Fee for nonresidential and pdr projects filed before july 24th to pay it with the partial rotunda. Supervisor alavos will be leading the discussion. Good it you this is hopefully, the culmination of years of work moving this item out of committee we the item before you amendments made to the Transportation Sustainability fee we made them in december of last year these railroad also an amendment ive attempted to make in the fall of last year before i begin i want to thank the Planning Department and the mta. All of their work developing these new fee structures for Development San Francisco they are significant improvement on the previous tdif and include the retain that had not been impacted but now in the tdif so to make that clear the proposed fee is not near significant to offset the impacts that the developments have on the Transportation Network and the Economic Feasibility study houses shows it sport a higher fee without the feasibility of the projects this ordinance has made two amendments to bring the tdif in line with the fees on the Residential Projects the first part of this ordinance with the amended changes to charge the nonresidential Square Footage over 99 thousand nine hundred plows square feet so to raise it under 2 to 21. 04 currently at 1804 weve approved the new tsf for the residential units 21 units to 99 units the fees is he over 7 increasing on the residential unit one and above 8. 74 13 percent higher and the nonresidential currently is 8 from 8 hundred to 99 thousand plus square feet is 1804 cents were proposing the new one here is going to be a dollar more for anything over one hundred feet 9 plus the residential represents o represents a higher significance of fee compared to nonresidential the nexus study show see the developments adjudicate 3 times the impacts of our Transportation System as Residential Developments generate the planning staff saw the feasibility combined with supervisor yees childcare impact fee and found the two portals are over one hundred square foot will be feasible the impact on the residual land use of 86 combined with the childcare fee will only be negative 7 percent on the two commercial protocols that is less than what the would make a project financially unfeasible this is still as i said weigh blots threshold on november 3rd the board of supervisors rejected any proposal to the nonresidential tsf nonresidential it westernly trying to make a 50 percent increase to 54 now the nonresidential footage we tried to raise it on november 3rd up that was not sports the amendments the item before you is only a 2 increase by 2 the responsibility on our nonresidential develops and generate 2 million a year in addition revenue awhile still remaining with the projects to be financial feasibility weigh blow the thresholds the Second Amendment in this legislation is for nonResidential Projects that was submitted an application before july 21st, 2015, but not received final approval shall pay the difference of 50 percent between the tsf and the tdif this is will mirror the grairthd of the Residential Projects and making nonresidential tsf policies k3467b9 with residential policies and of course this make sense we know that nonresidential buildings have a 3 times greater impact ann as residential buildings colleagues the item before you and i urge your support altogether the projects that will be affected grandfathered in will be 30 million an additional one time funding for your transportation given the t thirty process that was identified over thirty billions it make sense we comfortable together every dollar for the Transportation Services the city thank you, colleagues thank you very much supervisor wiener. You thank you very much madam chair thank you supervisor avalos for acknowledging that the Transportation Sustainability fee we passed last november was the culmination of many years of work as you recall the precursor was transit fee was passed 35 years ago with a blanket exception for residential, commercial has been paying the transit impact fees for 35 years last year november for the First Time Ever we after years and years of work and after a previous related effort fell apart at the board of supervisors three years ago almost 4 years ago we were able to move through the board of supervisors and extension of the transit impact fees to residential so Residential Development is now First Time Ever paying transit fees not just projects that are big enough with an agreement we negotiated this is a big, big win and in addition to not paying the impact fees that ordinance increased what commercial Pace Commercial development pays versus under the impact fees so it was passed increased and in fact, it increased it the legislation that was introduced and then in committee as chair cohen recalls we increased it on commercial by enabling it another dollar per square feet with it was originally introduced tsf and the Residential Developers were not happy they especially\fight us on it we passed that ordinance after years and years of work and the mayor as i understand it into law. New system that is significantly increasing transit sxheekz for commercial and for residential i dont know why we need to going to the well and say well it is not good enough lets take on a few more dollars we can tackle more impact fees and every good enough as someone that fought very, very hard sometimes winning and sometimes losing to increase the funding for Public Transportation is not the way to do legislation the board passed this legislation and rejected the identical amendment and let this ordinance work and, in fact, it is already working ill nobody be supporting this ordinance today, i think we need to look at different ways to fund transit and not looking to one source probation officer make sure this is broad basis funding for transportation this is frankly sometimes lacking building thank you very much thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair and supervisors its been i feel like a rip van win he will moment in the board on the 2009 sustainability fees as indicated was for commercial Development One time capital and by way of operating money the c3 that area grow over time encompasses the waterfront and move forward south and supervisor wiener indicated some years ago was extended to Residential Development i was there and one of the votes on the board to bring back that fee at the time that was not updated in many, many years in alignment with the proper rates at the dawn of the 21st century some 1 or 16 years ago and there is no question but that these costs need to be these fees need to be upgraded i enjoyed the nexus study and the Economic Feasibility study and respectfully part company with supervisor wiener having read the findings and i actually think over the course this think an balancing act you have to great competing the housing on the one hand and keeping on the transportation side on the other other and finding the swop is our goal but interested in reading this i think those fees should are been updated at the beginning of this boom and not waiting until 2015 but noirnl will have the at least impact from the transportation of sustainability fee the residential cost burden to the due do the imposition of the tsf is equality to the costs of one to two percent depending on the cost of construction the neighborhoods where the bulk happens this will not impact the overall faent or the housing a lot of further analysis but predicated on a fundamental change the way the city undertakes the evaluation of transportation l o s level of service and easily reduces the in the amount of and the costs the fundamental studies and predicated on that if you look at did rages so forth the Feasibility Study at 100 percent or one and 25 or one and 50 percent i have to say that with all due respect i think we could realize for money for the capital and sequester operating i noticed in reading all the material and in discussions with folks is that the transit impact fee could be spent on capital and on praits costs as compared to the p. S. F only on capital i maybe missing something but like to revisit and see if we can semester the possibility of putting praits costs back in so it will be same thing the tdif can be spent on operating i have a number of amendments colleagues that id like to offer to the tsf legislation but for one think that the extra 2 for projects over one thousand square feet are sustainable is financially not stop housing thats been expressed in the Economic Feasibility study and quite frankly that was done in 2012 with the discussion began and i realize a lot of work has been done by any colleagues and the legislatively branch and the other agencies but well have that 30 million youve seen in our pocket now. Thank you. Thank you supervisor avalos. Thank you well, this is actually, i worked on multiple methods of raising money for muni this is not the only way im trying to raise money for money as supervisor wiener indicated and ill again echo my comments and, of course, supervisor peskin comments these fees we fell short of the kleenex of those fees based on the analysis from the Planning Department and, yes the city has been working many, many years on tsf and it only was last year, i got involved with that process and thank my staff member jerry but to the Planning Commission and talking about raising the fee levels and the Planning Commission voted to race that when it came before the board of supervisors we didnt raise the levels until it was discussed but when it come forward weve settled on American People arbitrary number well below for the fees it is an arrest warranty number and in agreement 200 with developers and with the supervisors i think it is important we use our Committee Structure to legislate and make improvements onramp legislation when it comes before use it is not tied up when it gets to the board of supervisors i want to insure we get ever dollar of funding we have not yielded done so weve left money on the table and colleagues, i want to make sure we have this major bite at apple before it is and hopefully well a approve that after Public Comment and i support the contemplate from supervisor peskin and have that votes on at the full board weve not experiences from full development from the Transportation System supervisor wiener. Thank you. I want to agree with one comment supervisor peskin made years ago we in 2012 attempted to not do everything that tsf did but a number of things to expand the scope when we does the refresher understanding with the replacement and this is not supervisor peskin was not a member of the board but it fell apart because it was found challenges that we had and it felt apart so we ended up moving forward essentially without any kind of significant change we had a little opportunity in 2012 but there was not the support moving forward to do that we tried. Lets go to Public Comment. Through the chair or to the City Attorney or answer do you know why the operating dollars came out. I think the thinking was when you look at sorry through the chair when you look at transit impact fees they are one time fees they are incredibly sickle well go through years where we have sxheents the revision and years it is just a butch crop because of the exclusion the last few years when you have a source that is that incredibly volatile it make sense to use it for one time like capital i think we look at the capital it is expansive a huge gray area and capital in terms of the state of repair it is not strip active some people think of a good state of repair rehabilitating vehicles etc. I think that thinking and i know there is people that want to see what is really one time up and down that can set you that for flurry know you know this is the thinking behind it thank you. All right. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, lets go to Public Comment i have 3 speaker cards any other member of the public want to speak as a reminder well have to minutes peter. On behalf of the transit riders first thank you to the committee for all that we appreciate that but i do urge that you adopt the revised ordinance before you when tdif was passed it so you get to recovery 50 percent level of the associated costs over the years that amount has varied it has not dropped blow 25 percent supervisor wieners correct the absolute number rose in the tsf that was identified the nexus study and that happened but the percentage that was recovered is smaller than before it started out 21 and first when it came to the committee now 22 maybe and a half percent but the proposed amendments raise it to 23 something is it so still sort of 25 but very much support this and this is remaining the lost percentage of recovery weve as put before the commercial factor, and, secondly, the slide i support the opening of the two flexible funds this is a slide prepared by the sfmta with the equality strategy is it shows applies to any project that is solving projecting problems is a threelegged stool you can build by Capital Projects and solve some problems by managing the resources better but some problems can only be solved by adding this is true as the city grows so we realize this is a source of equality but the agency should have the flexibility to use its resources in developing this venture thank you. Ms. Deedee workman. Good afternoon dede with the chamber of commerce the chamber have worked on the tsf proposals o proposals and the initial proposal we worked in 2012 to stop the contribution quite frankly with respect working with a Large Coalition of nonprofit groups that saw the stipulations was to burn some that measure failed and continued to work with supervisor wiener and others to revamp the tdif to find the the tsf we could agree, too, we worked together in good faith to cup that you with the numbers that could work and those numbers were accounted right here in this chamber and that was not then two months ago and now this comes back with no notice, no discussion no contention the fees should be raised we feel strongly that the fees were worked out in good faith with the supervisors and our stakeholders are the right fee the rights fee levels we dont understand why it comes back and dont agree with the proposed increase for the nonresidential construction and we urge you to reject it thank you. Thank you. Family madam chair i dont know the history that mr. Workingman is speaking to because this is a fee notice it was published two weeks ago so quite a bit of notice and as a matter of fact that came up at my first meeting on december 8th this is why that appears so two months ago of notice and relative to the speakers comments i dont know what was worked out in this room i was here on december 8th when we adopted the previous matter but the study in the spring of last year almost a year ago is exactly where those numbers come out of they dont come out of any negotiation with the boards their so forth on page 5 of the circle study and the case pdr at 7 61 is the legislation and the 1 he and 25 tsf at dollars per square feet for the residential is precisely the study and 18. 04 was the circle study i have no idea what youre talking about. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon tom executive director of liveable city to speech in favor it is an incredible important times for Public Transportation is creates value for Property Owners weve involved billion dollars and created billions of and billions of dollars and capturing to sustain the extra we have and build the extra necessary to accommodate it growth is for this is a balanced sustainable so supervisor avalos for bringing this forward just a thought on the capitals versus praits i would say i think that the Capital Investments we have the oil tsf most spent for operation as a result weve made few investments in capital and then we didnt build any capacity to accommodate the growth in riderships if youve ridden bart or muni or any other mod of transportation you know were pga people over we have such jam packed trains one of the ideas behind tdif youll need to expand physically the capacity of that Transit System to accommodate the additional rider weve not going done that since 1970s it is time we did that it will add disciplinarian the capital but it is hard to cut in other words, to sustain the operations but theyre incredibly important to the system and the other thing if you neglect capital youve spend more and more time and energy trying to sustain the equipment beyond its uses thank you very much. Calvin transfor justice he speak in favor raising the office fee and with a greatest flexibility two reasons one first on raising the fee the fee is the nexus study fee the nexus study it is important to understand take into account the great mask change, if you will, technology of commercial Office Buildings under the old tdif for those of us around in those days when muni buses barley beat the dinosaurs the assumption was there was one Office Worker for every 5 hundred square feet of commercial be Office Building the days of cub he lives and days of computer when the tip writers took place a lot of space were looking at a level of density in the office daytime population of about one worker per 200 and 50 or 200 square feet were talking about Office Buildings that are packing in drastically more maybe 50 percent more workers per square feet than in is old days and tsf nexus study set the rate at a higher level and finally on flexibility we have a measure on the ballots put on by the mayor that will end flexibility for telexing excuse me for any other new revenue raise i think that is the only chance the board to increase the flexibility in muni funding for operations operations are key in bringing about muni Appellate Court and increasing operational capacity is key. Thank you, mr. Welch ladies and gentlemen, is there any additional Public Comment . On item one all right. This matter is in the hands of this body Public Comment is closed. Supervisor peskin. Madam chair to the Deputy Director i know i promised you this gets complicated mr. Gibner the ordinance the item before you is a subset of the ordinance that was before this body in december so the very small amendments that im going to verbally propose relative to operations and let me previous by saying to any colleagues given the mta fleblths is important i understand the notion that one time money should be used for capital when you can over time see that you get a certain inflow of consistent revenue and when you have a budget the size of mtas budget it is a source of flexibility you have a baseline that comes in year by year there is a tsf or tdif at least they can use some portion of the cooperation with in their structure id like to give them that perplexity and to that end ill propose in section 411 a points 7 that we insert let me pull up for 11 a. 7 where it says ill read to you couldnt melon if the correction of tsf eastern neighborhoods shall be held in trust by the pleasure of the city and county of San Francisco under california government code 66 plus of the fee act it shall be skrktd to the budgetary charter and the mitigation fee subject to the limbs and reasonably necessary to negotiate the impacts tsf my fund transit and capital hold on transit maintenance projects and transit capital facilities and pleaded i would insert transit costs or transit operations and complete streets so i would insert after fleet Transit Service costs or transit operations. The next sentence that reads overseeing expenditures my include but not limited to capital costs associated with establishing hold on one second here. Limited to capital costs insert capital and operating so capital insert and operating costs associated with i would respectfully makes those amendments to this. Deputy City Attorney gibner do you have anything. While you discuss these ill take the at the section the Committee Makes the amendment today, youll need to continue it for a intentional notice as supervisor peskin said on the expenditure side of the paroled before the committee today other than this and other than proofread the committee can make those amendments and continue the item. Thank you supervisor peskin. We might want to also make a similar amendment in the finding in for i dont know through the chair to deputy City Attorney gibner 4, 7 a. 1 reflect the Transit Service in the finding i believe that would be 411 a1 subbing e is where we will probably want to make the Transit Service finding. I would recommend that you we limit the amendment today and the Committee Makes that amendment next week we can make any conforming amendments in other sections i dont know if 4 leona helmsley. 6 glancing at it. Those will be nonsubstantial changes but right but techniques the notice will be were changing it. All right. Supervisor peskin i have a couple of questions you mentioned the Transit Service costs and Service Operations can you explain. Operations can be from maintenance of Rolling Stock to fair inspectors to operators. Nothing specific. Is there something specific in all costs or just general. All costs associated with the services im trying to return the flexibility for the better part of the century that worked fine not broken we dont need to fix it. Supervisor wiener comments. Thank you for the language in the current version preany on the bottom of page 4 am i correct . Page 4. Are you talking about file one one 251. Let me read the language it hadnt changed before any amendment is authorized funds for tsf will meet the demand for the transit capital maintenance and fleet and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generated by the new development in the city is that the language were working from any point to make sure were on the same page. I this youre looking at the december file. Let me make sure which file. Im working off file 15452 First Amendment at the board of supervisors on december 2015. Im opening it up because of horrible connection it takes a while. Can you read the definition. One moment are you thinking in subsection e it says in no response are the nexus study to meet the demands generated by new investments or levels of service . No. One moment. If we had functioning internet. I could have called you over the weekend laughter . It would have looked a lot better than on tv any staff emailed me the language yeah. Maybe used to find the transit maintenance projects, transit capital facilities and fleets and completed streets and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure those included but not limited to capital costs associated the transit routes and expanding the transit and increasing the routes on the but ever included but not limited to for the tracking and mid wires and capital and maintenance to add service and it goes on from there about bike and pedestrian projects that is the existing language if im not mistaken. Or the might be proposal will be to add flexibility and allow it to be used on probational costs if necessary as i described through the chair. As i mentioned the enormous gray area well have a discussion in terms of capital operational and operation is a big gray area around maintenance and state of repair the current language is very broad in allowing for increasing services on transit routes for example, expanding transit routes, Rolling Stock, so as we were replacing every vehicle or rerehabilitating the expansion of the taking care of the system and having more vehicles in service on the existing routes we have in addition to trying to expand those routes and allowing for complete street projects such as bike and pedestrian projects i dont think we need to expand beyond that i dont know in terms of hiring more parking control officers or whatever the case may be there is is a discrepancy the definition currently in the tsf is our needs are so magnificent in terms of increasing service and keeping what we have in a state of repair and not expanding beyond that in a way goes to the fundamental issues and one of the objections i have to the legislation before us i think there are some people who seem to think not suggesting public but some people in terms of the Transit Needs like how the Developers Pay for it believe it or not ive been a proponent of them paying the transit combheekz and the increases we passed last year the fact well never get where we need to go without massive Government Support i dont think so what the point of saying the tsf should pay for things beyond the massive items we have in the current broad depictions i dont see the need to make that change. So family through the chair supervisor wiener im extremely supportive of capital and rolling so to speak so stock and other investments that are public Transportation System services having said that, i understand the operating objectives in 20172018 and giving them that flexibility within their budgets i think makes abundant sense not to motorbike manage them but quite frankly as the city is growing and traffic is worse i think giving the mta that level of flexibility simply put not to be hyperbolic great to supervisor prop b got us the fund and i know assistance frif i was not a member of board ensue supportive of that but having city council i didnt new buses without people to maintain or drive them didnt work i mean this is not the end of the world but i think giving the mta that flexibility particularly as theyre projecting operation shortfalls the coming years makes good sense. Supervisor wiener. Thank you through the chair supervisor peskin by way of im appreciative of your support for prop b i think that meant a lot but ill be honest that we the mta already has a lot of flexibility in how it spends its money we know this board has no say in the budget of mta and we have to go nuclear to have done that the board has threatened this this is one of the few arrests we have a small amount of say how this money is spent to be honest i dont have full long term trust in the mtas discussions in terms of whether or not it takes care of the system and not having vehicles that fall apart and other assets that are not falling apart for a long time the mtas under invested not only the capital but the state of repair from the buses are falling apart or been on a bus like me your driving up a hill and i feel like i can push that bus faster because the bus is falling apart over and over the law mans vehicles are not maintenance the mta is much of better now to be clear he applaud the agency for reinvestigating from the system it is doing a good job ensue not confident that will last we can plastic bag back and see this system start to unravel dynamic comfortable in expanding beyond the current definition. Okay lets see see a representative from the mta here . Victor wise mta. Thank you. I wanted to see if you have any comments you want to share before we deliberate. Certainly i would echo supervisor wieners sentiment how this ordinances was designed we thought about operating the capital fund ill add to the comments in terms of the one time funds and adding they cant be funded through capital fund theyre not eligible and this is an opportunity to death the funds ill currently echo the fact there is gray area we intend to put this money in the state of repair in overhauling. That being said flexibility is important but the way the ordinance is structured how we thought will continue on the path of maintenance and repair and investing this money and of course this it transmits into Better Service thank you very much. Madam chair bans those comments i will withdraw any amendments for now. Thank you presenter that i also well, i guess you will reintroduce your amendments. I reserve the right to introduce them on the floor of the board. Fair enough youre right all right. So there is or no amendments lets see about a motion for item number one anything. I would to move the items that is before us to the full board and sensing the voice of any colleagues without recommendation. You have a keen sense. Ill give you credit thats good i ask for a negative recommendation. Im not a big fan of bottling things up the committee out of right so i have a motion on the table but put it out amongst the full board so i would also like to make a motion for the to move forward with a negative recommendation. Ill second it would you like a roll call vote. Im happy to descents on this. Lets do a roll call vote. Madam chair. To come out of committee with a negative recommendation a and an the negative recommendation. Yes. Supervisor peskin had made a recommendation not to refer it without recommendation. Ill withdraw that. Your recess sending that motion. Okay. On the motion to refer the matter out with a negative recommendation. Supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen theres one2 is one no with the supervisor peskin in the descents. That motion passed out with a negative recommendation madam clerk item 2. Item 2 an ordinance for the planning code for the resolve of any residential unit to allow nigsz for the legalization of an illegal unit unless feasible. Okay supervisor avalos. Sorry. Thank you i thought i pressed the button but thank you for scheduling this again madam chair so this legislation that you have in place we wanted to protect housing from demolitions and merge and conversions overall to protect the tenants housing the city that has been under attack affair for a number ever years that includes inlaw units and the unite and parttime buildings we had a thorough discussions on the legislation and i do want to continue on with that one thing we left up to greater consideration was how single families that have notice of violations how to work others dbi department of building inspection and that deliberation from dbi needs to happen so i want to allow that to go forward when i wanted to do today is duplicate the file and to move forward the amendments that we have made regarding the c3 Zoning District to go forward. And then have greater discussion through dbi and after dbi looks at our issues around notice of violations and legalization issues that we can come back to the board to the Land Use Committee we had some discussion about how people that didnt have financial means to be able to legalize units could find resources for that and we do have people from the Mayors Office of housing here as well as dbi to talk about that issue and planning people are here as well so wanted to bring up mr. Strong from the dbi who can talk about whatever process we have on the residential and singlefamily homes ours and inlaw units that are seeking great deliberation within the commission. Mr. Strong before you get started i want to give the floor to supervisor kim then bring you up. Thank you chair cohen i want to acknowledge supervisor avalos in his legislation and thank you for slooit the files to address some of the separate issues those this will address separately the c3 portion of legislation that is why im here an issue that weve discussed essentially through the Land Use Committee but the community as well and 2013 our Office Starting fielding calls from rincon hill and the western soma and other areas their evicted because their units were illegally evicted sometimes 20 and 30s years ago many pertains have market their office space and liveable units over the past couple of decades they were unable to rent their properties on the commercial reality so landlords did let their tenants know this was illegal but in many cases the landlords didnt say anything or request the tenants object a business listens for their zoning when the Office Market starting heating up in rincon hill and the inner market Property Owners realized they could make money and starting evicting the middleincome residents artist and teachers and nonprofit and Grocery Stores owners and Small Business owners who lived in those units as long as 18 years i introduced the interim controls in 2013 to look at the alarming behavior from our Property Owners to aid this law due to the conversion of residential units from commercial office space this requires a conditional use authorization when a property seeks to reestablish use when converted to residential without permit since the introduction of interim controls in 2013, the mayor and the executive order requested the city departments to minutes ago promote rental housing when loss of housing is proposed the Planning Department and dbi responded to the executive order by implementation policies that require a public hearing and review of applications that reluctance in nonresidential use, however, this action didnt include the residentials not permitted supervisor avalos has been working on this legislation foreclose to a year were reaching the end of the interim controls and i appreciate my colleagues for louse u allowing us to split the file with at ts is c3 to protect our tenants in the c3 areas that are living in the nonrestricted permitted areas i want to thank the Land Use Committee for always supporting the interim controls and this board for unanimously passing them this year i want to end by saying this existing tenants were evicted it would be did the for them to find housing in the current real estate many have had to leave the city posing long consultants for jobs they may not be getting paid enough and working off horse trailers with Public Transportations is not available and, in fact, many entertainment are moving out of San Francisco i should add ive said this before i share little sympathy for Property Owners the only purpose to profit doing illegal conversions they thought theyll make more money and coming green under the guise of leg illicit we absolutely need to protect the tenants and many will be speaking under Public Comment i appreciate the efforts efforts of this board and making sure we keep the residents in place thank you. Thank you, supervisor kim. Now with that, lets go to dbi. And well hear from bill strong. Thank you, supervisors bill strong legislative and affairs as requested we searched through the database over the past 6 years from nodding to 2015 just to get an idea how many noigsdz for illegal units mate be receiving those total about 4 hundred and 46 over the 5 year period and out of that 4 hundred and 46, 6 year period 49 permits that were issued to remove or to go through the the legalization unfortunately, the way that dbi data is kept the complete data not tied into the permit issued data so often it is exactly what the details might be behind the situations but i will say that since the package by the board in midmay have 2014 the volunteery legalization dbi has issued as of last week one and 5 of those permits for legalization planning has about one hundred and 10 under review im guessing by the time we get the two Year Anniversary in may we will probably have a bit more than 200 and 200 and 20 legalized units to that program im happy to go back and see if we can come up with singlefamily homes data and your comments supervisor but my knowledge it is limited we havent had that many singlefamily homes i have joe duffy if you have more detailed questions how the complaint process works and what we are often finding it difficult to assess a property and verify a complaint about an illegal unit something weve mentioned on previous occasions. Thank you very much i didnt have anything else to add that will be through dbi and my office will be participating the discussions. So i also wanted to call up aaron star from planning. And aaron talk about how this ordinances will further the goals of preserving the existing how is parking space determining this is beneficial for housing preservation. Sure. Good afternoon aaron starr manager, legislative affairs for the planning staff we reported open is modification that was approved as we go give you a little bit of background to why the department recommended the support of this ordinance and why the Planning Commission recommended the approval to help to address the citys housing crisis the mayors has a directive to planning requiring the mandatory discretionary review for buildings with 3 or more illegal units this was dub done to help stop displacement and it is nationally occurring since then few permits under that criteria but many permits where the applicant is proposing to remove the building with 21st century legal units e illegal units the city cant compel them with this and planners will sign off knowing well, they could have tenants face eviction and supervisor wiener took an important step asking for notification of any illegal unit this helps to for the attendance of an pending eviction 33 and they can appeal, however, after this overturned by itself board of appeals this rarely happens i city cant lightwell liza units that puts the tenant in limbo this requires the legalization with a kwefks to remove it were seeing Property Owners turning themselves into dbi and giving notice to attendance once the tenants is evicted we have them often remodel and by the time they get it into a two unit building this removes that incentive by requiring the units be legalized and holds the landlord responsible were here to hear about the tenants that may not be have the money to pay for that. And both dbi and planning fees are waved for those two seek to legalize it is 3,000 savings and you may want to continue this were happy to work with your office to address those concerns, however, stress the portions of this legislation and the very real issues it addresses thank you for your time and consideration of this ordinance and, of course, kim and i are available for questions thank you. Thank you aaron no other questions from me i wanted to have someone from the Mayors Office of housing bryan chiu is here with the issue of using source of funding and maybe the Housing Trust fund and as part of trust fund to cover the relocation for those who have hardships. Bryan chew for the Mayors Office of housing as supervisor avalos mentioned we do exercise authorities over funds created by the package of that Housing Trust fund act we have dollars available for singlefamily homes rehabilitation it is limited by in case to only use those few minutes for those owners blow one and 20 percent of the ami so were accustomed to doing these Small Projects for singlefamily homes and my colleague from dbi mentioned it is unclear how many of the people applying for legalization fall into the categories of the singlefamily homes but if this is the day and qualify we will be happy to work with dbi with planning and with Supervisors Office to create a program that is appropriate for the low income homeowners for this system. Great thank you. Okay. No more questions that will ends the presentation for this part of communication i have a few Public Comment cards first calling names . Matt. If you could line up and cue that. Matt im a staff attorney at the housing clinic first, i want to state up front that the tenderloin supports this entire legislation i believe this entire legislation is necessary for the preservation of housing ill not regime what supervisor kim said but we have experience the problems shes mentioned specifically the c3 district that to my main point we also fully support splitting the file this legislation is not controversial for the c3 the inlaw units and the testimony that came up at the last hearing last week regarding the nmentsdz that is important with that legislation it allows for reasonable and meaningful review of those permits before they issue i certainly think with respect to the inlaw units the review of all the issues of the legislative rebels it is appropriate and necessary; however, for the c3 for mid market and the Downtown District this shouldnt be controversial it mirrors the controls in place and mirrors the Mayors Office and it supports a number of my clients are here to talk about their protection of the housing and we certainly appreciate supervisor avalos presenting it and splitting i did file to move forward. Next speaker tom followed by ryan. Good afternoon, supervisors tom executive director of liveable city thank you to supervisor avalos for bringing this forward weve been working for the few years to legalize the inlaw units and want to thank you, supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin and supervisor avalos worked on piece of this we feel this is a culminating feat to protect thousands of units the city in 1960 we have the planning code amendments that effectively prohibited the addition of new units to existing buildings we think that is a mistake thats one of the reasons were in a housing crisis you can add units in a neighborhood without changing the physical appearance, of course, making is illegal doesnt stop people there are thousands up to 65 years old and a lot of people have no idea their illegal but they can lose thaish their houses the court passed a last to notify the tenants but you can innovative by no department has a legal basis so this landlord can rove them no matter how long theyve lived there this will require review and treat every dwelling unit in the city the same and no matter what the it original legal status it is important to protect thousands of tenants and preserve a terrific amount of the rentcontrolled units we ask your approval but do this in a timely way were losing units everyday thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors ryan on behalf of the Market Street, llc the small Property Owners of San Francisco and Small Business owners weve made a number of objections today, youve heard id like to add that the ordinances are for the origin ordinance oriental proposed includes the Planning Commission suggestion, however, those not all the modifications are made and no vicinity findings so referring this particular version of the ordinance forward or any portion to make it clear were unclear which portion is legal moving on this it is premature until weve heard back with the adequate ceqa Environmental Review and retroactive concerns with the amended version of ordinance that could have significant Environmental Impact if so proposal is for ground zero there could be alternated deactivating the ground floor spaces this has Environmental Impact the end result of this ordinance may well be to compel legalization that drives the Property Values down to legalize and owners will keep the vacate united vacant and this causes the vacant units it is not good for the Housing Stock and decreases the Housing Stock we urge your consideration at a minimum to clarify what portions of your ordinance is moving forward and what portion is not thank you very much calling names . I was here when we were discussing tenant protections 2 housing unit 0 at that time, 1 hundred poem dozens and dozens were landlord youll not do that today, this legislation tashthsdz landlords that have done things illegally those are the people those who broken the law unusual for decades the fact we have a housing crisis because we havent kept on the population groebt growth the city can evaluate whether or not it is acceptable to say urgent we pass this legislation not about one building arrest landlord it is about making sure that everyone who is living in legal unit legal units and that landlords that are breaking the law meet the same standards as the landlords who have do the right thing and many people are driven out of the city and landlords are profiting from illegal conversions and this law will simply require them to obey the rules i ask you to vote yes. Thank you. repeated. the constitution of the united states. Im an architect practicing the city for 36 years and a homeowner i was a renter and evicted under the ellis act i have 3 kids ive raised the city i wanted to speak to one aspect that is promoted the definition of the unauthorized unit has it didnt corridor with the definition of the planning code and will effect homeowners, singlefamily homes orientals that use part of their basement and pairs of the back of their garage a as a living and speaking space this didnt include a kitchen or a bathroom that will effect family rooms and studies and i think that is overreaching in terms of the definition you need to deal with a dwelling unit that is been in place and has been tenanted i have a basement inlaw units the kitchen was removed and i use it as a guest room want to convert it to legal space shouldnt be required as a singlefamily home homeowner not renting out and the kitchen has been removed to create two river an illegal situation i remembered the board take the action of the legislation to allow the creation of new inlaw units not the two supervisors district that has happened as far. Madam chair if i may i was wondering as i read the legislation over the weekend but it says an unauthorized units should worn rooms not with the benefit of a Building Permit as a independent of rental units independent shall mean the space is independent not entering a residential unit and no open visual units on the property. Right but a lot of singlefamily homes where the spaces exist at the back the garage and front door entries their assessable without going through the units and the definition is not clear whether or not it is requiring through undergo a garage an singlefamily home it independently assessable are not. I dont want to sgaej in a conversation the City Attorney will yell at me but entering enclosing a garage is the independently assessable. Thank you. Well actually anyone from planning we have a little break in Public Comment. Why im sorry what are you asking for. I wanted to see if his question can be respond to after Public Comment. We will get our answer to the question and hear from the folks ive can you do for Public Comment giving us a few more minutes. Hi, im cache long time San Francisco residents and i support the legislation korean that was previous to me said it better than me id like to add that the c3 amendment that includes ground floor Residential Properties is extremely important because a lot of these buildings are much larger inside than you think their frontage is already activated with retail but they may have 8 to 10 residential units on the first floor or the basements not covered the origin legislative. After the next speaker youll hear if planning. Hello im a musical artist and work at a local job and work with the San Francisco pride ive lived here 11 years please vote yes to pass many legislation with retroactive it to march first otherwise the city will losses 7 that more favorable apartments i say city needs to add more so they have a invested interest in having more units the city must evaluate if this is acceptable this is not the about one building many people live in apartments building legalizing stabilize people many people have been driven out of the city by landlords exploiting that will that and the ground units that cash spoke about is important please vote yes, it is urgent to pass this with retroactive i did to march first otherwise the city will lose 7 that more affordable apartments thank you. Anyone from the Planning Department. Kilogram Department Staff to the key to the unauthorized units is living or sleeping space should be used is an dependents residential unit so the way this is a definition weve been working closely with the City Attorneys office and the Zoning Administrator office the way we would address situations like this the applicant will have to sign an affidavit saying this unit was in the used as an independent unit and theyll be exempt from this cu process. Okay does that answer your question. Supervisor avalos does that answer your question. Yes. Thank you and the previous man spoke with his issue if you have a chance to work with him direct. Well continue with Public Comment calling names . A depa here. Okay. Naomi will be next. Followed by sarah. Thank you, supervisors im depa if the San FranciscoTenants Union im here to make sure that tenants are protected and the Housing Stock is located many long time san franciscans that live in illegal units or in inlaw units especially in district 6 and the weermz as well as district 11 seeing more and more tenants being pushed out any formal tenants said they saw four or five this week those are astonishing numbers this is incredible sloopt i ugly you to vote yes. Thank you for your comments naomi. Sarah youll be next. Hi, im naomi retired teacher on the Public Schools of 1049 Market Street my landlords attempted to evict the arraignments at 1049 Market Street and the first group was given notice near thanksgiving and the second received eviction notices around commissioned 2013 weve been walked for a long time to keep our lofts many of the residents have been forced out and substantial left the city and some the city and some the country im speak on behalf of the current tenants and many endangered tenants in the city and also on behalf of San Francisco the rent is to high groups of people are finding that hard to live here College Graduates and teachers especially in the beginners salary and teachers aid all next door and moderate low income families to accommodate the children and renters p who are trying to find a low cost are renter situation many people are without Financial Resources there is a lot of competition to be chosen as a roommate please pass this for the sake of current tenants and to simmer a San Francisco is a welcoming place please stop the landlords from by passing the cruz r cus and thank you for your thoughtful attention please pass to retroactively to march first otherwise the city can lose a lot of affordable unit including 1049 Market Street thank you very much. Thank you. Sarah Human Rights Committee knew supervisors for tackling this issue it is so important we have to have counsels in our office over and over xhornt what dont have tenants call gi if they can the problem with so many people rentcontrolled unit their units thinking they were legal and find out theyre not and the landlords that scheme the system get a quick buck and im thinking of buildings like 2107 van ness this is in farrells districts people go to the craigslist and lived in their units for over 13 years with leases and then pick them out those are folks with kids i ran could into one of the tenants in front of planning he is the only one left the building. Im thinking about the four buildings in potrero hill at supervisor cowens thankfully sent to us we stopped from demolition but theyre also had craigslist adds and leases the 17 reasons building the mission where the landlords knowingly rent out the unit the 4 buildings i can think of on Market Street all the tenants in the excelsior and bayview theyre coming all the time because the landlords is one house above it it wouldnt be under rent control without that kitchen the illegal unit in the basement all the people are you pushed out of the San Francisco we spell need this legislation and please vote please do. Thank you for your comments well next hear from tommy and patrick all from Human Rights Committee so i sort of want to add into what the lady testified about she mentioned a lot of the buildings we see i want to talk about was in which despite the current law evictions radio happening as one other speaker mentioned weve seen state demolitions the landlords remove the sink and stove and search the nov they turn around and put them into back in and get more money weve seen demolition evacuees going through and old people getting replaced and commercial spaces have been rented for years as nodded years and years and suddenly because they rent to Tech Companies they want to push the tenants out and rent to a tech company were seeing lost and lots of that were seeing verbal evictions they dont give them an actual rental lease this is prairie true amongst the immigrants i talk with the spanish they dont believe they have to get out but leave oftentimes and a lot of the folks pushed out are communities or color or artists or queer folks i think i understand why youre drifd this and pushing forward the c3 section but not lose track of inlaw unit it is with the inlaw units were losing a lot of a lot of people and that oath people are shofrl in the immigrants communities with the inlaw units you need to do something about the inlaw units thank you for this but not forget about the inlaw units. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im juan a Mission Residents and work at the ribbon rainbow and last year, we saw a grueling eviction battle with the landlord that knowingly gave us a commercial lease and the buildings that was zoned to be residential and commercial but after 12 years of living there decided they wanted to evacuate us under the guise of illegitimate i urge you to vote yes, im tried or seeing my friends leave they figure out a long battle it was sad thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If under those any other speakers that want to speak please. Good afternoon, supervisors. Any other people that want to speak please line up and speak its your turn patrick. I wanted to disclose im a developer on Market Street i was born the city and my family found admitted housing we have asbestos floors and kitchen and steam heat that never worked couldnt turn it on in the winter and off the summer i kept my family the city and in regards to this law i want to focus on inlaw units and commercial with new mexicos and residential there should be two separate legislations one that addresses maybe thousands or less than. Thousand commercial units and a second with tens of thousands thirty thousand arrange inlaw units part of criteria of the costs we have the sfachlz that second unit has to go through rentcontrolled this means the value drops didnt go up the value of a building drops when you go from 2 unions to 3 the value drops a 2 unit can go come down but the fire requirements is considered an apartment, from two to three the value drops so if youre going to legalize residential units you have to have more in depth studies of effects or may see residential units but were trying to look at the city and we may lose more on the residential side so the criterias needs to be different versus commercial units thank you. Thank you. Next speaker hi, thank you for thank you for your time and i spoke last week one of the artists trying to quickly explain my situation last week but talk more specifically about the concerns and thank supervisor kim for give a great implication explanation im not in a c3 but im facing the same thing so were renting tyson years ago and ive been there 10 years and now the landlords see an opportunity to make more money they want to force us out and try to ellis act and telling me the master tenants he had to leave and filing with the dbi on a permits lying trying to get prediction to remove the dwelling and decided to ellis act we or been fighting the battles for two years and in this will protect us from the landlords are not able to change to commercial once ellis act and a 5 year restrictions to keep people from just purely for profit they dont have the incentive well be able to negotiate i urge you noting to not limited this to c3 but apply for all the commercials for the artists facing this problem ive been working in San Francisco for 10 years built my career i cant take my career to a city and continue it im very rooted the city artists are give to their city we dont get paychecks but were hurting for me to lose my housing means giving up any career so, please that is true push this through quick so we dont lose our housing. Im a mathematician since 1992 and one boy is make no mistake San Francisco is a small city it is really hard i tried to coming down the pike keep it Like Fighting fire with fire the other things that are important of the illegal units theyre calling it, it is actually nonor the department of education units apartments with the ideal many times a lot of spaces and ideal for artists people that create and make things and make the city and give the city something in those units are getting evicted or getting commercialized to get oath infrastructure extra profit and people are losing their livelihood and people are suffering like mentioned it not on this People Living there but all the space is homes to so many artists and groups if a area density all the way to ballot and stand up comedy were losing our culture that is something we should consider the culture is really built on it is that cause where the people come here from all over the world im from german i didnt i see that reason going away we really want to prefer thank you very much thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon shawn im here to support the testimony of many of the previous speakers and the notion of duplicating the file im here to respectfully ask that the demolition of singlefamily homes be revved from this legislation and lifework to distinguish singlefamily homes from units the universe of units were talking about is 9 hundred and 5 over the last 6 years the universe of singlefamily homes are 47 drastically different the reason that number is so low planning has a process it is lengthy and timely but a process to protect affordable and sound housing if im an applicant and submit an application to go demolish a house the very first question what value is on that house if the value is over one . 7 million it is not affordable and goes through the regular process if that value is less than one . 7 million you have to do what is calls a sounds likeness report if you can demonstrate that is unsound housing then and only then can you move forward so to put context is numbers only 16 hours the last 5 years have passed the unsound housing test by planning unsounds like housing is not Affordable Housing our members understand the process now patrol vehicle it a ccii mass it extremely legal we cant say do it ourselves we have to turn it over to a team of lawyers its painful. Thank you, thank you. Any other speakers please come on up. Im not a acquainted with the full scope of that measure i have concerns i myself live in supervisor kims district with Public Housing that is owned by tndc i think there is some displacement but i am concerned with the 6 street and the tenderloins as a whole those are the areas that i think that this ordinance that land use thing will adversely impact i dont understand is poor people are living in sros theyre call theyre called vcrs singleroom occupancies and now how does this proposal impact that or preserve housing in those areas. Supervisor kim will address your question maybe after the hearing supervisor kim okay. Thank you next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors im charging write i work on the government foyers for the up to the Time Association i forgot any regular glasses laughter . We appreciate the explanation we were all wondering. We understand a desire to move forward in a timely manner for the folks on Market Street but it is important to see that effects the thirty thousand people we believe the reflection legislation is not ready for prime time but a sprint the ordinance is not ready for at that particular time time less than two years after supervisor chiu had a volunteery program this legislation with mandate it this not legal for the city to mandate the city codes this creates a disincentive to rents from the all right those unions are cheaper and affordable by design and a apartment shouldnt be left vacant and it has an impact on the Property Owners that didnt buy illegal conforming units they bought a singlefamily home that perhaps has 12 inlaw units on the properties there was a comment not opposition because people are not here ill respectfully disagree that is a Chinese New Year and people buy those properties in celebration of Chinese New Year. There is also talk about the difference i dont think the difference between requiring review the illegal inlaw units and mandate legalization has been ironed out when an inlaw unit can be taken back but to require a legalizing is a different story altogether thank you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, are there any other is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item if not Public Comment is closed. I see we have supervisor avalos on the roll call and followup with supervisor wiener. Thank you and i want to thank everyone for entertaining this ordinance and, of course, the people that have been advocating for that we want to move quickly the issue of inlaw units is one that depreciates worked out with dbi but we want to move quickly enough for dbi to hear the main concerns that exists on this legislation relative to inlaw units and want to have back here the 22 a couple of weeks away i realize were dealing with units were losing every day but want to get this right moving forward i so want to approve today, the portion of the legislation it related to c3 part of city and weve made the amendments last week to address ground floor units nonvisible from the front to that we want to do is duplicate the file the section that is amend it out i out everything but the c3 section and move that forward as a Committee Report to the full board the other file the duplicated file that will be addressing inlaw units we want to have back her in committee on february 22nd between today and that date youll go through the dbi and get input from the commission on that remaining legislation that will be my request for the committee to make that motion. Sshthd by supervisor cohens supervisor wiener. So ill support the motion as stated i think that is very important to move the c3 portion out of committee and get that passed well have strong discussion in making sure we are addressing this kind of behavior where the units are represented out at residential unit often for many years and all of a sudden to make more money the owners decide chops its not supposed to be residential so everyone is evicted thats terrible direction we need to make sure were keeping people stable in their housing and i continue to be supportive of the c3 aspect of this legislation and glads controls are going to be become permanent i support sending that out as a Committee Reports today and file duplicated in terms of the other portion that will remain in committee two things first just a question whether 2 weeks is enough time or maybe three weeks i ask only the last week i dont think that i havent seen progress want to make sure we dont have another hearing to continue it again and in terms of the conditional use requirements and singlefamily homes i think the argument is a strong one the controllers that currently are in place for demolishing snamentsz is very strong and so the question is whether we need to put a conditional use on that as opposed to the multi unit is that a more challenging situation leave things that qualify as a demolition and a multi unit building that may not be adequately located by current law so ill make a motion to strike to duplicate did file remaining in committee and continues we move singlefamily homes from the conditional use requirement given the strong controls. Supervisor wiener can we take that without objection . Motion passes make the motion. The duplicated file that is remain in committee to remove singlefamily homes from the conditional use requirement. We need a rescinds the motion to continue to. No, its a duplicated file. Thats not voted on. It is but we need to rescind. Okay well take that without objection. That motion is rescind and the additional migrants by supervisor wiener well take that without objection. That item passes 0 unanimously before we just close out with supervisor kim i too wanted to add my voice to the portions of protecting the residents in the c3 portion i think that ceiling important and thank you fred for your thank you for all you do and the nonprofits helping people survivor and fight to stay the city i wish a way to signal to Property Owners that you will utilities things and sends a message we mean business and this is unacceptable behavior and needs to be a balance between captive liberalism and examination it is critical we recommend people and create stiffer penalties i think we should moeshgs. Just Closing Remarks first of all, thank you committee to pass this given the urgent and timely nature of the protections we put in place of the interim controls to end in march of this year but your strong support of the uses in the c3 area that have been experiencing those types of greed and incentivised evictions where landlord have been profiting off the clients when they couldnt find commercial tenants and now kick them to the curve when we can make more off the commercial busy this provides a level of oversight for the Planning Commission to make sure we are protecting the housing for your existing tenants that make San Francisco the city we love and the city it is so just want to acknowledge this board and the strong supports of its residents and finally in response to the question from one of our rountsz we have existing legislation that does prohibit of the conversion of residential units and sros to tourist if you find that happening please complain to dbi this ordinance has been larger successful in stopping that kind of conversion because it allows a private right of action from nonprofit organizations and we have seen a tremendous decline since this ordinance passed if you see it is happening the intends or in the south of market please report that compliment it is completely illegal under the current law thank you for that reminded john gibner, deputy City Attorney. Just to clarify on the amendment that supervisor wiener has property to the original version that was vote out of the Committee Report is includes as commissioner lee mentioned the original orientals but also why in the c3 but the shaping and permeable surface requirements San Francisco government Audit Oversight Commission i citywide so the amendment includes that not just phenomenon c3 but the desire city. Thank you for your clarification yes vote now on the two pieces of motions that are ahead of us madam clerk call the first motion. On the original file to need to accept the amendments he suppose first. Okay. We did. Okay. So for the original file to the amended as a Committee Report. Yes. Well take that without objection. That item passes. And on the duplicated file as amended to continue as amended to february 22nd. Just answer my question whether the 22. Were working with dbi and theyll have the hearing and be able to get it back by the it 2 and my office has been working with our staff trying to inform you have it maybe not gotten to you. Thats fine regardless of what your staff has been talking about im trying to you know again, you have a hearing to come for more Public Comment bye bye the 22 would be wonderful given some outstanding issues if 0 people want to go to the 2 thats happy with that. Lets go with the 22 well take that without objection. That motion carries okay supervisor avalos and supervisor kim. Oh, yes thirds item supervisor kim is call up item 3. A resolution urging the director and at Transportation Authority to utilize the information of the community for revitalization and investment to support the affordability up to a 40 percent. Supervisor kim is author of this with the stakeholders and shes requested a continuance to the Land Use Committee supervisor kim so colleagues, can we take this. Madam chair Public Comment. Oh, yes folks item 3 is open for Public Comment if you want to come and comment on item 3. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed id like to continue this item to february 29th Land Use Economic Development committee as requested well take that without objection. This item is continued. Can. Please call item 4. The interagency Progress Report and the developmental urban forest. Thank you. Im the sponsor of this hearing this is the board of supervisors required annual hearing on the entering that Implementation Committee this reports provides the status of the updated plan areas and also describes how revenue from each plan area will be used in fooufr the goals of the respect plans and matt from the planning staff presenting are you ready under schneider. Yes. I have handouts. Well take did handouts and madam clerk the floor is yours. Good afternoon, supervisors im matt smooifthd of planning staff for the reports for the intercity Implementation Committee we are this epic looked at the implementation of 6 of our plan areas in the general plan specific rincon hill, market octavia and the eastern neighborhoods that is actually 56 individuals plan areas and Transit Center and balboa park and the Visitacion Valley ill go over some backward what your Implementation Team does and the larger epic and settled on the epic process and give broader reviews the revenue weve received and the 5 years out and highlights on the expenditures in the 5 years and over the next two years. Wrong place sorry. Here we go. I just skipped over okay. Quickly the Implementation Team within the Planning Department we were established about 5 years ago specifically to look at the implementation of the plan areas when we approved an area plan we generally comes with the zone which our Culture Planning team has jurisdiction over implementing Promotions Development projects that come in weve not had a team that looked at the infrastructure with those more recent area plans, of course, we have generally approved Development Impact fees for each the areas that gives us a strong implementation tool so specifically what we do we coordinate the plan areas we share the entering agency Implementation Committee we staff our citizens siding for the eastern neighborhoods in market octavia and also monitor the process of actual projects the entering agency plan the committee was established about 6 years ago and this is a multi Agency Committee that is charged with helping us implement the plan areas theyre kind of two sides the implementing agency for one that bridges forgot Capital Projects like rec and park, mta and dpw and then the administrative side that includes the controllers office, and is Mayors Office and they we work with them to brian forgot the projects and help us inform where we are in their individual plans and synergies we reprovide an annual report. The he mention is like a typical budget process every year we look at what we projected as revenues into the fees we looked at our pipeline that we publish quarterly we look at the actual fee revenue that is come in through the department of building inspection, we rise our projections we look at more funds under the last 3 years weve consistent had more funds then we previously thought and look at the expenditure plan see how that difference and consultant our ssi and their constituents we consultant with the epic to see how best the money to be used if they have holes or lefrng opportunities and then come up with a new expenditure plan the plan before you goes through we get a cac endorsement and go to the Planning Committee when it gets million listed theyre put into the agencies budgets and can get started. Mr. Smooithd through the chair pardon me any ignorance who sits on the epic. Which agrees. An individual designee and have a staff that is assigned for the epic generally in mta and im dpw and rec and park one or more people and finance people. And somebody from the controllers. Yes. Yes usually one member or it is Capital Planning that plays a role. Its brian strong. Bryan strong and heather green. We had a about 4 how much how big is our Implementations Team 56 members adams and others are the two people that are that is set out in Chapter Three 6. In a general way the charge of the epic is to kind of help us implement the Planning Areas that is this is something we developed over time and organically we tried to organize it with some agencies that asked us to have a conversation that that looks like. I might add, of course, the city on a twoyear budget for the 10 year Capital Improvement and the 10 year capital plan it is integrated were hoping to do this this year to begin a process of identifying the process beyond what we identified with the kneeing spends to get a little bit of a holistic look at the gaps with the Mayors Office and the Budgets Office are helping us finds solutions for some of the staff well do that as well this coming year. So the finlands categories we look to fund include the transit and recreation and office space and childcare and money for administration we established those categories with previously because the different plan areas had sort of their own creations each other has a set of categories we tried to consolidate and make it easier to implement through the 6 plan areas so and through fy 15 the 6 plan areas 63 Million Dollars so far. For projected 16 fy 21 were looking at just over 200 and 50 million the next 5 years amongst the 6 plan areas and most of that the 3 largest eastern neighborhoods market octavia and others through the epic process were identifying the projects for fy 20172018 so we can start spending the money and for the two fiscal years years 20172018 looking at 82 million and then fy 2018 about 91 million so the two about one and 72 million the next two years. So let me now talk about the specific plan areas and give us specifics how to extend some of the money and look at the categories the complete streets and open space so market octavia were spending 5 million the transit category and the two largest expenditures will be light rail combanltsz were looking to extend an additional muni Metro Service sorry a light rail vehicle extension and also some pedestrian improvements as part of van ness brt in the south part of intersection for the complete streets a couple of categories weve established streetscape enhancement funds that will money that is not necessarily tied to an individuals project but dpw and others to spends money those o on an as needed basis for the market octavia and anticipate this money goes towards the improvements along octavia and hayes valley and another category for market pedestrians improvements for one. 1 millions and in the reaction and open space the two projects were looking at to extend on the park with initial planning we anticipate being parts of another planning a plan within a plan that is currently undergoing for the hub or some of the higher areas around math and van ness and also puts money into rehabilitation at hayward peculiar eastern neighborhoods again actually 5 plan areas here are some of the highlights for the eastern neighborhoods as you recall that in our implementing the are eastern neighborhoods weve identified or identified some priority projects as parts of initial improvements of the plan and agencies that are required to extend 80 percent of the funds for transit, complete streets and open space and so for the transit category were think were george do o going to have closed to 9 million the next two years much going to the 22 fillmore project that is a major transit project that is going through the mission and most enhanced improvements will be going through showcase square were spending altogether 18 million for that project and that way 17 or 18, 76 million another priority project that is not a priority project new this year im sorry this is a priority project the complete streets category the fulsome and Howard Street improvements that are still undergo the Environmental Impact report that has been being done with the central soma and the Environmental Impact report we pledge 26. 5 million we assume that will be much more expensive at 16 million the complete streets now this year is in the Central Waterfront or commonly referred to as dog patch well spends now 43 funding this project the straight to 22 street that is really come from the communities we kind of adopted that as part of our region to see this important project happens in this neighborhood realization and open space one of the initial projects were identified in the mission at 16 and fulsome that is finally getting underway in construction were paying for half that have project for 5 million project and in the showcase square also a priority project one of the things to do to funds one new park in that neighborhood and dagget was selected as that this is not the next two years but an important project we wanted to highlight this is currently under construction. As in eastern neighborhoods we have put about 8 million towards to rec and park to help them in the Real Estate Division find a new park in the sore the south of market neighborhood the southern or western portion that is particularly lacking in open space theyre currently looking at a couple of sites to poushl inquiry new open space and quickly through the trait center it is different in the eastern neighborhoods in that there are so many fixed projects we happen over a certain the time time and simply Capital Projects most of the funds we anticipate ignoring towards i am sorry skipped one going towards the streetscape plan that is all right given dpw sort of the budget of 16. 02 or three years for that project. And will the rincon hill a fixed number of projects we created a definite streetscape plan were moving forward with that one of the things that are occurring spending money towards a new park i understand will also be under construction really soon towards the straight open space plan we have streetscape each the streets in the plan area i dont think we have enough impact fees to pay for all of it on harrison the rincon hill area it is the most traveled it is also aligned with vision zero we are moving so well find other funds hopefully for the rest and Visitacion Valley very quickly that is not actually not a plan area this is it a fee ear that enkrmz schlage and the hope sf sunnyvale aids schlage open space they were creating a couple of new parks the rec and park team has been gaengdz with those parks and building will be rudolph by the time the first phase is complete so the other parts of Visitacion Valley fee were working with the communities to try to identify projects for that we started to engage last year, we had put forth thoughts from the planning staff but heard from the community they want to be look at that a second times and finally balboa park it has fees but Little Development were not anticipating a lot of money for one project that has happened was Streetscape Project lee avenue extension that has been complete. So the next epic is that the expenditures ive described the plans you think you might have copies and are online theyll be memorialized as part of budget request for expenditure authorizations the springs and summer theres a new well start this all over and look at the revenues this year will be more of a process since well be doing the capital plans this year by identifying the Capital Projects weve submitted through the impact fees but like to do maybe and then hopefully identify those gaps and others sources that concludes my presentation. Im here along with adams the leader for the Implementation Team well be ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Colleagues this was a lot of information highlevel thank you for your work matt i appreciated it on behalf of the district and folks that email and call you and come to the meetings appreciate youre having patience no companion from the body seeing none, Public Comment is closed thank you very much colleagues, any more remarks or questions for staff i dont have any mr. Snider thank you for your presentation. Left us speechless. Mirena burns if we can have a motion to send to the full board. To file that item please. I would and that that motion carries well take that without objection. Thank you. Any other items before us today. Theres no further business. Thank you very much this meeting is good morning everyo welcome to the tuesday february 9there is echo on this. February 9, 2016 meeting of the finance committee of Transportation Authority. Im eric mar and to my right is london greedbreed and to my left is norman yee. The clerk is steve stomose and being broadcast today by [inaudible] and charles kremenak. Any announce mentds no announcement; breed present. Campos, absent. Commissioner kim, absent. Commissioner mar, present. Commissioner yee, present. We have quorum. I forgot to say [inaudible] happy year the mungy everyone. Please call the next item consent calendar items 2 to 3 are considered row teen. Staff isnt [inaudible] present if desired. If a member objects the items may be removaled and considered separately. Thank you. Lets open up for Public Comment. Anyone want to talk about the minutes . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Motion to approve the minutes. I have a question. Y r i wasnt at the last meeting so need to rekoos myself from voting on the minutes. It looks like we dont have a quorum to approve the minutes. We can continue until we achieve a quorum. Lets go to item 4 item 4, state and federal update were we going to item 3 . That is part the consent calendar. Okay. Good morning. My way of introduction if you havent seen me before i am mark watts and the representative in sacramento. Ia notice on the matrix there is a lot of temporary bills here. This is the time of year where bills that fail passage in the house of origin for one reason for or another are swept away so we recommend a host of bills to be deleted from the matrix because they exceeded the year deadline or vetoed or chapter. You will see next muchckt a whole new slate of legislation but today i have 5 bills. The staff is recommending a support position and what is customarily done if it is okay to proceed is tell the bill number and matrix page it is on in case you want to take a look at it and cover it briefly and move on so if that is acceptable ill proceed. The first measure is ab 1591, this is one of 3 major transportation finance proposals. This one was introduced in 2016 and it generate 7. 3 billion dollars a year annually, the largest by far of the 3 proposals that are circulating. It does in addition to raises gas tax and diesel fuel tax and registration fees also has significant commitment of cap and trade for transit projects that are eligible for cap and trade revenues. That is on page 18. Of your matrix. The funding is roughly split 50 50. The tax rez new funding between state and local government for dispersement for road repairs and rehabilitation. Ill continue on if you would like to come back for questions or can stop at this point you also have it on another page side by side with the governors budget and sbx. 1. 12 so that is a same bill but side by side with a couple others . Correct. The second measure staff is recommended support for is by Assembly Member chiu on page 18 and this deals with bus safety inspections. Established criteria and requires dmv to notify Public Utilities commission can when a Bus Companies first register as vehicle that isnt happening yet so this steps in and takes or addresses that gap in notification. Then if there is a inspection and not a satisfactory rating the bus is prohibited to be used from that company. The next mexer measure is special session bill, abx 1 is our framing for special session. Number 18 is found on page 25 of the matrix. This bill that mr. Linder would return state truck weight fees that are collected and used to offset transportation general Obligation Bond debt service squu mounts to about a billion dollars a year and this is a proposal to return the truck weight fees back to Transportation Services where they have been used for years and years. It has a potential impact on the general funds because the general fund has the obligation to make Debt Service Payments so that is the fiscal and policy tension bringing the revenue back. Commissioner breed, why does itwe are talking about abx 118 correct why does it say recommend support . Is there a bond that is still paid . That was consistent with where similar bills had been put forth last year so they have to find a new source of revenue to pay for bond debt . Correct. Thank you for the clarity. And on page 34 of your of the matrix is sb 12 by senator hill and this is a little more sweeping overhaul of tour bus safety what page again . Page 34. It establishes a higher priority for inspection for new Bus Companies that have a record of ill compliance with prior inspection so it puts the new buses coming into those companies at the top thofe list jujust the Fee Setting Authority to be more in line with the costs i think there is a feeling that fee setting is at a level that is too low so they are taking a attempt at providing more revenue for had Inspection Program to accommodate the higher priority and that is the suggested support. The next measure is the last measure recommended for support consideration is found on page 35. This is by senator beall, sba 24. There are several ongoing cap and trade funded programs that funds rail and transit and other programs so this is the low carbon transportation program. It is essentially Formula Program that distributes cap and trade funding to transit agencies on a basis that already exists in law and used to Fund Projects that are new efforts at reducing Green House Gas. An example would be a new line put into service that didnt exist before but for the availability of the money and so that would be a eligible project. There are wrinkles in how that was drafted originally. Now that we had one year of experience in the field with transit operators dealing with how the money is distributed, the timing and the other small elements of the program are being addressed in in the measure. It isnt in a final form but it is the form of [inaudible] support recommendation is being made. One measure that we are looking at has a history from policies that we took last year on page 17, [inaudible] by Assembly Member gomez. It increases the level of statutory required benefit to disadvantage communities in the Green House Gas reduction cap and trade program from 10 to 25 percent, setting aside whether that move is Something Worthy of support at this point intume, the issue for the bay area is in the first round of distribution of founds that have a requirement for disadvantage communities, there is the feeling in this community is the way the state defined disadvantage communities works to had regions disadvantage so there is a effort led by mtc and others to address that definition and how that all applies, so until that is fixed, the region is typically taken onposed position trying to force a change in how it disadvantage communities is defined, mr. Watts and wpt to give my two cents that if it helps east la and low income communities of color to opposing something that may be helpful for cleaning the air for low income communities even though it isnt helping us is the principle thing to do and prefer if we not take a opposition but be neutral and work towards defining communities of concern or whatever we call them more carefully so that the bay areas low income communities are included. Something like watch express concerns and convey with a letter what we are trying to [inaudible] not a opposition position. Okay. With that i draw my presentation on the new bills to a close. I would just give a highlight that the due date for bills to be introduced is theened of the month so we got a little more than 2 weeks remaining and i think probably several hundred bills will be introduced between now and then so will pull out the ones of highest visibility and priority. Any questions, colleagues . Thank you. So you were going through attachment one afterwards . That is the side by side governors budget ab 91 and sb 1 [inaudible] thank you. Amber [inaudible] Transportation Authority. This is quickly we were requested to provide this looking at the 3 proposals moving forward. The assembly and senate and governors proposal. As mark watts said the assimbly proposal is far and away the largest of the 3. That 7 billion, the sbx 11 is lailt over 4 billion and the governors budget is right around 3. Page 76. So, the governors budget and the assembly 1591 are the 2 that does commit funding for transit. Sbx 1 is more focused on Highway Maintenance and local streets and roads, so i think at this point we are definitely more supportive of ab 1591 but any new ruv new for transportation would be something we would love to see, so we are working closely at the state level and mtc and the other congestion man jt agencies to advance these hopefully including transit and including walking and biking and think maybe mark can add more about the political context but we get a sense the closer we get to [inaudible] the bigger lift we get to pass to the 2 3 vote. If i can follow up on commissioner breeds commission from earlier regarding the bond debt service. It is my understanding this is debt service on a general Obligation Bond so we ruproved by the public so the the intents is it it paided off by the general fund. This would shift it back and other uses typically dosuch as schools the debt comes out of the general fund the expectation is the payment of the debt Service Comes from the general fund and it is my understanding that there are concerns with our state budget and a possible major deficit and i dont understand why a decision like this would be made if there is no clear understanding of where we are going to be at where w the budget as a whole, so i guess why are we doing this . What is this about . It doesnt seem right to me. I think the intent behind it was to acknowledge the huge problem and deficit in transportation funding but it is a policy call and it is something that you dont feel comfortable until you have more information you can recommend revising the position. It just seems irresponsible so i think that is my concern, the fact it is recommended to be supported but there is no clear way to pay for the debt service and so this was the anticipated revenue for that particular service and why are we changing it without clearly making sure that we have a pipeline to cover it especially with a proposed deficit in the state budget . I just think it is irresponsible from my perspective based on the information i have. Definitely understand that. Thank you. I am wondering if mr. Watts can explain the political context of the governor versus fraser versus bell. Happy to you. A scene setting for you. The legislature started a session on transportation last summer, had full set of hearings in the fall, mr. Bell who is one of the cochairs along with jimmy gomez from la of the Conference Committee established, was able to move his bill, sbx 1 listed on the chart from the Transportation Committee and is pending hearing in the appropriation special Session Committee and he is drafting amendments to add significant new funding for transit and go beyond just a state rehabilitation and local road program but supplementing the cap and trade programs and other programs with new transit funding, so that is due to come up any day. Technically he would be able to amend the bill, the special session is one of those techniques the legislature can use for swift action so i expect when we see the language they would conduct a special session and move forwards. The governors bill and mr. Frasers bill are on a slightly longer track because mr. Frasers bill is introduced in regular session and it is just at the point now where it is clearing the first 30 day quite period and not set for Committee Hearing until sometime in march. At that point if had leadership gives a go ahead. The governors proposal is a budget trader bill and havent seen a packet like this through a budget before, but there is two wayswe are at a fork in the road, it can go quickly, they can hold a budget subCommittee Hearing on the entirety of the concept and move ahead, or they could put it into a more of a retune budget process where pieces are heard in different ujbet subcommittees and comes back together after the may revice so it is hard to see how it will go but we are waiting for senators bells maelts if tee if they fulfill what we are hoping for. That help . Thank you. I see no questions lets open up for Public Comment. Anyone from the public that would like to speak . Mr. Plantal. Bob plantal one of several people here to urge you to ovride it the staff recommendation on two bills, ab 1641 and abx 125. Staff is recommending watch and think it is highly inappropriate can you repeat that . Yab 1641 and abx 125 by the same author in Orange County, Assembly Member. They would say it is open season for shuttles to operate in transit bus systems. It may sound okay, but you have to think they are small bus company whether it is santa cruz and Scotts Valley is a tech hub [inaudible] have special commuter runs into sacramento. Smaller Transit Companies wouldnt have the power or ability as San Francisco to negotiate. Right now the Pilot ProgramSan Francisco had just ended. There is another program in place that may be modified. I think there ought to be learning provided to other transit agencies as well as the legislature, lessens learned, issues to be resolved would be writ nl into future legislation about shuttle squz bus stops. I think it better to say opposed now otherwise you give a rel tivly free or blank check to the shuttle companies. Gone, think not just of San Francisco but the smaller Transit Systems outside santsa cruz or mother load and foothill. They are not able to withstand the pressure. This is something you ought to be consideration. [inaudible] you have to take into account the negligentful under responsiveness. Cpuc isnt someone you want guarding the safety the passenger. It is under responsive with people with disabilities so watch isnt appropriate, it is opposed. You will hear about the multiplicity of usage of transit stop squz why this should be opposed. Thank you. Next speaker. Mrs. [inaudible] i am reiterating what bob said. Sue von. I will urge you to oppose the positions of watch for ab 1641 and abx 125. These would both amend the vehicle code to alloy privatecarias to operate in public bus stops. We know privatecarias [inaudible] and the evidence also indicates the availability of the tech shuttle buses in particular drives up housing price, eviction and displacement. With the expansion of Silicon Valley check these can be exacerbated. [inaudible]omeployment numbers by 27, 900 in coming years. What is unknown what the housing plan is but living in San Francisco and getting Free Transportation to silken Valley Companies is offered as a job perk. If the billerize passed there could potentiallythere are other bills discussed about raising generating revenue for Public Transportation and if those bills are passed there can be a lot of money to expand local and regional Public Transportation and that is what we need, locum and regional Public Transportation accelable to everyone. These two bills give no leverage to disability and low income communities to advocate for their needs. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Edward mason. The bill transfers public space to private use. You have wide turns from the buses that ubtruckt traffic. Engine and air conditioning noise are environmental deg aareidating. You have muni delays. Fuel consumption, hamp is waisted because the buses return for another trip so last year i estimate there were 1. 2 million gallons of diesel used and half was waisted. The bus loan safety and we have to board in the street. For the disabled it is a problem because if i am out there with a cane i dont want to board in the street. The bus operates, there is no legislation that prevents the bus from operating without a license. We had sfo [inaudible] for the month operate without a california license plate and dekales in the muni stop. At 24 and church there was a bower bus with no dekales a brand new bus but no dekales. Recommend that a Regional Express system set up for everyone to use it and for efficient use of consumption of fuel. I currently as it is written i recommend that this not be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone esthat would like to speak . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Could we get some response from mr. [inaudible] [inaudible] just to give background on the staff recommendation, we understand the policy discussion is happening in other venues within the city and just for clarification the bill wouldnt issue a blanket authorization, it will allow local tooz make that decision that so we felt given the policy discussion going on, local control was something that we can take a watch petition on but it is up to you to amend if you desire. It seems like it is going against the california vehicle code, which is pretty clear it seems but anywayokay. Thank you. Colleagues we had a couple recommendation from the public speakers. Are there motions on any of the items . The suggestion was that the Orange County author alan trav isfrom district 72 [inaudible] abx 125, instead of new recommend watch a recommendation was made to oppose. Thoughts, supervisor campos . Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation. I wanted to just reference my thoughts on ab 1641 and abx 125. Given sortf what we have gone through in San Francisco i am very worried about the state putting this forward. I think this takes local control away and i think that while we have seen with our own program here is there are many benefits to this and im happy that the program is likely to continue here in San Francisco, i think that is a good outcome, but there is clearly mitigations that are needed on so many Different Levels where wl it is congestion in terms of number of stops in a given jurisdiction, whether it is Environmental Impacts that may occur, to what they actually pay for the use of public stops. Too as we see here in San Francisco, the potential impact on housing and displacement. I think that i would make a motion to oppose ab 1641 and adx 125 in the current form because i do think they take away local control and i dont see it as opposing shuttles, i think the fact is we are supporting them here, but i think the way this is being done it actually is harmful to local jurisdiction squz think each jurisdiction has to figure out what make sense and think this takes that away. Second mpt any other comments . So, for the full package this is a action item so there is a motion on changing those 2 items, can we have a roll call on that . It is a motion that we take opposed position on ab 1641 and abx 125. On the motion to oppose those bills, commissioner breed, aye. Commissioner compose, aye. Commissioner kim, aye. Commissioner mar, aye. Commissioner yee, aye. The amendment to the item passes. Now on the full legislative actually i have a recommendation. I have a recommendation that we oppose abx 118. I think as i said before we arethis measure will seek to return the return of truck weight fee tooz the state highway rehabilitation purposes, which would be great if we paid our bill and the source of revenue from this fee is actually used to pay the bond debt and i just dont understand why this would be requested of us if we havent finished paying the bill in the first place. Then again as i said before, we have a proposed budget deficit for the state of california and so here we go adding a additional expense to that and there is no need to do that, so if that were not the case or the bond debt was paid off that would be a different story but think we should oppose this until the bond debt is paid off with the revenue anticipated to pay it off in the first place. I would like to make a motion to oppose. It is seconded. Lets take a roll call on the motion by supervisor breed. Take Public Comment no. Is there Public Comment . There is none. So, roll call. Can we do same house same call . Thank you. Now on the full recommendations from our legislative staff, can we take everything same house same call . As amended. Thank you. Now let me just call us back to the consent calendar. The minutes and internal accounting and investment report. Lets open up for public common. Anyone from the public that would like taspeak . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Can we have a roll call on the consent calendar . You can do same house same call if you like. Commissioner breed, actually i would like to ubstain commissioner campos, aye. Commissioner kim, aye. Commissioner mar, aye. Commissioner yee, aye. The consent calendar is approved. Mr. Stam item 5, and update on the california road Pilot Program. This is a information item. Hello my name is michele [inaudible] transportation planner in policy and programming and im here to give a update on the california road charge Pilot Program. I would like to start by going over the legislation that set up the program and discuss how transportation projects are funded that state level and go into the road use charge Advisory Committee and recommendation frz the Pilot Program and where we will go next. So, in 2014 at the recommendation of the California State Transportation Agency the Legislature Passed a bill that authorized implementation of the Pilot Program by jen 21, 2017 to test a road u. S. Charge to replace the current gas tax and funding transportation projects in california and established a road use charge technical Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations on what the program will look like. The gas tax is the it major funding mechanism at the state and federal level. It was set up as a prushy for road use, the idea being the more you drive on the streets the more gas tax you pay because the more gas you punchs. However, the gas tax has been decreasing and in recent years due to improvements in fuel efficiency and increase in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. So the road use charge was recommended for study as a replacement to this user fee for transportation projects. It would charge a fee per mile oppose today per gallon as the gas tax is curbtly collected. This is made possible in pard due to a number of Technology Advancements we have seen in recent years. Some may be clar with straba which is tracking mileage people are traveling just via bike or by running. So, in this system fuel efficient vehicles will pay the same fee per mile as older less efficient vehicles. So, the road use charge is seen as more equitable due to the fact it charges ever user the same amount for the amount they travel and gets you closer to a true user fee by calculating how much you are driving and charging you based on that. Right now what they are studying is how the road use charge would be able to replace the gas tax, but there is a potential in the fuch frr it to be a additional fee rather than a one to one replacement. This wood also be more similar to the way we charge for aootilities in other sectors mpt so, the road charge technical Advisory Committee comprised of Industry Experts and leaders across the state and met for 12 months and in december 2015 pub lished their recommendation report that provided recommendations for design the Pilot Program and for how it would be evaluated. The [inaudible] discussed items that focus on creating a program that will replace the gas tax and discussed issues of equity as i brought up, privacy and Data Security and they also charged with doing Public Outreach so they did a state wide survey and focus groups across the state and a lot was learned from the focus groups. For example, in general Public Education about this is very important because there is both a misunderstanding today about how transportation projects are funding and what our gas tax goes to, but also a lot of confusion over what a road use charge is in general. They also discovered a lot about peoples preference and the values they hold behind a user fee. In general people thought paying for what you use is a user fee was deemed fair but fairness had a lot of different meanings for people. Some thought efficient vehicles should pay less because that is fair and some thought charging more per mile when you have a drive a Long Distance to your job is unfair so these are questions that will have to be kept in mind throughout the Pilot Program and in designing any potential future Permanent Program. So, in termoffs the technical Advisory Committee recommendsation for the Pilot Program, the first recommendation was that they achieve 5 thousand participants in the Pilot Program state wide and would like to see a Cross Section of there slate on california roads today. They are looging for diversity in vehicle type, as well as geography so commercial vehicles, vehicles owned by private individuals and seeing them spread out in the north, central and southern regions of the state. Choice and security, the [inaudible] recommended there be a choice in xhrjs and state account managers so for example organ has a program of 3 different account managers one is state run and two of which are commercial. One for example is verizon. So the state would like to replicate a choice and account managers in the Pilot Program. They would also like to see a choice in mileage reporting methods. The chart below demonstrates what the different basis for the fee would be from time to distance and the other reporting methods are manual or automated. On one end you may have a time permit where you pay a unlimited amount of driving in terms of miles ova course of a week, month or year where you are not reporting anything about the amount you are actually driving or where you drive so it preserves the privacy concerns citizens have. On the otherened you vaautomates reporting method that includes rough geo graphic data so this is something you may use if you frequently drive to another state and the system would automatically track the distance you are driving and whether you are in california and should pay california road use fee or if you are on private roads or other exempt geography. In terms of choice and security, there is a number of privacy and Data Security recommendations including making sure the system has authorization and authint ication. There are strong data secure measures in place and only collect the amount of data they need and the data is destroyed after a certain period of time. The technical Advisory Committee recommendations for evaluation fall in 8 categories and have a total of 5 ocriteria. The meat the program is determining whether this is a feasible replacement for the gas tax that will bring in revenues in a way that better reflects the driving happening in california, but also will look at privacy, Data Security and equity because there may be items not captured in the Pilot Program but that are important to take into consideration should there be a Permanent Program put in place such as the difference between paying a fee to the government every time you stop at the pump versus once a month or once a year. So, as i said, these recommendation were released december of 2015 and the Pilot Program is slated to begin july 1 of this year. It will be a 9 month Pilot Program with reports out to the ctc and legislature by june 30, 2017 and a recommendation will be folded into the annual report of a road use charge replacing gas tax. They are actively seeking volunteers for the Pilot Program and will likely need 15,000 people to sign up to get to the 5 thousand voln unteer goal so the website is rks with ww. California road charge pilot. Com and encourage everyone interested for signing up for the Pilot Program. With that, any questions im happy to commissioner kim i just have one question which is how does this impact driver incentives to do hi brds and electric cars if the tax is on the number of miles driven and not the gas . In some ways it seem you may discourage better behavior. The recommendation from the technical Advisory Committee is incent vise the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles at the time of purchase rather than a ongoing subsidy and some may say the biggest innocentive is they dont have to pay for gas so have lower bills throughout the year and but isnt there is a concern though that this is in some ways penalizing those that are being more environmental in the driving behavior . I think the think to keep in mind is gas tax was not set up as a penalty on drivers purchase large amounts of gas but in10ed to be a proxy fl a road use fee. At the time it was set up made sense because every vehicle was using gas. Those vehicles are incuring ware i not putting into the system to maintain it so this is a attempt to return to a fair user fee on all the vehicles using the roads. I understand that, im just not sure if i agree with that policy. I guess we want people to pay for the road usage that they use but i also think that the gas tax is to penalize certain types of behavior and it is there to fix inefficient in the market and one of those isdants on gas and oil so a tax can be both. There to correct inefficient and there to actually draw back peoples useage of roads, so i understand both premise, just not sure i would land on the side of road useage versus penalizing the inefficient in the market. [inaudible] i really appreciate your line of questioning. I think it is a complex topic because most see it as a simple fee and view it as a way to how we pay for roads and think it covers are road smains i it doesnt. It is useful to think of the charge covering 3 purposes, one is the infrastructure itself as a way to pave as you go for the roads and maintenance of roads and bridges and hiways, the second is how do we want intoo encourage people from a environmental standpoint to travel. The environmental policy is actually what is driving in london to create a low carbon zone. They have gone beyond the congestion charge to modify the policy to focus on low carbon emission. The third area is congestion policy. Again, a charge or fee can reflect all 3 of these thingsism how we wish to pay for instructure, environmental policy and profile of vehicle fleet mix we want to encourage our discourage as well as the congestion on the roads when we want to encourage people to travel and not travel, give a hov discount for high occupancy veekz and carpool. One the questions that does continue is for example whether we give low emission and electric vehicles access to the carpool lanes in california because the carpool laneerize starting to get full and degrade perform ons thf lanes mpt there you have the collision of environmental policy with mobility policy. I think this is a very important area where a fee can be interpreted and used for multiple purposes. I amope toon the conversation and being convinced, just on first [inaudible] i dont know if i agree moving towards that taxation but open toi know this is a informational item but just want to get those thoughts out there. I was going thank michele for the slides. I get the picture with the sink holes and [inaudible] but slide number 6 talking about equity as a driving reason for this charge and really reducing the number of vehicles on the road or vehicle mile traveled. I also wanted to say that my guess is people that can afford a electric vehicle and at times hybrid have a higher income than people that still drive the gas guzzler jz hopefully incentvise the purchase of vehicles still can be done but this makes sense to me. I had to wrap my head around it by looking at the slide of the gas taxes losing value and how this makes sense. Im curious how it technology will work as the Pilot Program moves forwards and i appreciative of mr. [inaudible] for putting this forward, but i think it makes a lot of sense for the future of improving the roads and streets in the state of california. Any other comments, colleagues . Thank you for the update. Mr. Stamose next item Public Comment on item 5 any Public Comment on item 5 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you so much for the presentation item 6, introduction of new items. This is information itedm. There is no comments. Anyone from the public like to speak . Public comment closed item 7. General Public Comment. Good morning. [inaudible] having love and passion in [inaudible] establishing [inaudible] good manners wisdom and trust. [inaudible] in making contribution [inaudible] on improvement and virtue of growth [inaudible] but for the concern of universal wellbeing of all [inaudible] and giving help to the needy so we can [inaudible] back to whatever security of [inaudible] that you know. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak . Public comment is closed. Is there any other business . Item 8, adjournment. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone. [gavel] welcome to the regular meeting of the Small Business commission on monday, federate eighth. The meeting is being called to order atim not sure is the correct time. It it its 5 34 pm. Tonights meeting is being televised live tonight and the Small Business commission thanks media services