rolling amid enormous stress and risks to your own health. So thank you for that work. This resolution urges the mta to refrain from any muni fare increases for the upcoming budget cycle, fiscal year 21 and 22. I hoped this resolution would not be necessary back on monday, january 27. We wrote a letter urging the mta not to urge fares. We engaged with mta staff repeatedly but have not been able to secure a commitment to back off the recommended fare increases. To the contrary, fare increases are still recommended by the mta and by staff and will be considered by the mta board on april 27. I expect in the midst of the Coronavirus Crisis with our residents suffering i am measurably, immeasurably, tht maybe there could be a reconsideration of bringing these fare increases forward, and we wouldnt forced to be talking about hiking fares on our residents who ride or will again ride on public transit. I think as we all know, the residents of San Francisco are in a period of Financial Insecurity as recognized by the mayor and board of supervisors. Many san franciscans are losing their jobs. Many most are wondering how they are going to be able to buy necessities, pay rent and utilities, pay mortgages, keep open their Small Businesses. We dont know how this will impact residents livelihoods in the coming months as this Public Health crisis helicopters to take shape. The impose i guess of fare increase the imposition of fare increases. When we turn the corner on this crisis, the last thing we want to do is be raising muni fares at a time when san franciscans will be so economically insecure. And also when riders may be skeptical of congregating on Public Transportation as a result of lingering concerns about covid19. And more than ever we will need to be incentivizing ridership, not disinventinvent size not disincentivizing it with fare increases. We are going to need hundreds of millions of dollars for our system to bounce back after this crisis. The estimated 15 million approximately in increased revenue from the proposed budget, from fare increases, will not even make a dent. We all know we know that this fare increase is not going to make a major difference in the budget. And we need to be clear that these fare increases will not increase service and similarly, a fare freeze will not decrease service, and we shouldnt be pitting those service and fares against each other. I think the it, it last thing we should be doing is balancing the budget on the backs of riders. I will have some amendments to offer but wanted to turn it over to director tomlin or others at mta to have an opportunity to address the issue. Thank you, supervisor preston. I do understand that we are joined by sfmta director tomlin as well as jonathan rurers. Mr. Tomlin, the floor is yours. And i think you may have a presentation as to the proposed fares and what you are proposing, i believe actually on april 21, not april 27. Mr. Tomlin. That is correct. This is jonathan with the mta. Unfortunately director is still at the mayors press event right now on the covid19 public Health Emergency. So he will join us as soon as he can. But in the meantime i have a presentation to share with you on the process to date and the recommended fare changes that the mta staff are recommending to take forward for approval on april 21. Let me start off with a couple of introductory remarks. In this budget cycle, and again, this was all precovid19. The mta restructured its budget process, really focusing on San Francisco values as values represent the number one component of any budget. It is our pure policy document. And it reflects what we intend on delivering to the people of San Francisco. With that, in a very different way, we attempted to be very transparent about the financial issues, the need of san franciscans and of the system generally, and about the trade offs that would be required throughout this entire budget process. So covid19 economic situation, the issue with regard to revenues and needs and trade offs remain throughout this entire process. So with that, let me share my screen with a quick presentation on where we are. Chair peskin and committee members, can you see the presentation on the screen . Yes, sir thank you. So just quickly, fares were the number one issue that we heard about through our extensive public outreach. We did begin the process with the mta board in january of 2020, with just the standard automatic indexing policy that the mta has had for nearly one decade. Im going to stop sharing my camera for better quality there. So we had an automatic indexing policy for nearly ten years. At a certain point, when the mtas costs get to a certain level, automatic indexing occurs and a fare increase occurs. The reason that we put this policy in place was not to be in a situation where we would have rapid and highlevel fare increases when our costs just exceeded the amount of revenue that we were collecting to manage the system daytoday. So on this slide that you will see here which is slide three, im going to go through it very public for the public so they can understand what were talking about. So the current, the gray column, represents fares as they are today. Today in 2020 and in fiscal year 20. When we first brought our proposal to the mta board in january of 2020, the blue column reflects just the base, automatic indexing policy that the mta has, which would index the cash fare to 3. 25. And all other fares are based on certain levels of the cash fare and the monthly pass, generally. So that would be original proposals. After feedback that we received, both through the board workshop that we held in january, through a public open hearing that we had, rather than throwing something out, the mta board held a hearing in february on fare policy exclusively. We received a lot of feedback that the public felt that especially in this environment, raising the cash fare didnt make a lot of sense and that we needed to take a more sharper look at how we were proposing to update our overall fare policy. With that, in march, we came back with two different alternatives. The equity monthly alternative and the equity clipper alternative. And ill run through the difference between both of those. So in the equity monthly, so youll see across all the alternatives, let me be clear, on both alternatives and options, that we are maintaining, and we have heard from the public that we should not raise the cash fare. And ill get into why thats important. So the cash fare across both recommendations does not increase. In addition, we are recommending, and we are maintaining this recommendation to the mta board, that we move towards free muni for all youth in San Francisco, thats up to age 19, and also including free muni for individuals experiencing homelessness. The recommendation around free muni for youth has to do with feedback that both director tomlin and i received from the San Francisco youth commission. We thank them very much for their participation and feedback and the feedback we received. It has to do with opportunity costs largely. One, the cost of administering the program is complicated, and weve heard from the youth of San Francisco, that its just complicated for them and their parents. This creates situations where youth who would qualify for free muni for low to moderate income youth today, in an uncomfortable situation if they were to need a transit fare inspector. So we want to remove the Administrative Burden and the burden of fare inspection from the system. But generally it was also just the right thing to do. We want all youth to feel comfortable in San Francisco. We think its allowed us to focus our fare inspectors on people who should actually be paying the fare and make it a more free and equitable system for everyone. And it will just make it easier for everybody, and its actually a good thing to do for the youth of San Francisco. So that is maintained in both options. The difference between the two is where we move the cost. So in the next slide here which would be slide five. In the equity monthly option, the cost to not raise the other fares for those who really cant deal with the burden of a fare increase is passed on to the monthly pass riders. So you will see the muni fast pass there and the fast pass a which includes bart. So you will see the cost goes up but it goes up a little more to cover fares within the policy. The equity option, this was brought up by the mta board, we currently provide a differential cost between cash fare via using cash or using clipper. We can cover the cost of the other fare media in holding the cash fare stead byie by reducing that differential. We still want to have the differential there to incentivize people to move to electronic payment. But in this particular situation, we want to raise the fare in that area to cover the cost of potentially freezing, creating free fares for youth and reducing the burden on those two cant afford the fare increase on those few who cant afford the fare increase. You will see on slide 6 who is impacted. This is based on a title 6 analysis we do in every budget when we prepare our fare proposal. With regard to the cash fares, you will see there is no impact. The significant number of riders are both minority and low income, youll see that in the senior category and disabled category. So we will not increase fares on those who cannot afford to pay and who could not afford a fare increase in this current economic environment. So we did hear that, and we modified our proposals accordingly. But there are some who can support the system and who should be paying to support a better and stable system for everybody in San Francisco. And this is part of the trade off. 15 to 17 million in the current proposal, while it doesnt seem like a lot, it is important to keep the system stable and acceptable for people in San Francisco. So here, in this particular population, youll see the electronic fare, youll see the increase, and youll see the monthly fare. Youll see who is impacted by increasing the monthly pass. One benefit of the proposed recommendation, and we often dont talk about this, is that the muni fast pass itself is actually a fantastic benefit for transit riders. So i lost the number on that. This would be slide 7, shows you the number of single cash fare trips it would take to break even on the muni fast pass. You will see currently its about 32 trips, depending on the cash fare and whether or not you would get the discount we give two options. But generally, you will see that within the region, we are extremely competitive, better than other transit. And nationally, in comparison to other transit agencies, the muni fast pass, even after this recommendation, continues to be a fantastic benefit for san franciscans in using the muni system. There are some other proposals that are included in our overall fare policy. These will be minimum costs. But one of the core values of our fare policy is to promote the access that supervisor preston noted to try to grow the ridership. These are areas that were brought up throughout the process and we started with in january. They have a minimum cost. We intend on advancing them over the next two years. So adding a day pass, thinking about available beyond electronic and beyond muni mobile, looking at fare capping and we will have to work on that in coordination with our friends the metropolitan Transportation Commission as we look at clipper and other fare Media Products in the future. Again, adding that muni pass for people experiencing homelessness, we are moving forward with that. And then some other discounts. More importantly, extending bulk discounts to those who use muni mobile so that the mta continuing to work with the Business Community to invest in the overall system. And eliminating that clipper differential, it was difficult for the customer. So we have realized that so we are proposing eliminating that option as part of this overall proposal. But continuing down the path that supervisor preston brought up in his opening remarks, we did want to make sure to give a fiscal update on the status of the agency, where we were and where we can see things going right now. In january, we did make it clear, and again, one of our core values in this process was equity, but it was also transparency and noting the trade offs that would have to be made. We started this fiscal year, this budget process, with a 66 million and 77 million deficit. This is based on the structural deficits the agency had for a significant amount of time. So we had already started the process of closing the deficits that preexisted to maintain Service Today as it is. As part of that process, we did have a recession scenario, and we have prepared for a recession. In our original recession scenario, this is one from january, we used the 2009 recession and projected the anticipated revenue loss for that type of a recession. In that period, the agency lost roughly 158 million. To give you a sense of scale, losing 25 million in revenue means a 5 to 8 service reduction. Essentially removing the salary of 200 operators from service. So when we talk about 15 to 17 million, that is 140 operators that get removed from service because the agency cannot afford to pay for those runs and cannot afford to pay those salaries. We have updated our outlook based on the best information we have today. I would like to describe the situation as we are currently in an economic shock in the current fiscal year between now and the end of june. The agency is essentially making no revenue or little if any revenue so we anticipate by the end of the fiscal year having approximately a 200 million shortfall. Then we anticipate that as a result of this economic shock, that there likely will be an economic downturn or recession next year, fiscal year 2021, possibly stretching throughout calendar year 2021 into fiscal year 2022. We have run some different recession scenarios. So youll see the ranges of loss there which are roughly from 100 to 210 million. To deal with that, we have put some cost controls in place. And we will be proposing to the mta board some additional cost controls to get revenues closer to expenditures based on our future projections. So we have already reduced overtime. We are reviewing all our positions consistent with the mayors memo on the budget most recently and focusing on those positions that are only servicecritical with regard to moving them forward. We are also looking at all of our contracts and services and supplies and again, only advancing those things in the current period that are critical to that frontline service. However, two weeks ago, hr748 was passed by congress and signed by the president. That fiscal release bill Fiscal Relief bill did include money for transit agencies. This was based on assumption of revenue losses to the end of the calendar year. These are eligible to cover expenses active january 2020. The local match was weighed specifically with the federal grant we would have a 20 of man and would be required to be in the Transportation Improvement Program within the region. Those requirements were waived as part of that legislation. And somehow my remainder of slides did not make it in here. But we are projecting roughly that we will get between 150 to 200 million from two. One would be in april of this month, hopefully toward the end of april which would cover the losses the mta has in the current fiscal year. The second one would be some time in the summer and we are hoping for another 150 to 250 million. That is being worked out within the region at the metropolitan Transportation Commission. We as the mta realize there are going to be hard Economic Times ahead. But to the best of our ability, we have tried to thread the needle between sustaining service and having it in place for the eventual recovery we know will come when people will really need that service in San Francisco. Again, we have to have a balanced budget, and we knew there were going to be difficult tradeoffs, and that decision is just part of that. So hopefully that was helpful. And im happy to take any questions. Thank you for that powerpoint presentation. Let me hand it back over to supervisor preston. Yeah, just some brief questions. One, thank you for your presentation. And let me just comment that we understand the desperate i was proud to cosponsor the resolution. And thank you to my colleague on this committee, supervisor safai, for his leadership in the resolution calling for significant funding, actually it was supervisor haney, i misspoke, supervisor safai did the other muni resolution. But we called for a significant federal and state grant, and we will be there with you in that fight for the serious money that we need from the federal government and from the state to recover from this. But i did want to ask specifically about the fare increases. Our fares have doubled in the last 12 years, cost of a muni pass has gone up 80 during that time period, and i want to be clear, what mta is proposing, what staff is proposing, would increase fares on the vast majority of riders. And i wanted to ask you what percent of riders would see a fare increase under the proposal . So this is another example of where i need to go back and look at the data. Let me help you could use the title 6 analysis. Its roughly 50 . My understanding is its only the folks who pay a cash fare, which is under 20 riders, right . No, you also have to take into consideration that we would be implementing free muni for youth, free muni for people experiencing homelessness and the existing free programs we have in place. So free muni for seniors, lowincome seniors, free muni for lowincome disabled persons. So that also is a significant body of people that preexisting get free service. Right. Im not talking about the folks who already have free muni. Im saying under the current proposal, everyone who rides muni except for the percentage who pay cash or the folks in the expanded free muni for youth and for homeless folks. And im trying to get a sense om the data ive seen is maybe 20 of riders who would not see who pay fares and would not see an increase. Am i in the ballpark . That is generally correct. So, again, we knew this budget process would require tradeoffs, and we also wanted to take equity into consideration. So those who were planned not to get a fare increase, mostly the number one thing weve heard about this to raise the cash fare, that was our priority, and yes, that is correct. In addition, its minor. But the lifeline pass we will be switching from indexing updates on inflation to indexing updates on social security, which kind of lowers the curve of future increases on those who qualify for the lifeline pass. So, yes, you are correct that we had spread the cost of a fare increase across the number of the riders, yeah. Okay. And also your comments about the 25 if you were to lose 25 million in revenue, what impacts do you believe those have. First off, just to be clear that fare increases that you all are proposing would not generate 25 million, right . They would generate approximately 17 million right, great. And then that is one of many Revenue Sources for mta. So when you make the claim that, for example, a 25 million reduction would result in Certain Service decreases and certain operator, inability to fund certain operators, thats assuming that you dont find the revenue elsewhere, right . That you dont whether its through parking, whether its through enforcement of muni, for any number of places, thats not directly tied to fares . Correct. What i will say is, and we did present not present it didnt present it in this slide deck, but we made clear throughout the process, they had been flat or going down. The difference has been the citys general funds. So in good Economic Times, making up for total fare revenue and decline, total parking fees and fines revenue declining was the citys general funds making up the difference. So we can take the budget, like transit fares related to transit, but we need to consider the entire cost of the Service Overall as an example. So when i talk about 17 million, that is absolute. We have balanced the budget considering all possible revenue forces that we can have. So we balanced it paced on, again, looking based on, again, looking at equity, who can pay, who cant afford a fare increase, especially in this environment. We it is the priority of the agency throughout this situation and post the situation to provide stable Transit Service for San Francisco. So the last thing we want to do in the middle of an economic downturn is reduce revenues and then thus reduce service. And reduction to the mtas budget equals a reduction in service. Well, and if you keep all other revenues fixed, then you can bear against service. And i will say that this has been a source of great frustration to me and to my office, and we work closely with mto on many issues and appreciate the work, but i think its a mistake to frame a fare increase as a necessary to avoid service reduction. I think thats not i think thats not accurate. I think there are other remedy sources Revenue Sources. And i think that what i heard in the presentation, and i think youve stated a few times, and i think it is, it appears to be the mtas position is that there are these folks, i dont know who they are, these folks who can afford it right now and who should be paying for our muni system instead of looking at the way we actually use either progressive taxes or stronger eff ridership and not be going after riders for these increases. But i wont belabor the point. Maybe my colleagues have questions or comments, and then i also, as i mentioned before, will some amendments to our resolution to date. Thank you, supervisor preston. I do let me first defer to supervisor safai before i ask you some questions. Do you have any questions or comments . Yeah, just while i was listening, i had a question. Whats the overall cost of actually providing free muni . If you want to do that, if you want to do you are touting that as a thing you are adding here. Whats the cost of free muni and free muni for those experiencing homelessness . Whats the cost to the mta for that . So those particular lines are just free muni, period. I understand. Whats the projected loss of revenue . The free muni for youth is estimated to cost approximately 2 million. And which means 2 million in lost revenue. Free muni for persons experiencing homelessness, there will be a certification process through the city, so its a impossible to predict how much. We have free muni for youth currently, low and moderate income youth. So we are taking the difference to actually pay the full monthly pass right now. Right, right. And so you are saying that the overall revenue generated just going back to your slide deck, from all of these increases, one of the ones, it would be great if you could post a couple of your slides back up. One of the lines show, you know, the impact, the amount of low, lowincome people. Yeah, thats the one. I think this one because i hadnt seen this until today. This hits part of the point that i think supervisor preston was trying to make. If you look at the adult single ride electronic, and theres an increase there, theyre one of the largest buckets along with the adult monthly fast pass, 200,000. About 30 of those, even for your estimates, are lowincome. And then out of the adult monthly fast pass, again, almost 30 . Thats a significant increase for those categories of people, even when you look at the amount of people that are coming from communities of color as well, both of those are over 50 . So i just wanted to point auto that as part of your own point out that as part of your own presentation. I was struck by that slide as well. I had not seen that title 6 analysis before today. Yeah. And i guess my other question would be what would be the, if you were not to if this were not to be approved, ultimately, we dont have any say. I just want to say that for the we have the say in terms of the realm of public opinion, right . We as the members of the board of supervisors, appreciate supervisor preston as bringing this forward as part of the conversation. But ultimately the decision lies with your sfmta commissioners. And as supervisor preston pointed out in the past, we transportation authority. But if if you were to listen and heed the advice of this resolution, what would be the outcome. What would be the impact . And i understand you are saying it would be loss of potentially you are saying 17 but you would have to factor back in the 2 million you get for free muni for all so its about 15 million. What would that mean to your overall about 130 operators is what he is saying. No, i didnt hear him say that. I heard him say that at a higher number. That was at 25 million. Correct. So you could do a proportionately, get to 120 to 140 operators affected. Okay. Thats not what director tomlin told me yesterday. So, okay. So theres some differences of opinion. But why again, let me just ask this question. Why does it go immediately to operators . How about theres whole other areas of your organization that could also weather the impact of this budget so its not just operators, right . Youre saying that as companion example but theres other areas of your saying that as an example but theres other areas that could be impacted. Youre absolutely correct. And prior to covid19, i think you make an excellent point. But the agency already now that we are going to be walking into a downturn, we are already looking at reducing in the area that we can reduce to sustain Transit Service. So reducing we are already directing expenditures and dollars toward maintains service, again, to weather the storm, to get through what we know will be a downturn and support the people of San Francisco. So i agree and i take the point, you know, a month ago, very good point. Today even more critical that the revenues are there to sustain the system, most importantly for those who need it. Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you, supervisor safai. Im only laughing because my when i read this, i mean, i think supervisor preston introduced this february 11 is my recollection, serves me, and im in no way trying to be meanspirited because i do have mixed feelings about this. And these are really tough times. And were all kind of damned if we do and damned if we dont. But i cant help but smiling because it sounds like you thought he might have been on track at the beginning but may not be on track now, which makes me think he was on track at the beginning. If any of that made any sense of all four of you and anybody else who is watching. Uhhuh. And i say that to the mta as somebody who absolutely believes that the agency was chronically underfunded for many years when it was treated solely as a general fund department. Transportation, both on the operating and capital side, was in the puc days when muni was a puc property, always fell to the bottom of the list. And there have been a number of things that have happened, prop e in 1999, the Charter Amendment that i did in 2007 that brought a significant amounts of fee and fine revenue that used to go into the general fund was diverted to the mta and most recently what the entire board of supervisors put on the ballot and passed proposition d, the tnc tax that is a new source of revenue. And i look at those things, and i realize that fair box recovery is important. And i agree that people who are more affluent should pay for it, and we all know that, and just your slide 7 showed that in almost all of those categories, people of color and lowincome individuals were very large proportions of the folks that used muni on a daily basis, some 700, that percentage of 700,000 plus riders. And i note that we are down to 100,000 a day. But we will be back. So i hear what supervisor preston is saying, which is that there are other sources of revenues, prop b, that then supervisor wiener did that added money based on population was important. And i think weve always been, if you will, kind of proud of the fact that fare box recovery has been a percentage of whats made muni go as compared to other transit Properties Like bart, which is crazy expensive and some of us are chagrin that relative to the federal stimulus package, that they are going to be ending up with what i think is a disproportionate amount of the stimulus, but well leave that for another hearing and another day. So i wanted to make those comments. But i thought that slide, the title 6 slide, was really quite compelling. So you are welcome to respond to that ramble. And supervisors, you are welcome to jump in. And if not, i can open it up to Public Comment. The only response i would give is the objective since january has been to balance the budget, with all funding sources, including some that you just mentioned, chair peskin. So we are shifting some of the proposition b that went to capital operating to balance the budget, we are absolutely doing that. The budget includes a proposal to extend meter hours into the evenings and on sundays. So there are no more days of the week to extend meter hours. We extended it to every possible day there could be. Time to do that but these are thank you supervisor safai, these are the difficult tradeoffs, we have had to go through. Now even more important its our objective to sustain service to the public, especially in the times we know are going to be so important. I want to actually thank supervisor preston for his initial statement. Staff at the mta are working hard to sustain that service for San Franciscos now, especially those who need, who are providing Critical Services to the rest of the people within the city and county of San Francisco. And i know we, on behalf of the is acting agency, appreciate his effort and his focus on muni and Transit Service for San Francisco and having this discussion. And sorry, supervisor preston. Thank you, chair peskin. And thank you, for that. I do want to just make really clear for the public, because its come up a couple times, that there is absolutely nothing that we would be advocateing for to decrease in any way our operators who are absolutely the core and backbone of this system. So we have a fundamental disagreement around whether a fare freeze, effectively, where that money would come from. I think there are a number of opportunities. But i want to make clear, number one, that we have been in contact with the Operators Union and would not be pushing forward without talking with them. Number two, that we will fight by their side to make sure that there is no reduction as a result of anything that we are proposing. And i also just want to say before turning to the amendments or Public Comment, just to recognize that i do think that what he has presented is an improvement from where we started for both in terms of the lower increases across the board jealousy some of the categories as some of the categories that he talked about. But now is not the time for any fare increases on muni riders. Chair peskin, i dont know in terms of the amendments, whether they should happen now or after Public Comment. Thank you for those generous comments. And let me also concur, particularly now, that operators have a tough job every day, and they truly are frontline responders in this crisis and continue to get our essential workers to wor thank you. So a few things have happened, a lot of things have happened sin coronavirus on march 3, on march 13 the mayor issued a second supplement to that proclam line 10 through, adding a whereas clause on mayor london breed declaring a state of emergency based on coronavirus. Page 2 lines 18 through 24 adding a whereas clause that includes the sfmta fare increase recommendation to the sfmta board of directors on march 17, 2020. Page 2, lines 4 through 6, removing the whereas clause noting the indexing. I think i may have stated that page 2 lines 7 through 14 adding the whereas clause including fare increase resemblances hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. When i meet with seniors in the community, theyre thinking about the future. Some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood thats closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. Thats why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. So how does this work . Prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. Under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2 growth a year. But when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. Compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. Thats where prop 60 comes in. Prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. Remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the Property Value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. If you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. This means that if your existing home is worth 1 million in market value, your new home must be 1 million or below. If youre looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105 of your exist egging home. Which means if you sell your old home for 1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than 1. 15 million. If you sell your existing home at 1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than 1. 1 million. Know that your ability to participate in this Program Expires after two years. You will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. So benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. Just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. For more, visit our website, sfassessor. Org, my name is alan schumer. I am a fourth generation san franciscan. In december, this building will be 103 years of age. It is an incredibly rich, rich history. [ ] my core responsibility as city hall historian is to keep the history of this building alive. I am also the tour program manager, and i chair the city advisory commission. I have two ways of looking at my life. I want it to be i wanted to be a Fashion Designer for the movies, and the other one, a political figure because i had some force from family members, so it was a constant battle between both. I ended up, for many years, doing the fashion, not for the movies, but for for san franciscan his and then in turn, big changes, and now i am here. The work that i do at city hall makes my life a broader, a richer, more fulfilling than if i was doing something in the Garment Industry. I had the opportunity to develop relationships with my docents. It is almost like an extended family. I have formed incredible relationships with them, and also some of the people that come to take a tour. She was a dressmaker of the first order. I would go visit her, and it was a special treat. I was a tiny little girl. I would go with my wool coat on and my special little dress because at that period in time, girls did not wear pants. The Garment Industry had the at the time that i was in it and i was a retailer, as well as the designer, was not particularly favourable to women. You will see the predominant designers, owners of huge complexes are huge stores were all male. Women were sort of relegated to a lesser position, so that, you reached a point where it was a difficult to survive and survive financially. There was a woman by the name of diana. She was editor of the bazaar, and evoke, and went on and she was a miraculous individual, but she had something that was a very unique. She classified it as a third i. Will lewis brown junior, who was mayor of San Francisco, and was the champion of reopening this building on january 5th of 1999. I believe he has not a third eye , but some kind of antenna attached to his head because he had the ability to go through this building almost on a daily basis during the restoration and corrects everything so that it would appear as it was when it opened in december of 1915. The board of supervisors approved that, i signed it into law. Jeffrey heller, the city and county of San Francisco oh, and and your band of architects a great thing, just a great thing. To impart to the history of this building is remarkable. To see a person who comes in with a gloomy look on their face , and all of a sudden you Start Talking about this building, the gloomy look disappears and a smile registers across their face. With children, and i do mainly all of the childrens tours, that is a totally different feeling because you are imparting knowledge that they have no idea where it came from, how it was developed, and you can Start Talking about how things were before we had computer screens, cell phones, lake in 1915, the mayor of San Francisco used to answer the telephone and he would say, good morning, this is the mayor. At times, my clothes make me feel powerful. Powerful in a different sense. I am not the biggest person in the world, so therefore, i have to have something that would draw your eye to me. Usually i do that through color, or just the simplicity of the look, or sometimes the complication of the look. I have had people say, do those shoes really match that outfit . Retirement to me is a very strange words. I dont really ever want to retire because i would like to be able to impart the knowledge that i have, the knowledge that i have learned and the ongoing honor of working in the peoples palace. You want a longterm career, and you truly want to give something to do whatever you do, so long as you know that you are giving to someone or something youre then yourself. Follow your passion and learn how to enrich the feelings along good morning, i am San Franciscos director of transportation. Were here today to have a