[ gavel ] all right, records will reflect we are back in open session. Is there a motion as to whether or not we should disclose the closed session deliberations . I move that we not disclose our deliberations during closed session. Second. All right. All in favor . Aye. I also will announce in open session that the Commission Approved a settlement of ethics complaint no. 13100730. And the Settlement Agreement is a Public Document and will be posted on the commissions website. Josh, do i have to read the whole thing . No. It also at the closed session, the Commission Approved a Settlement Agreement relating to Ethics Commission complaint 261001021. And that Settlement Agreement is a Public Document and will be posted on the commissions website. Do i hear a motion to adjourn . Is there Public Comment . Yes, thanks. Im sorry. Thank you. Eileen hansen. The two settlements that you announced, how do those relate to these five complaints that you just discussed in closed session . They were two of the five. Can you say which of the two relate to those numbers . Because i didnt see those on here. They relate to 1 and 2, lines 1 and 2. Okay. And can i also ask your reasons for not disclosing . Are you is the motion not to disclose related to the discussion you had, or to the resolution or lack thereof . All three of those, the discussion and the lack or lack of resolution, or resolution. So can i maybe ask it a different way. It sounds like you resolved 1 and 2. Would it be fair to assume that did you not resolve, 3, 4 and 5 and thus they are ongoing . Its okay to answer yes or no. Yes, i think that whether we may have resolved them, but were not disclosing the resolution at this moment, or they are ongoing. Or they are ongoing. Right. All right. Thank you. Did i hear a motion to adjourn . So moved. Second. All in favor . Aye. [ gavel thank you for coming to the talent dance performance and talent show. [ applause ] todays performance and talent show. Public recreation has every bit of the talent and every bit of the heart and soul of anything that any families are paying ten times for. You were awesome. music herb theatre,open rehearsal. Listen to the rehearsal. I think it is fun for them, they see our work process, our discussions, the decisions we make. It is good for us. We kind of behavior little bit when we have people in the audience. Msk music we are rehearsing for our most expensive tour; plus two concerts here. We are proud that the growth of the orchestra, and how it is expanded and it is being accepted. My ambition when i came on as music director here it was evident we needed absolutely excellent work. Also evident to me that i thought everyone should know that. This was my purpose. And after we opened, which was a spectacular opening concert about five weeks after that the economy completely crashed. My plan and im absolutely dogmatic about my plans were delayed slightly. I would say that in this very difficult timefor the arts and everyone, especially the arts, its phenomenal how new century has grown where many unfortunate organizations have stopped. During this period we got ourselves on National Radio presence; we started touring, releasing cds, a dvd. We continue to tour. Reputation grows and grows and grows and it has never stopped going forward. Msk music the bay area knows the orchestra. You maybe take things for granted a little bit. That is simply not the case will go on the road. The audiences go crazy. They dont see vitality like this on stage. We are capable of conveying joy when we play. Msk music any performance that we do, that a program, that will be something on the program that you havent heard before. String orchestra repertoire is pretty small. I used to be boxed into small repertoire. I kept constantly looking for new repertoire and commissioning new arrangements. If you look at the first of the program you have very early, young vibrant mendelson; fabulous opener and then you have this fabulous concerto written for us in the orchestra. Is our gift. Msk music and then you have strauss, extraordinary piece. The most challenging of all. String orchestra work. 23 solo instrument, no violin section, now viola section; everybody is responsible for their part in this piece. The challenge is something that i felt not only that we could do , absolutely could do, but i wanted to show off. I cant tell you how aware i am of the audience. Not only what i hear but their vibes, so strong. I have been doing this for a long time. I kind of make them feel what i want them to feel. There is nobody in that audience or anywhere that is not going to know that particular song by the fourth note. And that is our encore on tour. By the way. I am proud to play it, we are from San Francisco. We are going to play that piece no matter where we are. This meeting will now come to order this is the regular meeting the Land Use Commission im chair and to my right is supervisor wiener the vice chair and to my left supervisor kim and victor young it our clerk and thank you leo and herb from sfgovtv for broadcasting this mr. Clerk, any announcements . Yes. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the october 6, 2015, bobs agenda oracles. A call item one. Is the regulation for the freeway operation with the state of california permitting maintenance responsibility for hoig 101 and the director ever public works to accept the agreement. Ladies and gentlemen, so this item number one is supported before i the sfmta i believe we have both mta and dpw staff with us today deanna from dpw and mr. Paul from mta lets see im not sure who will be speaking first mta please come on up thank you for joining us today. Good afternoon, supervisors im deanna im with the San Francisco public works ca. Can you please hold the mike color. Peter is the project manager with the mta corridor the proposed resolution for the authorization to enter into a freeway maintenance operation with caltrans and the maintenance for the brt to be krukd o constructed along route 101 theyll be responsible for the bugs lanes and platforms and landscaping and shown on exhibit a the remaining lanes will continue to be maintained by caltrans sidewalks are are the citys responsibility under the 2009 delegated agreement thats the summary of agreements. All right. Thank you sir, i want to add anything. I think deanna has summarized the agreement fairly well that is part of our process of getting caltrain buy off on the project to show weve defined how to maintain the road and their giving up two lanes dedicated for transit rightofway. My colleagues and i does have comments Public Comment on number one. I left hand since 1977 many years 6 or seven years i go to San Francisco through the golden gate and all and all a beautiful freeway the 101 from areas petaluma and, etc. On the south side some say i also take the 101 basically to the buddhist temple and the freeway have a connection in San Francisco as you may know it is a detour and continued to San Francisco from north i mean most people go to slausen a lot of people freeway i mean so much construction maintaining to put there in the beautiful freeway a beautiful freeway besides that. All right. Thank you mr. Yip is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, Public Comment is closed colleagues an information motion for this item thank you motion by supervisor kim to with a positive recommendation and this that is an unanimous decision this motion moves forward mr. Clerk, call item number 2. Item number 2 an issuance amending the planning code by the Transportation Sustainability fee for the application of the existing transportation fee for the homeless shelters from the transportation fee making the members to the area plan fee in the building code. Thank you very much lets see supervisor wiener anything you, you want to say on item 2. Thank you very much madam chair this item is an important revamp item transformation of our approach in San Francisco to transit impact fees weve had transit fees for 35 years but it is limited in its scope it is never applied to residential and been broad exemption so we it is a very important step forward for the funding and Transportation System and seeking a board look at the extent to develop should be assessed fees in support our Transportation System the city is growing significantly and we need to make sure were all pitch in to fund transit as we hope and expect will grow along with the rest of the growth in our city this is been a long process colleagues as you may know in 2012 when we just want the Transit Development fee we adapted some changes but the board overwhelmingly rejected it and it is 0 coming to the forwardlooking form i look forward to discussions a number of issues that will be addressed and policy decisions im looking forward to that discussion i know that this may continue today, if it is continued i hope that floekz stick around to provide testimony because i think that given the importance of this legislation and given the controversies around a few aspects of that it is important for us to receive alp Public Feedback i look forward to the staff presentation i know there is discussion about the whether and to what extent raising the Square Footage fees i think this is important to hear what the methodology with the proposal today including the issues burn feasibility and want to make sure were square in the Transit System and want to make sure that the development is economically feasible taking a look at transit fees but inclusionary housing and childcare and all the other important impact fees that are assessed now and in the future madam chair, i look forward to the discussion. I want to give supervisor kim a few words. I want to acknowledge the Planning Department and the mta work on bringing this forward that is something thats been in discussion for many, many years i look forward to it passing and updated the Transportation Sustainability fee we know the current fees are far below what the city should be gathering from the private projects in order to help to partially mitigate the transmissions impact that growth is having on the city were a city that is growing very quickly especially during this time and we want to make sure that all of our partners that are helping with that growth are also helping to allow us to provide the services and capital and infrastructure to make the improvements that is a city that continues to move with Public Transit improvements and pedestrian and Bicycle Safety improvements i know that there has been a lot of discussion around the promoted rates im interested in examining over this Land Use Commission and next week when it we need to raise the fees and im interested in the Planning Commissions recognize of either up to 33 percent as a nexus or looking at a gradated fee based on either project height or construction type or by the size of the project i know we have a balance that we need to make a policy as policy pa makers luke the nexus study for the impact of supplemented development and making sure we are looking at the viability of projects when we charge those fees that balance we can talk about today and im interested in talking about grandfathering the projects that are currently in the pipeline and an example we have a project that is currently moving forward through the process through asking for a surveillance weve worked with harrison giving 22 percent of the fees passed by the board and so fees were asking our developers regardless of how of this legislation with that said it pent we ask over developers and in the pipeline to help to contribute this is when the growth is happening and wed like them to support it and b you know, i building Many Developers are on notice this is been a discussion weve been having for many years i look forward to having the conversation on both hospitals and private universities i know have some feeling and thoughts a position on that i will wait until the end of the discussion and finally want to recognize alicia what moved her date well, not retirement but moving on departure thank you supervisor cohen so she could be here at the Land Use Commission that is true dedication to the committee im sorry well be continuing it maybe you can come back next monday on behalf of spur thank you. All right. With that said, thats a perfect segue for the next actually, i was going to bring you up alicia but if you sorry director ram but okay. Why dont you come up first. laughter . Ill be happy to defer to my colleagues the one advantage it does entice alicia to stick around but we want to moving forward im john ram the director of the Planning Department that is a very, very important effort thats been around for a long time i want to remind us this by the 4 actions the mta and the sfmta and the 345irz weve been working to craft the legislation and put together a fee that regrets the needs that the development creates as stated the city is growing at an unprecedented rate right now rethink that is one important tool in the toolbox to help fined transportation and what an important tool it addresses a critical need that new development will pay for adequate and safe transportation the demand that is created by the new development and cuts across transportation steps and importantly as supervisor wiener said this is the first time out of the planned areas weeping where we will be asking Residential Development to pay for the Transportation Demand and finally before i im going to turn it over to ed ed reiskin from mta that is important you recognize that is one part find a 3 part program in the Transportation Sustainability program this is the first phase the second phase with the travel math plan well be working with owners and Property Owners to reduce their traffic for auto use theyve been a system that has been used in other cities and the third leg is the ceqa reform that is at the state legislation legislation has been passed but the regulations implementing that legislation are city forth coming and 3 important parts the program that helps us get a better handle on the transportation funding in the city im going to turn it over to ed reiskin and then alicia will come up thank you. Thank you director ram. Good afternoon compare cowen you framed that will that includes johns remarks weve been working hard with the mayors leadership and this board of supervisors to get our arms around the transportation need for today and the future in terms of the Current System and making investment to strengthen and enhance the Current System the Mayors Office electrifying identified funding gap of 6 billion with the recommendation of a new local revenues to close the gap the first was a prop a that was passed by the voters last november with the strategies it continue to close the rest the gap for the state and federal funds it is what we need from this fee what we need is development to pay for more of its hair the impact on the Transportation System so we can continue to support the development of the city but particularly so we can support continued diversity of our economy which really relies on Public Transit and more variable ways this increased fee revenues will enable us to continue to grow and expands the muni make more of our secretaries walkable and bikeable for people to get around and safe and available ways the legislation before you is a significant increase in the fee about a 60 percent over what we have today in increasing the levels of fee and the use to which we apply i know has been referenced different ideas about aspects is it too much or little does is gratifying or grandfather too much or little and we are whats before you a result of years of staff work and legitimate policy questions we look forward to working with the board and the Mayors Office to get to a resolution this is a significant step were therefore understanding the desire of the board to take the time and do its Due Diligence to make sure we get the right package and we urge a speedy resolution to get the fee adapts i douptsdz to all the developments coming back o coming well start to capture so our staff as john said not just planning and mta but the Transportation Authority and the Mayors Office well be available to get in adopted thank you very much for thank you for your time and before we bring up alicia on her last day i want to the director of the Transportation Authority to come up and say a few words. Good afternoon, supervisors im anna here on behalf of tang from the Transportation Authority i want to speak on behalf of the agency and express our strong support for that item and the t s p as the Management Agency the Transportation Authority is keenly interest would in a holistic approach to managing the citys congestion and having a policy that is chord no sound you think land use with supportive policies and programs our aim to better and then the citys revenue movies of policies with overall in support of our transit first, it is sounding simple is not easy to do so we know that San Francisco has added and will continue to add tens of thousands of jobs and housing over the next decade and we needed to be able to fund the transportation infrastructure to meet the demand by this growth our city impact fees was and is innovative funding mechanism to pay for transit with nonresidential developers contributing to the muni system for years we think that make sense to have market rate Housing Developers pay their fair share this Transportation Sustainability fee brings also in regional operates and caltrain where ridership is sorry region operators like bart and caltrans our county wide Transportation Plan as well as the Mayors Task Force identified the need for billions of of investment in Maintenance Management and expansion of our Transportation System the t s f is one piece of a larger piece but critical building on prop a and prop a and helping seek the voter approvals next year and with the declining state and federal funding we need to invest in our Transportation Needs it again and like to reiterate our support for this item thank you. Thank you without further ado, this is the woman of the hour. Good afternoon, supervisors alicia with the San Francisco muni we have a brief presentation about the fee and provide context for this proposal that i think our directors have provided quite a bit of the background and context ill go through this quickly obviously with your well aware were experiencing tremendous growth and accepting hundred thousand new households and hundred the house new jobs by 2014 our 3 agencies the paradox a and Municipal Transportation Agency have worked to put together a comprehensive we think of our strategies towards managing new Development Impacts on the Transportation System and derive the Sustainability Program from that work it has 3 convenes as john referenced it there a piece that changes how to impacts the system from new development under the California Environmental quality act a piece that will encourage new development and minimize effects on the Transportation System and then a third component the focus of discussion an approval that is in front of you which is levenlg Additional Resources to more fully invest in the system to accommodate growth as ed referenced weve been working collectively over the past years to generate more revenue for the Transportation System one of the important piece that come out of the work of the marries task force was an entire to prioritize the revenue amongst the existing population through the voters on things such maintaining a system of care of vehicles additional skiing efficiency out of the existing system the Fund Proposed through ballot measures are typically oriented targeted in their uses we have fewer Funding Sources in the avenue of adding capacity to our Transportation System so youre feeling was that taking another look at the impact fees for transit and transportation mating made make sense it allows our Development Partners to contribute a fair share to the upkeep and expansion of the Transportation System so the fee itself that is in front of you a citywide knee that replies the Transit Development fee that encourage applies to nonresidential use with the expansion of nonresidential to as well as to institutions no change in the sfpuc for the nonprofit and the determining how how to set the rates for your consideration staff engaged consults one a nexus study that looks at what it quantified the impact of new development on the Transportation System in a cost the city will bear in order to mitigate those effects and look at the feasibility analyze it showed how much fees could be charged without pushing development it a a points essential not having sufficient revenue in order to move forward we tried to strike a careful balance between the amount of investment we could gain from the source with also putting forward a project that the Development County could accommodate without compacting the development with those two factors in mind the proposal is a new residential fee of 774 per square feet and a non1804 and the production repair 7 61 note in are parts of city we have area plans that have been adopted through this board the projects are paying an impact fee of a component they fund transit or transportation locally as proposed today, the ordinance will exempt projects from the transportation consultant of the area plan fees theyll pay the entire transportation fee but ref a receiving a credit for the fee of the impact fees in the planner in terms of applicability this politics to nonresidential and applies on. Can i ask a question. Thank you for all your work over the years i just in terms of a couple of things to touch on first with the Fee Structure and the Feasibility Analysis can you just describe in more detail how the department determined whats feasible and not feasible because i feel like the debate is in a vacuum how own e people say no, it should be higher or kill the development if it goes higher i want to understand it is important for the public to understand what the feasibility assessment is in terms of this fee and the other fees the development pays and the second question is with the area plans exception so it is if youre in say the market octavia area e. R. Ooermentz youre paying a transportation fee you will now pay the t s p and have our area fee reduced how about that will play against what for example, those area plan impact fees will often be finding on improvements in that area so weve used market octavia fees to pay for safety in upper market and the t s p is a improvement fee those are my two easy questions. Sure so ill take the area plan knee question first, i have a slide if i can get that again which shows the calculation of market octavia so youll see the project in the market octavia plan pays the 774 for the Transportation Sustainability fee that current the knee on xhoovk market octavia is 10 theres bus but the portion is reduced from the market octavia fee so the project no total pace 1666 thats the actual calculation as it is proposed for the ordinance today, the consideration around the in of way the fee will pull down had a lot to do with our understanding the Transportation System two parts our understanding the Transportation System as a really a global system it is extremely difficult in not impossible to make certain types of transportation and limit that to a Geographic Area the classic example a new muni bus from one end of the city to its route with that consideration we emphasized the citywide investment to a greater degree the other components oftentimes the transit component of the investment that have been called for in the planned areas with or are significantly cost and the funds generated from the impact fees in the plan areas are insufficient on air own to cover those costs the reality is were having to pull from different places to make those investments and also were prioritizing where the need is greatest so we felt that the needs for investment where it is happening is skfthd i want to clarify in the planned areas a transit fee as well as a street or street component of the fee that street component of the 230e will stay in the planned areas a lot of the investments in people in the neighborhoods really appreciate that they feel it outraging tackling as we walk around their neighborhood will remain in the awe pies of that neighborhood. I dont have a Strong Enough either way but im a supporter of trying to take the transmitted fees and invest in in the overall systems be obviously on a muni line it works from one end of the city or is it doesnt but i know that especially in areas of the city is 19 are absorbing more developments im well aware of this issue noting not only the residents that are seeing that but we are doing the physical changes so more people will be walking and more congestion so you appreciate that explanation. Sure and then the faebd i have a slide we selected 10 prototypes and tried to use real projects a real site to test when the feasibility shrewd labor day the performances we have to take a mix of small versus larger verse midsize for a grasp on how the fee might impact the projects what it studied the burden of impact fees and the existing costs into performa tested the proposed Transportation Sustainability fee at different amounts the rates were set in envelope and then we tested at hundred 25 and 2 hundred and 50 percent of that rate so the Feasibility Study didnt include an analysis of feasibility assume any impact fees that have not been do you want by the board of supervisors and there are other fees the board is considering not embedded in the Feasibility Study study. For example, we know that supervisor yee is interesting angle ordinance to extend the childcare impact fee to residential i know it is a lower fee than this but what is the importance to understand how that plays into this as well. Ill suggest to look at the total feasibility that was determined through the city and the boards call to allocate the room and the feasibility to transportation versus childcare and any of the others priorities that the board has with respect to this what we have is the cap that came out of this analysis i believe that supervisor yees proposal was 1. 50 if you add that in the cap gets lower. Okay and. What you went with was hundred and 28 percent the reason the rate at which we were essentially maximizing the revenue for the critical needs to invest in the Transportation System without push a project over the line into the affectionate there is a wide range of affectionate just based on the different characteristics of any project so this was trying to give a marker to where we felt the fee can be what did you do endirector garcia the types. Im open to increase in the Square Footage amount but i want month make sure we get it right and you know someone at work knows im trying to get more money but i want to make sure were not doing it in a way that will make prongs infeasible you end up less in the Affordable Housing and Everything Else i know that as you said at h 25 and a congestion of perhaps taking the increasing the fees by about a third my understanding that will bring up to instead of hundred and 25 percent more like the 180s im sorry the one 60s so when you say infeasible what do you mean a certain amount for this area the city is becomes infeasible what do you mean in real life. With the Feasibility Analysis was assessing for was ultimately a reduction in the resingle land value 10 percent or greater the making point the city as in setting the fees with the 10 percent reduction inland value and once above the hundred 25 the projects take into that 10 percent reduction or greater they are they vary somewhat significantly because the other factors that play include the cost of construction to build a particular type of projects for example, project from the Transit Center has a fee burden already planned upon them has less sustainability outside of the plan area. Lets say that happens it goes but u down by 10 or 80 percent by x fees being places on the project how so that translate what happens . If something is classified as infeasible does that mean the project under mta doesnt happen or has to be a different timeline it is just from residents or Something Else what exactly do you mean by infeasible. There are more people kwchltd to speak my understanding once you get past the 10 percent the assumption it depends on the project how far the project is moving along in the approve or design and the particular financing my understanding is typically once you get past the 10 percent points youre basically putting a pause on the development over time the land values will even out to a cost burden but there will be a period of time while the market makes that sdwrauchlt i dont know how long my understanding it is not a significant amount of time for that to be integrated into the market condition. Okay thanks i guess as we go through the process im definitely wanting more information not necessary from the department but from the Development Community weve heard concerns impressed backing up exactly what happens i know none of us wants to you know set up a situation were jeopardizing projects that has significant Affordable Housing and were generating significant transportation fees and recognizing that right now residential fees is zero and so were whatever fees we imposed will take it into zero is a positive step forward whatever happens in the future. Thank you, supervisor ill return to the presentation presentation. I sorry i wanted to follow up to that and i do hope you come back next monday and stay another week but being the Planning Commission did recommend going to 33 percent of the New Brunswick noouks what was the response o ironics of the Feasibility Study is it looks like for some projects it will crush them to the point it is infeasible was is based on project size some of the feedback perhaps we should look at tier based on the number of units or Square Footage or the project height and construction type would that help us do get to the sweet spot we want to make sure that youre asking private developers to pay their fair share in helping us to build stronger city that involves public Transit Systems and networks we want to make sure we allow the development to moving forward when we start to look at the tiering does that help us get to a point we can raise the fees. Just to clarify the Planning Commission recommendation was to consider raising the fees up to 33ers of the nexus study were feasible so they particularly included a recommendation to include feasibility in that analysis from our prospective having looked at a variety of projects i as we sort of through that set of recommendations where we will recommend that the board consider using the 5 of the project the number of units in a side or the Square Footage on the residential side as opposed to well find sarah through planning was reviewing a project that was 3 hundred units only had a health limit of 40 so using height were looking at the tip metrological theres it is what it is a little bit of incategorize. That make sense which you have a large floor plate i, be it further resolved build up to 33 that make sense i wonder what the fees increases look like and meet the Economic Feasibility criteria i know well have suggestions from advocates and members of the public how high we can raves a fee one or 5 so what might be feasible. So it does gun depending on the specification the projects and it also depends on one of the recommendations from the board consideration to consider eliminating the area plan credits so from the board were to take that action the effective rate the projects will be charged will increase between 1 and 3 so is it sort of depends on how you layer it and the feasibility if you were to look at project size las vegas you didnt go a higher fee that on bigger projects is more mesoare feasible based on the feasibility. Im open to that discussion of removing the credit for plan area but id like to understand that better in terms of which one is the better there to look at is it letting go of the credit or looking a tier fee the one question the Transit Center the fees are relatively high if we didnt allow a credit we would tap the feasibility of those Major Projects my understanding on the Transit Center the staff corresponding those projects are at the top of the feasibility based on the rates proposed today so eliminating the area plan or adding additional costs apologizes ive been corrected no fee on the t crackers d so liam the credit will not have an impact but the residential is at the edge of the feasibility on the fence today. So im sorry the judge t s f theres a credited for the area plans except for the residential plan. Good afternoon, supervisors so i just wanted to clarify the area plan credit so as mentioned the credit is applied to the transit portion of the fee and so rincon hill and others dont have the transit component they dont receive a credit and the t s f is an additional fee the plan fee is designated to address the impacts that are swoshd a high degree of development the fact we have the Transit Center and other large projects. The credit is in place for ever other area plan so that will be for example, eastern neighborhood and the market octavia and the svments by rincon hill there are no impact fees and in the Transit District plan no fees. Correct. Thank you for that clarification. Thats it right now. You may continue. Okay. Thank you. I was talking applicability so the applicability of the fee is proposed to be on nonresidential uses as well as market rate housing of 21 units and higher in addition it is applied to nonprofit universities that are significantly sized such they require an institutional master plan per the planning code requirement that means the institution it is either 50 thousand square feet e. R. Greater of downtown. Sorry to keep interrupting in terms of Student Housing and an issue that i care a lot about i authored the Student Housing and followup that supervisor did before i took office we are a this is a dramatic, dramatic shortage of Student Housing no and the legislation we progressively authored over time has really relieved the Student Housing on obligations they dont have to they dont have an inclusionary housing requirement and other obligations as well making it easy and inexpensive as possible for universities to build housing instead of asking students fib in the pool and overstretched Housing Stock i upstairs that the Student Housing has impacts like any development does in terms of the rational for a Nonprofit University has to pay when we dont pay inclusionary housing if you could comment on that. Similar to houses that the fee rates were constructed when looking at the application of the fee we were considering what is driving the impact of the Transportation System and to significant degree large institutions have a pretty good footprint on the Transportation System we looked at that and again similarly to the analysis on setting the fee rates we considered the institution to pay the fees so nonprofits again will not be subject to the ss f but with an institution that is sizeable and really have to be quiet large to meet the mastered plan the feeling was there was both a Significant Impact to make that contribution it is clearly the boards decision oink how you want to insure that the fee is in enforcement with the performance globally a number of exemptions that are included in the fee which includes the Affordable Housing, middleincome housing and small residential and Small Business, nonprofits, etc. That are under the threshold of that master plan so it is something for the board to consider the thinking simply to make the impacts. One of the oddities with the Student Housing at least we know of one project subject to it in part because a number of our universities have sovereign amenity and it is a little bit of on odd situation i appreciate the explanation. Okay. So i was just reviewing the exceptions and again, the exemptions were built in an effort for conformity and this be consistent with other policy priorities that the city has i think i went over most of them the other exemption is an exception for the nonprofit hospitals so they also typically will trigger a requirement for an instill master plan but the thinking in constructing this we know that the hospitals are subject to state requirements for seismic overhead hauls between now and 2030 so this language suggests the board consider politically the fees to hospitals as the time their completing the requirements for 2030. The ordinance also includes the grandfathering proposal as constructed today, the grairt will be any project that is feasibility entitlements effective the date of the ordinance will not pay the fee assuming is the nonresidential on the residential the projects will be inclusive for the impact fees and will be required to pay those fees and promotions in the pipeline but have not received their entitlements by the time the ordinance is effective will either pay on the nonrestricted residential or the impact fee or the residential side 50 percent of the proposed it is fair to say t s if it if it goes forward quietly expect to generate 14 million in addition revenue from oversee fees add to the fun that is received from the transit impact fees 28 thousands a year because again what were focused on expanding the transit capacity 55 those few minutes will be targeting not only for muni but bart and the capacity things like expanding the muni fleet we dont get formulas funding and bart theyre proposing and also a component in the fee which is specifically that it is designated to Pedestrian Safety and Bicycle Safety so we have over the past number of months outreach with the stakeholders with the various ta c and Small Business communities and Development Community and transportation and housing and, of course, the boards and Commission Just to review weve presented this item to the Small Business commission and the Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors those unanimously recommended approval the proposed ordinance the Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval with a number of modifications they ask the board to consider weve covered. Few if you one of the recommendations consider the grandfathering proposal that the projects applied for an entitlement application after july one 2014 will may 40 percent of the t s f rather the 50 percent and the universities exemption and apply the fee to the hospitals at this time they recommended again considering a fee increase that was the up to 33 percent of nexus but take into consideration the feasibility constraints and or roving the credit and finally, the provision in the ordinances that requires that staff or the city produce an updated feasibility analyze o analysis every 5 years for an updated nexus study at the commission recommend they move it up to 3 years and be on a list of bodies that that be done sooner that from the board of supervisors say in the ordinance. That close any preservation if you have any questions, well be happy to answer them. Supervisor kim has a few questions. On the hospital exemption theres a couple of things i have to say about the nonprofit status of the various hospitals which and seem to be angle accurate kind of bucket there is a large difference from Chinese Hospital my understanding close is to Percent Charity care and another fees but im kind of interested in that kind of differentiation but i completely understand the incredible costs the hospitals have to bare with the update with the seismic updated as well i so understand that rational for exempting the nonprofit hospitals while the update is required that being said any examination on the hospitals much the reasoning and the letters around the major costs to upgrading our hospitals not sure if medical Office Buildings have the same kind of costs can you differentiate before those two facilities. In looking at this particular exemption we didnt differentiate between hospitals versus medical buildings the exemption to the entity as a nonprofit anything they will be exempt from the fees at one point we tried a a differentiate between medical or hospitals which provided a majority of their care to underserved population versus those that had a different mix of Service Provisions and so we take into account that and did work with the Public Health department and ultimately moved away from it lateral or larger because that was not the right time for hospitals. On private universities do you know what the tsif is enabling if we didnt accept the private universities. Approximately 400,000 per year. Thank you, supervisor wiener. So in terms of the hospital exemption image we have battle scares from three years ago around this particular site one of the interesting aspects of this issue of whether hospitals should nonprofit hospitals to be exempts or nonexempt from the transit impact fees for any large hospital projects there is almost certainly a Development Agreement so whether or not t s p politics the transit fees can be part of that agreement for example, when t pmc went through the approval process that needs a agreement for the hill erection even though it was exempt t c paid 4 or 5 million in impact fees to the bus Rapid Transit so do you have a sense in terms of the the i know that it is speculative but the hospital projects in the either in the pipeline or projects that have been at least contemplated what portion of them will require the development on the plan so theyll need some kind of rezoning it is an issue i think. I appreciate the point i dont have on estimate of the breakdown of seismic work or hospital work like medical office building. Im talking about the breakdown it requires a Development Agreement or not when the Development Agreement it required there is ouch going to be transit impact fees whether or not the ordinance requires it. Thank you for clarifying my understanding it that there were maybe one or two more projects that would specifically be meeting the seismic requirements and therefore, be on scale with the Development Agreement not that im aware of of additional ones being met. Thank you commissioner avalos has joined us has a few questions. Oh, director ram. Dr. Murase director ram. Part of the analysis of whether they require a Development Agreement is based on the extent of the work its not clear the work we know a couple of our large hospitals hsa have to do seismic but not clear how much to expand open site if their replacing Square Footage on site their upgrading the Square Footage the fees dont apply 0 only if their relocating or expanding for Square Footage i could see a situation we dont do a da depending on the size. Thank you madam chair rosales. Thank you that which is good to know for clarification im sure i was not here for the whole presentation i was tracking the t s f it is an incredible time to be re92 the impact fee with the t s f but setting a persistent how were looking at development and and then the development with the Transportation Needs in San Francisco looking at the entire city my concerns were seeing development happening in certain parts of the city were not serving our transit facilities elsewhere where the transit is not happening so that was overflow room any interest in weighing in at this process but i think more than anything it make sense we have a discussion that get talking about other resources of transportation funding how we actually support and moved on what kind of fees the developer pays when developing in the city i know they have been a few deductions about the types of structures i want to putdown out what makes sense when it comes to the hospital exemption ive been telling people i would like to eliminate the hospital exemption i think there are things in place like john ram said wed be replacing or renovating and not seeing a fee but to me the distinction been the gray areas of nonprofit hospital is one i think that is we should be able to address in legislation moving forward a level of charity care those hospitals produce 50 Percent Charity care should be exempted when building Additional Space but lower chit grant in with their obituary fees in their development should actually trouble to the t s f ive interested now we looping in residential into the t s f and the tsif were looking at size of development we currently have 21 and over our fee is 7. 74 per square feet thats 20 percent of the nexus were not seeing the same types of development the 24 to 50 units could be in District League of women but probably not seeing the 41 to 99 in district 11 you could so a lot of values and land visuals with the district 11 maybe something that will be less of value than elsewhere in San Francisco it make sense we tier according to size and number of units for residential i have a sheet ill hand out with the colleagues im not on the committee but certainly when it comes to the full board it there those are discussions it is important amendments are thoroughly discussed and in the Land Use Commission to me the offer hundred units should be the highest fees up to 33 percent of nexus the Residential Development that has a large number of units can be economically feasible despite a higher fee we know with the feasibility studies has been deny the nonrestricted remain could be tiered ive proposed in my notes not egregious and under 32 nexus when we have the tier developments for that nonresidential i like what was mentioned about you know grairt in for residential the projects that came and initiated the permit process before july 1st, 2014, from the tiered approach the projects will actually start initially their development and planning and were having this discussion about the tsif and the t s f includes the residential before us and not anticipated by a lot of developers so that to me is important we actually dont necessarily make those pay the entire fee but for those projects and the similarly with nonresidential to see that happening as well and lastly were looking at studying for the future i think that we still have in the quit figured the geographic approach but looking at the types of development in terms of number of units but i know were also there are different land values for different parts of San Francisco that should are considered and fees on the land uses theyre not as high and create a disincentive to develop when we apply any fees i want to look at the future to look at things how we can structure geographic basis. Thank you, thank you very much. Colleagues, any other questions . Remarks. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so i have a couple of remarks im refer them i know we have people anxious to speak when i call our name you have 2 minutes and when the bell is soft you have thirty seconds left calling names so, please. Thank you growth funds growth in Pedestrian Safety and Bicycle Safety kills the effect of the auxiliary and remodels an nexus fee shows the disparity of 75 percent between the nexus costs and the tsif fees the neighborhoods organizations were excluded shareholders but were funding the infrastructure mitigation by the growth by you future bones and parking increases racing the tsif brown above the monuments inhibit the projects on the west side and fire chief hospitals expansion should not be given an exception and the point of impact should be considered the fees not used crosstown and the p d m should be regulated and public and private fees and mountain views and the presidio shuchlt until the Green House Gas emissions and delivery destroys should be eliminated on the Mitigation Solutions mta searches for a Training Facility and maybe priced out of the city this operator in alameda and the Fire Department will vacant the Treasure IslandTraining Facilities growth must fund growth with no exemption in noah valley we have one 1909 victorian that was remodeled and now it is 5 bedrooms, 5 car garages worst 5 million under this legislation that item becomes a free pass we have over 17 developments in the last 8 years in the immediate region thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors my name is litigating miles im the master plan manager its ucsf e state of im here to speak on behalf of the university i want to focus on one that the that was made at the Planning Commission and today one of the statement one of the primary reaps for removing the charitable exception other colleges and irrelevant are Revenue Growth that burdens the transportation that assumption didnt apply for i was i usf it is retraining the campus enrollments and the university is committed to enrollment ceiling in the i m t to less than one percent a year half the historical rates and is proposed Student Housing from the mountain 6 hundred beds and intended to house the current student population right now how we have 35 to 38 percent of the ungraduate that increases it up to 44 percent is in the housing for new enrollment that is intended to bring a current students is the on the campus by expansion r extension out of the general market thates because the housing situation in the city students that live on campus dont commute and the usf have not allowed cars so less commuters by carr or transit so the notation that usf projects particularly housing is a growths factor is a gross miss understanding thank you for your time. Thank you continuing. Good afternoon. My name is barbara im a practicing architect in the establishment regarding the sustainability fee i want to ask the statement of fact be included in the exempting implication is provides Affordable Housing to students and in so doing that builds community and adds diversity i am a graduate of usf and my husband he required from practicing law here in San Francisco after 4 years we won academic slippers slorpz my father died when i was 12 and our windowed mother would not allows to go to school in the city without the you should see side banners usf imgsz e since 1855 has been encouraging students to leads themselves into is fabric the city this is a traditionally motto for the city and universities 5 three years ago when i was a freshmen added usf i volunteered to teach basketball and learned more than i taught but down there with the kids and volunteered to usual at Martin Luther king and today university of california, San Francisco has homeless shelters and art and Community Garden they need a place to live while theyre here exempting usf will help to keep the city as wonderful as it is thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Thank you for having me and providing me the opportunities to speak you to all today, im monique aim im a second Year Graduate in the second Affairs Program at ucsf from the endurances of chicago and moved to San Francisco for graduate school i choose usf because it i recess in addition with the value of usf it was a wonderful Higher Education program and an importantly my graduate assistanceship offered off campus and i wont have gone without that im here to ask for the exception to be retained the ucsf is proposing to build a New Residence on campus im concerned that fee will have a negative impact on Student Housing from my experience you housing was incredibly important to me as a goodwill gave out and now graduate student like i said, i did my undergraduate work in chicago and i was able to mediated with piers within 5 minutes of being notified those i was able to attend Group Project meetings and had a Significant Impact obtain any education currently on campus im able to attend Program Meeting during off hours and better able to connect with professionals and Staff Members at programs and talks i believe id not had this experience if i had to leave after work i believe this helps me to have a rich experience and im concerned that thank you. Next group of speakers will be calling names . Madam chair thank you if it pleas the committee we video another Hospital Committee who could speak well leave it to our discretion. Im david from northern and Central California we have a trade group in San Francisco i want to speak about the impact on the hospitals ill be brief every nonprofit hospitals is organized under the set of legal principle conflicting as a not for profit whether chinese or others your subject to the stwrik irs and take codes that means every nonprofit hospital 80 has to demonstrate their nonprofit we have folks that should examples one thing to recall not modern Hospital Construction is unique it is expensive there are seismic upgrades in result in a larger footprint with the same number of hospital by these and employees why is this state regulatory overall seismic upgrades it is one hundred and 10 billion we know that construction is up considerably in the last years this is resulting in a larger footprint with the same number of hospital by these and employees we want to talk about briefly the nexus study and how to treats nonprofit hospitals and in account for the specifics one it lumps us together in the nonresidential category we think we know our trips are different, and then two as a relates to medical Services Employee density through one hundred and 50 square feet is closer to 6 hundred to one thousand square feet it is different and lastly to the sorry thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please good afternoon choelg and supervisor wiener and supervisor kim i work at st. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco and here to talk about Community Benefits which is the demonstration of the hospitals nonprofit status and in that all nonprofits hospitals are required to do that and there are 3 components of the Community Benefit which i want to be southern we appreciate one we talked about quite frequently the level of charity care is important in the mission of nonprofit hospitals and the medicare shortfalls with the folks into medicare weve seen a shift into the shortfall and the Community Benefit programming of which we have a lot of programs in the communities that really are sdriektd towards serving addressing upstream facts and circumstances that effect peoples heartache i know that sxm is aware the project for helping with the parks and safety that effects the impacts of health and it is important to recognize that the additional fees on nonprofit hospitals in the form of supporting infrastructure like transportation a slipping e slippery slope we end up pagan for if for the raising costs of health care i think that is important we buildings that those fees come back at us and so if we are norwalk those fees in a future development for the Dignity Health hospitals or for chinese and camtc were specific to the community they serve that make sense than rolling it in as a mechanism to support the infrastructure in the city thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors im sutter street i work at Chinese Hospital and provide Health Outreach into the community as you may know Chinese Hospitals is a no Point Hospital were nonprofit as the other hospitals what i like to talk about the programs we develop and what we work with with all the hospitals we partner with all of them and the projects include the sf free program with the nexus and the Diabetes Initiative without the partners of the hospital a lot of those programs wouldnt survivor of sustain themselves Chinese Hospital is is about planning we want to expands into the community and with the additional taxes that envelopes our ability to expand the clinics and extremely e extremely challenging to meet the fees a lot of the work in the hospitals and clinics and communities is politically better care without having the effect of Health Care Costs thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, everyone. Madam chair and supervisors my name is sister mary im the sister ever mercy and ive worked at as far as i am concerned Medical Center as is liaison for communities hamburger he was born in San Francisco of immigrant parents and raise on that is engel side i entered the mercy in 1963 and represented my degree in 1971 and negotiation 1 in nursing in Communities Health with the focus on the management of systems i love my city San Francisco it is rich in diversity and acceptance of people regardless of gender orientation or economic or social standing as a nurse ive felt the Community Health was the way to bring about the key to illnesses preservation and for people that live here i along the religious people say it is up to the hospitals to implement the proportions the no Point Hospitals in San Francisco shows o hospitals take seriously their obligation to care for the niece find poor in San Francisco we dont have investors that demand the profits careful management over our resources is focused on maintaining the province of qualify of care we cant say turn our imply by these into airbnb services the mission of as far as i am concerned is unchanged for hundred and 58 years from day one of the mission is the same but the prelims and the verbiage used certainly has changed inform meet the niece of the time thank you. Thank you next speaker calling names . Thank you good afternoon, everyone. Im peter straus for the San Francisco transit riders and a letter from us in the organizations in our file i guess i want to return to the basically, were certain not audited development you think it is important that the city receive the city deserves to receive more than 25 percent recovery the costs that the development the nonprofit are front of the encompasses on the city and is Economic Feasibility suggests Study Suggests that a well structured proposal b. A. Can recover 33 or more than that percent of those costs the analysis as originally presented and the proposal is convert in another way the nexus study has a sxheven projection what takes place in the city supervisor wiener has recently called for the master plan this is something we support but the type of proposals that will go into that are no where in the capital projections of nexus study and no north beach subway in geary subway in bart second two and no b d x project as we go forward what do we do about that . Were not to recognize the specification that is a revenue measure the Feasibility Study suggests is it not unreasonable to recover 33 percent semi excuse me. 25 to 33 percent not in addition to tsif adjacent and the proposed 14 middle we urge to add to the recovery the at least 20 million of the floor we have support muni thank you very much thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors and madam chair im john with the consortium the 9 nonprofit housing in the city 94 thousand patients 90 percent of San Francisco population and here to support the nonprofit hospitals strong history of the nonprofit hospitals this charity care even though we have health care in San Francisco it is built into the charity Care Software and the programs like have been critical to safeway lives every single year year this is part of the program that Kaiser Permanente offered and several years ago they provided a structure for the access to the health care in short we need this kind of money to help us the Nonprofit Health centers to continue to expand access to Health Care Mission bay anything else will be detrimental to the new programs thats why we are a great deal of for the Affordable Health care and hepsz with the pressure today currently it is impossible to get providers we looked at the aspirins just to commend the staff this is true of Health Department we thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im nicole an executive director of walk sf thank you for your time today on this topic t s if is an Exciting Program to include the bicycle and pot of funds ear supportive of the concept and the fee in general we know our Transportation System is critical for investing in the growth of our city and the future of our city in terms of reducing injuries for pedestrians bicyclists and motors along with the vision zero plan it this will be an important fee to help to realize those projects there are 3 components of the fee that i want to provide comment on today weve worked closely with the coalition and other transportation advocates and really excited to see the fee we have 3 things to highlight in terms of the moving forward with the fee the first is the actual percentage the nexus right now only developers will only pay around 25 percent of the nexus of the fee impacts it the fee has on the Transportation System we would like to see that the Planning Department suggests 33 percent on the potential tiering were definitely supportive of that we would like to see the grandfathering reduced so that the folks that have submitted paper within the last year maybe a 25 percent break and the thirds piece is parking right now parking is not exclude in the Square Footage we know that contributes to the congestion and other challenges on the safety impacts we would like to see that computed so people will reduce theyre parking and support the investments in the Transportation System. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon tom executive director added liveable city here to speak in support of this moving forward but asking you to helpful may bey few minutes first of all, i want to speak to the strength relative to the tsif is raise for money and walking and kooifl and Regional Transit is included as we grow there are impacts on the industrial environments and regional and to have m them includes minimally is progress we hope there will be more process including market rate housing and the area plans the eastern neighborhoods better neighborhoods and in the citywide make sense as well looking at greater discipline in using those fees their one time money for capital in the past tsif into muni budget one they we cant balance our own budget to the expenses youre not running a Transit Agency but i a pyramid scheme and the funding didnt go to mitigate that so the impacts of growths are still unfund this discipline is important we ask you to consider the refinements but the biggest one in parking back in a decade ago the board of supervisors that the impact fees should apply to parking it creates impacts on the Transportation System for congestion mostly but increased danger to the pedestrians and cyclists that section 4231 okay. When this fee comes as a board needs to include parking not only does if not include that but looech the section theyre not complying with the section but destroying the evidence we ask you to include parking. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors im tyler representing the Bicycle Coalition i want to start as other said by reiterating our support forever the tsif is an important measure that clearly links the impacts of San Francisco on our Transportation System it is as we look for ways to enable people to stay in San Francisco to continue living in San Francisco particularly when affordability is a concern making sure that they can get around the city in an affordable a safeway were appreciative im reiterate toms comments were supportive of many things that the Planning Commission directed the board to go look at a few weeks ago excited to see consideration of a fee that better reflects the Impact Development on transportation and encourage you to think about how it plays out in different neighborhoods supervisor wiener said the darned is if neighborhood to neighborhood this should reflect that we appreciate the adjustments around the waiver for the combrairth by the Planning Commission a few weeks ago and the Biggest Issue we think is critical if a consistency is addressing the parking issue the amount of space that is going to parking should be included in the amount of Square Footage it is linked to the tsif we hope youll consider that and a transportation link essential for the transportation space it didnt make sense it have to excluded from tsif thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors did he did he workman in the chamber of commerce we are quite comfortable with the tsif legislation before it got to the Planning Commission we like it better than the 2012 the 5 thousand exemption from the Small Businesses this is important we like it we thought there should be is 8 hundred square feet trigger for pdrs could go higher but we like the Small Businesses generally are exempt from the tsif we feel strongly that usf should fall under the charitable exemption from the post secondary institutions with the master plan we came up with usf u ucsf it feels like theyre being singled out the speaker said why it should be exempted we dont feel that hospitals should have the tsif applied we are impressed suppressed that the Planning Commission took them out youve heard from other speakers where why it is important to not have the t s f with the state mandated seismic upgrades and the costs per bed is between 2 and 4 millions or Something Like that it is a crazy expensive for the amount of money we think youll be able to collect from hospitals from the ss f is not rthd or worth it, it is neglectable in terms of the fees for residential and commercial were comfortable with the mta promoted in the original legislation we think obviously that is thoughtful fully decided and appreciate the questions supervisor wiener about the feasibility that is very, very important and up 80 you want want to make sure we raise money for transportation without incentives for thank you. Next speaker. Tim costing on behalf of the Housing Coalition weve had presentations over the years and a big discussion on friday in broad terms we deservedly support the t s f and the membership will pay the part of it we recognize that not having a fully functioning transportation is our vision we want it to work but it is a little bit dismaking to see what happened after the proposed proposal from mta and planning what i heard just now, was raufshth remarkable it is not often had said but it was mentioned the fee was set after extensive economic Feasibility Analysis at a point that maximize the fee revenues to the city weve heard kind of ousted landish how much to be raised and this though will get for funding for transit we agree about the funds but not if it makes projects infeasible the 774 was i understand to balance a lot of prototypes and set it at a level that will maximize level for transportation as a worthy goal eliminating the transit impact fee credit is based on all ether and heard that breaches a good faith the idea was that what youll be expected to pay youll get credit but looks like piling on ill describe it and others said to figure out a way to capture the revenue for physical improvements in the neighborhood thats the strong desire afraid the benefit will not be for the neighborhoods thank you. A few more names mr. Yip ill call you youll close us out calling names . Thank you guys and im these eric son ive handed you 3 partnerships the first page is an accurate analysis of what it costs to produce a units of housing today thats an average 40 percent 2 bedrooms and 20 percent studios it costs about 800,000 the value of that unit as an Apartment Building with a 4 one half cap is around 900,000 in order to break even and provide a 6 percent yield on the equity rents of 6,000 were rights on the edge you think that right now we are paying a hundred and 14,000 per unit of impact fees we accept the tsif as proposed ill strongly, strongly urge you not to increase that were right on the edge youre talking about an additional 10,000 just the water just the purple piles is costs 4,000 a per unit if you follow the advice your talking about 4,000 center the profited is 90,000 dont do this really a one percent Interest Rate will shop all apartment approximate dont do it and then youre not getting maneuvering or its a really, really bad idea my thanks. Mr. Eric son i want to make sure if we move a little bit closer. Sorry. Question require the Development Fees to increase ill saying the production will stop. No right now if you put an extra 6,000 a unit thats okay for a you can do that for the longterm i believe but right now on a project that is in the pipeline is really, really difficult we went through a long talks about about the appropriate thing none of the developers are budget this this is totally out of the blue when you are going into a Development Deal our looking at all our costs as best you can this came really to have this imposed not exactly out of the blue but an unanticipated amount you can absorb a 6 thousands plus in our portfolio you have to do you believe that the way that people are proposing you cant do it im trern and by the way, no projects effected by this all and dont none of my projects are effected im really, really concerned you get up to hundred and 25 thousands of impact fees of city fees thats just unheard of no where else in the United States okay. Thank you. Thank you. calling names . Thank you, supervisors david director of planning for california eastbound college of the arts a small school under 2 the house student nonprofit and post secondary i was worried that was the trigger of thinking about those impact fees i know all of you are aware of the challenges of making hire education affordable in an expensive place like San Francisco i applaud you for the work you did on the Student Housing ordinance bus 3 weeks ago 2 hundred of our students and the conservative of music moved into the 9th street and missions instead of jumd on craigslist so i know you understand the challenges of creating affordable Student Housing ill hope that as you look through the various triggers on this fee you keep in mind thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im howard a member of sf transit riders in the long term advocate i want to give you an historic look at this problem so 40 years ago when i had to find a place to live i choose a place near transit most people know the value of transit maybe not as much as i side but they do and then two years ago i found out the for bears over a hundred years ago decided to tax themselves to have the tunnel brake light in twin peaks and that means that landowner know the value of transit and so here you are trying to keep transit from providing the service and iverson said a level the fees are two of i say perhaps that level is much higher than that i believe all the fees essentiallyly come from the land the value of the land the price of the lands you recognize that because you have this grairt that system from the project was underway you didnt know about the fees were so high so well not charge that thats a recognition of that the land value the price value who knows what the value is the price is so high relative to the price of the building in San Francisco it is unreasonable so i think you should really think about this problem and see when you can get oh, one more thing ill say that you need to not only do you have to build capital but provide Services Continue the muni operation all that counts and when you taking land value deal with the parts of city the price of the Square Footage is not as high as my house e. R. Pacific heights. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors with t pmc i want to speak about the development with the city it is