An ordinance amending the planning code to correct the errors part of ordinance. Okay. Update the code and making the language supervisions for the clarify tax. Thank you very much i believe were going to hear from aaron star from the Planning Department will be present on this item welcome. Thank you very much supervisors aaron star supervisor for legislative affairs this is an ordinance to impact the ordnance repealed in part of article 2 to update the code language and make nonsubstantial language it clarify the text the Planning Commission heard this and voted unanimously to approve that and recommend were added to the ordinance before today it is a straightforward piece of legislation so my presentation is short ill be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you colleagues i dont know if there is any discussion if not open up for Public Comment at this time Public Comment an open. Thank you, maam planning i want to also a true relationship our treasure awhile we look at weighing noblz and the weekly buzz actually to any girlfriend for the noble prices against hock destiny and self missionary parkway based on what was on lucky boat as things matters all the way being in danger everyone should have reasonable success and later in life of intelecommunication of falsehood well support for having a moon and sun go our planet of force to remove of education to gentlemen of statement for revises and having a way of speech and this banging being a proper measure a complete upon contributing high levels of back to one is holy and extend to a border of universal whole that part of december new for true selfnature and physical nature for the showing of true forces to complete oneness. Is there any additional Public Comment only item one seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you very much colleagues may i have a motion on that item. Thank you there was a motion open up for Public Comment by supervisor kim well take that without objection. That motion passes nauchl mr. Clerk item 2. Item 2 a resolution oppose the sdrrmz in the zoning planning area that is boundary by Market Street on the north and fulsome on the south and stuttering on the east and between montgomery and third street on the west and the area boundaries by harrison and Second Street excluding the rooftop broadwaysansome apartments between mission and other portions in zone one of the Transbay Development plan. New supervisor kim is the author of this shell offer remarks. Were still in negotiation with the stakeholders in this interim control id like to make a request to continue for two weeks. The motion was made to continue to two weeks until october 19th and well take that without objection. That item passes thank you. Oh, lets take Public Comment lets go back to item two all right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed thank you there was a motion by supervisor kim to continue this item until october 19th and that motion passes unanimously all right. Thank you mr. Clerk, call item number 3. Item number 3 the ordinance amending the Planning Commission by the Transportation Sustainability fee and spunt proclamations of the transit impact fee with the sustainability fee remains operative. Thank you very much colleagues a continuation of the previous hearing and discussion i think so we have staff from the planning from planning from mta and who are here to answer questions and mr. Victoria wise times to make an announcement why not have victoria with the mta okay. Let the director speak and come back to you thank you. Thank you, madam chair and members the committee thank you for your time in considering this item i want to reinforce a few things the measure that was introduced by the mayor along with the Planning Department and the mta was the result of a considerable amount of work literally over the course of many years it was analysis both the techniques and the Feasibility Study but even more so lots of discussions with lots of different stakeholders and trying to incorporate feedback and trying to run numbers and find as someone said a sweet spot of the right level to set those fees and the right way to assess them and the rate uses upon which to assess them we at the Municipal Transportation Agency have a invested interest and generating revenue but we want to make sure in the context of the other fees the city assess in the cost of doing business were going about this in the most thoughtful and deliberate way the work that was done i believe got to what was a strong proposal there were certainly people on different sides thought that which is too much or too much grandfathering or two little we took that feedback and came up with the final feedback i said there are legitimate questions about some of those dimensions what is covered whether the fees are at the right level and the grairt adams or subtracted i know you had a number of questions at the Land Use Commission and the Planning Department staff has worked hard to get you the answers theyre here with the staff and the Transportation Authority ready to answer any other questions and provide any other information and if there are some things that need to adjust a little bit one way or another certainly an arena for the board of supervisors to weigh in i want to reinforce there was a lot of work at analytical and are stakeholder work we brought together by our staff over the course to get to the comprehensive product im hopeful without too much unbeknownst doing of those years of work we can get to consensus on city hall and move forward so i want to hour and reflect all the many years of hard work that was done to try to get the best possible painstaking understanding people have different ideas the staff are here to provide information and thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for your hard work. Ms. Wise you want to introduce the line up. Members of the Board Director reiskin recovered much of it i want to add in addition to sfmta we have staff from the district 2 and the consultants for the feasible analysis were ready to answer any questions or provide clarification for the materials we sent to you covering the grandfathering like post secondary hospital exemption and questions around feasibility particularly around the eliminations of the credit and the increase of the fees for different criteria so thank you. Thank you so i have a few opening remarks. Jump into i will notoriety all of my comments from the last meeting i have of the opportunity to communicate and talk to many of the stakeholders as well city staff about this legislation i do want to acknowledge the hard work the Mayors Office put together a piece of legislation the harrods on this matter is in no way in a gated only fair to weigh in to the piece of legislation and so as i previously mentioned San Francisco is growing at critically rapid rate and much of this growth is occurring in the southeast neighborhood and devil the housing it critically important when there is a housing crisis, however, the infrastructure that supports 24 growth is critical to the liveability and health of the neighborhood this Committee Heard false imprisonment articulated the challenges we have with the developing infrastructure in the eastern neighborhoods to serve this new growth we need to really get this right and i belive we can thoughtfully increase the impact fees without discouraging much of the needed development now colleagues, i have circulated a few amendments for your considers the first removal of the planned area credit which is only page 8 beginning on line 3 this will modesty increase the fees and keep the dollars in the neighborhood and releaving the strain 1 please turn off all electronic devices. Plus Million Dollars a year remove the credit developers will not pursue the projects in those areas i roll call disagree the removal of the credit results in a rultsd in an increase an 0. 97 and those are the areas that have all accepted most of the citys development in the most dire need of Infrastructure Improvements the Second Amendment ive proposed to increase side threshold for pdrs exemption from 8 hundred ground square feet to 15 hundred ground square feet this is a priority and will generate only a negotiable amateur of money consistent with the pdr policies weve taken the third amendment im proceeding i said last week the hospitals should prepare to pay fees we appreciate the charity care they generates a significant number of trips and has a Significant Impact ive asked the hospital to work with us on a standard that reflects unique situation, however, a theyve not been 80 able to come forward this will remove the exemption for hospitals those large trip janitors should pay fair share and open to an alternative proposal in the absence of the feedback from the hospital we need to make a statement those entities pay their fair share so i will supervisor kims name on the okay look to supervisor wiener if you have any comments to share. Sure thank you very much madam chair, i want to not go into the same level the subscription but im excited about this legislation Going Forward we be wouldnt quibble about this and that detail but not to miss the force for efforts for the trees the fit in the history of San Francisco transit impact fees will apply to residential promotions and this precarious transit fee tsif han has been on the books for 35 years and not employed to residential that was an adoption but the fact we have an in terms amount of remain development in San Francisco ive supported we need more housing 90 in San Francisco we know when we have more Residential Development in the city it is important but it has impacts and is as a result we have impact fees we impose on residential impacts around the Affordable Housing and around various other needs is an o suspicion that Residential Development does not pay impact fees were bringing people into an area there are impacts on Transportation System including auto trips and crowding or increased ripen on Public Transportation and important to develop to help pay for those needs not to pay on their own and the lions share of our Transit System is funded by this taxpayers this is an important step forward ill note we went through this process in a more limited form 3 years i offered renewal of tsif we had fixtures around hospitals should be exemption from the transit impact fee i took the position and figure out to remove the exemption for the impact fees in 2012 i figure out the good fight and a lot of the balanced a 9 to 2 vote the only members e member of the board of supervisors that voted with me to remove the comments was former carmen chu i want to thank her for standing with us although we sufrdz when we moved that the t s pi keep in mind that message that the board of supervisors sent loud and clear that people voted not to keep the hospital exemption k exemption as a result we worked to keep the exemption to the seismic retrofit and we agreed with the hospital on that expended exemption i was then surprised to learn i had a number of colleagues that voted to keep the hospital exemption three years ago and now advocating to remove the exception thats fine everybody is entitled to their viewpoint i wish that we all had been together to remove the exemption three years ago thats life ill stand by the agreement he reached with the hospitals before we introduced this legislation to extend their exemption from through the seismic deadline ill not be supporting the exemption of the hospital today although i maybe in the minority there are other amendments ill describe and top after opinion the First Student housing not built by nonprofit universities should be subject to transit impact fees we have a dramatic shortage of Student Housing in San Francisco it is very negative impact for students that cant find a place to live in their cars or just to go to college long commutes i offered Student Housing legislation to try to remove some of the obstacles and make that cheaper and easier for universities to build their own hours instead of tossing their students into the universal pool Student Housing before any of us on the board this is at previous board of supervisors exempted Student Housing entirely from the inclusionary housing no Affordable Housing fees to make it as inner expensive as possible to build housing we shouldnt be have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the impact fees to Student Housing to the universities so ill be offering an amendment, in fact, ill also be offering an amendment onehalf had a lot of minor amendment around requirement to perform economic Feasibility Study every 5 years and this amendment will change it to 3 years and im want to hear what the proposals are in terms of i know there will be proposals to increase the Square Footage of transit impact fee assess and perhaps around grairthd so once those are proposed ill have thought i have ideas how to approach that to accomplish a lot of the goals while also respectfully the needs of feasible projects and finally i just want to note i mentioned this briefly last week that transit impact fees as important as they are a tiny tiny piece of the proposal for the plans the total amount well get palace in comparison to the needs we have and those are largo coming from taxpayers so from various ballot measures that will moved whatever we do lets keep in mind the big picture the people that are cheer leading this their equally or more passion when it comes to airbnb public decisions to invest in our Transportation System because that is what is going to decide the Transit System that meets the needs of the people in San Francisco thank you. Supervisor kim. Commissioner avalos. Go ahead. Thank you chair cowen first of all, i was here last week and want to residency my comments first of all, thank the mta and planning and Mayors Office and the Development Community for coming together on the tsif a lot of work that was done and crafting the legislation that is bring your attention today, i think this is significant especially setting the precedent how to collect fees on development and how development can help to cover transportation costs in San Francisco last week, we offered a number of ideas ive been calculating for amendments some of them have been talked about today, i know weve heard clearly from ed reiskin from the mta about all the work in establishing the fee as is and i understand also that within city hall and city departments there had been a lot of discussion the right way to calibrate those fees i see that the decision has come together and the deal that was made in the Mayors Office with the Development Community and the mayor was a deal that was maids now what is in the legislative process to discuss what is the proper way to calibrate those fees and now in our hands i want to make sure wear hearing clearly from the people that worked on establishing the fees or the rational and what was feasible to the developments of different size to school bus a new fee and have that guide us while were setting the fees at city hall and the Board Chamber so here are the different ideas i have in place for amendments that i maybe sitting in for supervisor kim and who has to leave later in the meeting today before we finish so i might be adding those actual amendments i agree with the elimination of the area plan exemption i agree with eliminating the hospital exemptions as well and looking at an overall tier structure for the tsif that will based on residential and the nonresidential for the size of the projects in the residential and nonresidential and kathy is here for details with that after Public Comment and i also want to look at how to grandfathering the residential and nonresidential based on july 1st of 2014 and also the introduction day for the new tsf that was july 21st of this year so that will be looking at grairt for residential and nonresidential i also have a concern about how watching from the prospective of district 11 in the southern part of San Francisco weve havent seen a very equitable way of shairts sharing the resources in that part of San Francisco how to looked forward to the study between the Planning Department and the Controllers Office and how to make feasible tiered approach to create incentives in part of San Francisco that see development happening in singlefamily homes providing inlaw unit apartments for typicallyers rather than remain and commercial space that will be transforming in the future an amendment that way in that direction move forward so those are my openly comments and again, thank you to the Mayors Office and the Planning Department and mta for their work and looked forward to the discussion here and at the full board of supervisors about the tsif. Thank you very much supervisor kim. Thank you just in case im not able to make an it through Public Comment i want to move forward my position on the tsf and recognize the staff at sfmta and the Planning Department as well everyone thats been working on updating the tsf and it has been going on for many years i want to clarify when the amended version came before us in the board of supervisors a few years ago we voted against it not because we were not against a particular exemption or nonexemption like the hospital there are a number of groups that were constituent like the nonprofit Affordable Housing and every Single Member of the board has a variety of reasons they voted against the version we wanted more time to who determine who should be paying for tsf and therefore i think every category was left open in terms of where individuals supervisors stood including the nonprofit hospitals there or agreement around a number of things at this point i support eliminating the planned area credit being it looks at this is the area where we are increasing the density and growth and make sure that we are investing in the Public Transit pedestrian and Bicycle Safety needs and of the growing neighborhood and second looking at as commissioner avalos Mental Illness ill be supportive creating a structure for residential so keeping buildings of 99 units and under at the current proposed fee and raising interest by one thoroughly for hundred and above for the nonresidential looking at the balancing the Feasibility Study and the nukes i think we can significantly raise commercial nonresidential fees by 3 for large promotions and ill be supportive of that. I also supports the tiered grairt of residential and nonresidential as proposed by commissioner avalos i certainly think that any developments that have submitted after july 21st should pay hundred percent of tsf as the ordinance was introduced on that day as supervisor wiener mentioned im supportive of excluding the nonprofit Higher Education institutions that have to summit an im p a small group of institutions in that grouping the case that will be most impacts it is imperial they built Student Housing on site so students can stay on campus and go to class and that is the city moving forward in a positive direction so those are my quick thoughts a lot went into this and the amendments in no way counter the good work that was done with the years of bringing this proposal forward that braid really want to say insure wear advocating for the highest possible fees that are feasible for our developers and stakeholders and balancing the needs of the residents in this yoga city were trying to improve what already exists and insuring the sfmta to make sure the future works thank you. At this time i think we should go to Public Comment ive got several mr. Yip ill call you up last i have several cards that are ahead first charley frost calling names okay charley. Thank you supervisors im Vice President at u s f many folks have faibd talked about last week u s f is exempt if 9 charitable exemption its disappearing and modified now thank you u sf has many projects like Student Housing expansion and housing is one thing the Biggest Challenges to the city we are hoping to build housing if a couple of phases mrs. An additional hundred square feet of classrooms and at t other facilities to meet that to accommodate displaced functions the cost for the tsf could top 8 million those costs are significant to usf it will have a beneficial impact est has limit the growth on the campus to accommodate the st. Jude student bodies we have many that live on campus and working to relocation students and lessen the impact usf was the first Higher Education San Francisco Public Utilities commission to purchase muni pays for the students this has been in place and provides muni with 6 point plus Million Dollars and it provides subsidies we respectfully request usf be exempted as proposed by amendments from supervisor wiener and supervisor kim thank you for your time. Madam chair im bryan former executive director and the former executive from the st. Marys i understand the service and chariot care has been here since 2 hundred plus this is subject to the fee no different than a fee and directly impacts the service to the community and undermines the charity care with the City Government and Others Community organizations id like to give you one example from my personal experience prior to my hiring by the board of catholic it which i shouldnt weve been struggling struggling with it in debtness he was told our marketrate couldnt afford that as far as i am concerned found out and offered us a space on hayes street we stated there for 3 years and went back to serving the poor and marginalized we couldnt have made that recovery without as far as i am concerned help and in a form of transportation the impact fee would have been in place they couldnt have helped us this will be great for the Health Care Mission and it is not for the relationship between the city and nonprofits thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Madam chair and honorable members of the committee i thank you to mr. Kay hill for testifying no better champion marathon through the nonprofit hospitals we did seek to engage in a dialogue around what can be done because hospitals do not right want to shirt theyre responsible the challenges we have where with respect to the nexus study there say we view as fundamental questions namely the employee ratio is off we know the employee ratio is a bigger number than identity in the nukes u nexus study the connective Feasibility Study that purports to impact the impact fee on the industry the prototypes for the development and not a single hospital is in the mix so it ignores the state seismic requirements is a larger footprint with the same number of trips that has been our one ever our issues with this ordinance it doesnt understand that net new construction can mean the same number of employees, hospital beds and trips thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors abby digit health st. Francis Memorial Hospital we want you to support the amendment as written regarding the hospital exemption i think it never keys to amaze we we dont know the Health Care Dollars dollar is our dollar we pay from our Insurance Premium o are noted for profit money and got going to wall street but back to the technology and the capital at any time of our hospitals that is tremendous were on the verge of converting to Electronic Health records and driving the capital costs for hospitals we must school bus and to keep the institutions going when we add on infrastructure fees like transportation that will go back to the mix and the only way we get money through you been Insurance Premiums having there is no other source of revenues for hospitals as the city use shiners for the retirees that cost will be passed to the city no net gain the city will continue to pay those dollars through the insurance fees that that pays for its employees a little bit of a shell game we need to think about that we may be believing well get additional revenue but indeed it is going out the other way thank you. Madam chair and supervisors im sister marla son for Community Health for as far as i am concerned medical selfcenter in 185 had the sisters were invited to San Francisco to visit the dying patients in the first county hospital the marvin stat hospital on stockton and vallejo today all hospitals in San Francisco are blessed have to such unbelievable medical experts and care for the people of San Francisco but all hospitals provide spiritual care and at Dignity Health the program is elevated to a Certificate Program that trains the visits the clinics at as far as i am concerned and st. Francis and all of the hospitals have a student and chaplain that visits them in their surrounding two days ago on saturday they participated in the southeast Family Health fair one of the obligations of the hospital in San Francisco not only take care of the people that come to hear hospitals as patient but take care of the exultance theyre in as far as i am concerned provided diabetes survey and also a stroke preservation Health Education those Services Show the commitment of the hospitals to focus on the totals person body mind and spirit please help us so we can continue to do this work and vote if i may an scaping the exception for notforprofit hospitals thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please good afternoon, supervisors my name is stuttering phone call i participate in the Community Outreach for Chinese Hospital compliance hospital works together with all the other hospitals in San Francisco we work collaboratively on many projects such sf free and Health Issues it is important that the hospital continue to Work Together for awareness and education and sister mary alluded to the fees do jeopardizes any collaborative or Community Efforts hospitals always are working together and continue to Work Together please support any of the exemption for the hospitals thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi good afternoon madam chair and supervisors melissa time to reiterate what what my colleagues not through the sutter development it took many, many years and with the negotiations with mta and the board of supervisors and the city that came up with a 16. 4 million pay throughout the 10 years of the Development Agreement money going towards Public Safety and bart and other bicycle studies so i ask you to hold on and hold the the fee and work with the other hospitals thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Madam chair and board of supervisors john San Francisco consortium ill not repeat but remembered the board of supervisors the charity care and the Community Benefits are critical if we do anything to take away the money our paints will suffer the crisis and i understand the Consortium Directors understand the importance of how the transit fee but not at the expense of the health and welfare which i shouldnter care is the way our patient but for in patient care so several years ago a collaboration with the hospitals we did a speciality care program and operation assess every year draws on communities benefits we thank you and ask that the hospitals be exempt. Thank you, mr. Yip. I havent called you yet id like to call up mr. Peter cohen and calling names . Good afternoon, supervisors good to see you peters cohen would you be able organizations were here sounds like a Good Movement of sensible amendments youve decided last week and i think generally support all of combination as we mentioned last week is a question of how much revenue well get from the tsf fee towards the totals costs of Transportation Needs at this point a number of 3. 3 billion as supervisor wiener said the lions share for funding is going to fall on the taxpayers that is absolutely true the fee is 23 percent of total costs are nexus study that means the other 77 percent comes from taxpayers in combination with the general funds in the fair balance we do encourage you increase that fee level and for the proposal is where it is it is ill say that is smart to think about tiering development and other types of Development Impact fees not all development is the same i understand that intuitively and in the Feasibility Study it shows 10 different tip lolgz 10 commercial as we move forward how the scales of the small medium and Large Development whether residential or commercial can absorb supervisors that is how you of the do sweet spot to different types of development and youll assume it a good step in the right direction for the two tiers thank you good afternoon ken cleldz representing the releasing and the commercial developers youve been reached out to for a long time by sfmta first of all, i want to thank the director and people on staff for the mta to really reaching out with regards to the fee increases as you may know what is proposed a 22 increasing on new commercial development and we accept that we would absolutely categorically reject supervisors with respect supervisor kims 50 percent in the transit can impact fees that is onerous keep in mind it didnt on pay certain fees but for public art and others all kinds of fees so transit is simply one of the those fees i think you also should remain were blessed with a very, very low employment and the union halls halls are out on the job and stimulating our local economy every building that goes up in San Francisco adds value to the tax base lets not discourage that thats my proposals thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors im peter straus from the San Francisco transit riders and im going to just focus on a couple of key power points this afternoon first of all, remember this is a fee not a tax were just seeking to recover the expenses that the development encompassed on the city and the small portion at that secondly, as peter coming down the pike mentioned this is a revenue measure and as such one thing that the Feasibility Analysis suggests a nuance structure particularly with tiers is able to recover as much as 25 million or more in cash flow would you tell us interfering with the ability of the Development Community to serve our city we ask you to remember we would like to have a floor of 20 million for cash flow that is feasible and fair transportation is a battalion issue youve it is encouraging the process youve been making in the last week all of you im hopefully and optimistic it can come together on a proposal that shares a recommendation that conforms to those perimeters thank you. Thank you very much mr. Coming down the pike. Good afternoon, commissioners since elevated to commissions tim weve gotten the presentation from the planning over the years our members are strongly in favor of the ideas of Development Funding better transit no argument ill finds myself agreeing with my friend peters cohen the Housing Coalition talks about a fee florida unlike the feasibility analyze sets that that is the rate that maximize rates to the city thats the right thing to do and you can willie until i didnt raise a figure is not how it works as an f to put this in scale last week quick study after the first hearings i got responses if 6 projects of the total city fee load the fee loads theyre paying across different housing fees and the fees that the city is charging might be shorthand for city taxed running 95 thousand over hundred and 30,000 per door and i think a lot of what were doing as mr. Cleveland said a great economy but going on a wing and prayer and somehow the new residents will want to pay hundred and 10 or thirty thousand dloorz dollars a door on new tax that risks the feasibility certainly the project on the margin that are smaller scale and lower cost construction outside of the urban core it is harder to build those projects those are the ones to go ahead so ill urge you to stick with the Feasibility Study shows thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im kathy the policy and Program Manager with walk sf im here to express our support for the Transportation Sustainability program and the fee while we on the Promissory Note Program is a fantastic way to move forward we would like to see administrations to the fee to make it more robust to insure that the city can provide funding that linebacker will create a sustainability the first to increase the mitigation rate above 25 percent and having projects pay only 25 percent of their impact is not enough the Planning Department originally recommended 33 percent or up to 33 percent which we support for projects for which it is feasible second were asking that the 50 percent reduction for grairthd be reduced to 25 percent projects that are already in the process that have started the application process after july 1st of several of you mentioned we support that and finally something i havent heard mentioned the parking parking being included in the Square Footage which it is not in this current proposal only a stand lane parking lot it janitors trips by cars their some of the most expensive trips in the Transportation Network so we think that all parking should be included in the Square Footage for the Transportation Sustainability fee we applaud the preamble the fee and hope youll consider those modifications thank you. Thank you, mr. Lazarus. Jim Lazarus Chamber of commerce i want to remind all of you that those revenue screens for transportation and transit are part of a package the part of package weve supported over the years such as that fee and vehicle licenses fee we worked with the coincidental to pass and the governor to sign and the savings and the muni issue last year, we need to look at those as those kinds of package the proposal that was continued a couple of years ago went far awe fields we asked you not to support that we support the version in sfmta to the Planning Commission and to you this knowledge and open to changes to that we believe that small increases in the Fee Structure as the calory suggested make sense we believe that unfortunate educational institutions and their shoubz projects should be exempted and the hospitals fees detailed and, in fact, the suggestion of up to 5 hundred square feet of small promotions inclusion but ask you not to unrail the coalition that is build up on traffic and improvements in San Francisco over the last exactly and urge you to be reasonable in any change you make to this legislation. Thank you, mr. Yip. Bruce lee ends the dragon fire a couple of Police Officers take on dangers for people in their state of mind for their wisdom that is why is works in the housing execute for people in time of their personal adjustment for terms and personal unwith that said and favor for hospitals striking works for challenges are typical and easy on to you to keep over mind unstable that is why it is totally unnecessary please allow for people having true freedom so one ask joy the process for ones destiny in good connection to trends in time. Thank you if theres anyone else that wants to comment please come at this time. Good afternoon, supervisors im alice rogers on south park and here to stand up for james suggestion we increase the funds on the Transportation Sustainability fee i live in central selma it is ground zero for what happens when you dont plan for center years and decades in advance our congestion is beyond max our air quality is impossible when i different my house and vacuum my house weekly there is so much black stiff on my floor and what i breath is ten times more p than that that is a health issue as well as a congestion issue please seriously consider higher fees and their speaking around the corner on infrastructure hes been blogging on this topic for a good long time and a point he makes is that is from projects that extremely disruptive in the short time and their expensive but in the long term they are even more disruptive if people are worried about money spend it now so you dont have to extend that later thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors steve i want to speak a little bit about the grandfathered july makes sense and people on notice that the ordinance is being introduced at this point i urge you to keep the 50 percent the doctor for projects in the pipeline before that date that is fair the projects could perform their projects and aware of the fee when they made their lands deals the city not to slow down the projects the proposal by the sfmta is feasible and urge you not to void any significant increases maybe were in a bubble now but those fees to make sure make sense in the next busts the reason were in the country now job growth has been since 2010 we need to do better and make sure the housing pencils in when were in the beautify as well now so the projects can be built when the economy is weak this unfair you were burn of fees will be user u unfair the modest of the increases and move the grandfather date up to july 2015 but keep the projects in the pipeline thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon eric a gi a Real Estate Developer and im here today to just give a little bit of insight from our world we work with the city and supervisors and Planning Department on a number of policy items we eye to bill a one for one parking now a 50 percent we have hundred percent bike parking and electrical car charges and filters for the meters that are imposed to high traffic that is the way housing policy transportation policy is done on the level with the developers i think you can give us a lot of run room years in advance we can plan for it like every others policy reducing parking and increasing electrical cars and impact fees to pollution we Work Together and try to accompany with solutions not a penalty again ill support not making large substantive changes, however, well work with the board and city planning for longrange planning to Work Together with transportation in the city thank you. Thank you okay just want to circle back to anyone that is interested in speaking on this item that is the last time well be taking Public Comment Public Comment is closed. Madam chair id like to note that supervisor kim has left the room and supervisor president london breeds as appointed commissioner avalos in her place. Thank you mr. Clerk for that information commissioner avalos. Thank you chair cowen i want to thank everyone from the public for speaking im going to insincerity one thing and let my colleagues on the committee before me if were going to be looking at rays fee levels today even though we could have a discussion on a lower fee or than what i might prosper or another colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Colleague whatever we do will trigger a continuance i believe if we can indicates the highest fee level well go for well not trigger a a the 0 continuance only a onetime continuance and well set a lower fee less time to deliberate on many ordinance id like to propose if were looking at a fee increase question go to the highest level that we can and then questions about of the committee can accept a lower fee at a later time but safe us time moving forward. Thank you commissioner avalos supervisor wiener. Thank you very much so he wanted to you appreciate commissioner avalos sdreb in detail his property amendment and too i want to respond to my prospective the first with respect to the increasing the per Square Footage for both residential and nonresidential as i understand commissioner avalos is proposing residential to keep the per Square Footage rate as 7. 74 between 21 and a 99 units and for projects of hundred units or more to raise it to 874 by one dollars; is that correct. Thats correct. The incredible of one dollars for above hundred. Thats right. I support that ill support that both amendments on the nonresidential and commercial the which is always
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.