Transcripts For SFGTV MTA Board Of Directors 2216 20160203

To the board ask you to turn them off approval of the minutes of january 19th and 26 meeting. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . The is have it. Id like to take a moment to welcome our brand new second meeting City Attorney susan clevelandknowles welcome im glad youre here if you thank you very much. Ms. Bloomer ero mr. Chair we dont have anticipated litigation for discussion in closed session so that item is off the agenda new introduction of business by Board Members. Rocking and rolling item 7 directors report. Director reiskin good afternoon tom nolan and members of the public and staff i want to take the opportunity to recognize some of our outstanding employees well hear from 3 divisions first troyer. Good afternoon decorations id like to ask terra and mr. Washington to join us so sheryl is the transit inspector for 13 years and terra for 8 years on 2015 one of the inspectors garrett and washington noticed a group of people standing over a male the verticalal position when they approached the inspector noticed the male was not breathing and they immediately cleared the baupdz out felt area and called 911 and began cpi over 10 minutes washington observed the skin were recoloring just in time for the San Francisco Fire Department to take control another 0 example of front time staff with the parking control officers going above and beyond the call of duty they came up on a challenging situation and acted quickly and took control of the situation resulted in an outcome that frankly could have been a low worse. On behalf of the board of directors thank you for your outstanding performance it is amazing were proud of that forever and on behalf of the entire agency thank you clapping. id like to thank you. The board of mta and proof of payment that taught me my skills but under the circumstances you see the public asks for your help thats something i would do. Mr. Washington i would to say the inspector was writing up a bunch of ticket laughter winning this award shows that making the citizens the of San Francisco make folks feel safe im proud to be a transit inspector thank you. clapping. director reiskin. I want to ask our director of finance and technology to recognize one of her employees. Good afternoon decorations my privilege to introduce a person from the Management Group if 2009 and played a critical roll in moving the Technology Agency we have been lax and not having the best Technology Moving to the building departments and you can imagine not only the assistance but the culture change and having the folks change the way theyre doing thing is the difficult part hes a key player in some of the systems the Enterprise Management system and the Financial Assistance replacement the gentleman is involved in making sure were approving the control hes extremely detail oriented and has a strong work ethic as from his quality that shows us that way colleagues a lot of his team really supports him he as a backward in Business Administration so perry are thank you and keep up it up and looking forward to seeing the new systems so thank you clapping. on behalf of the board of directors and the entire agency thank you for your work. Thank you very much just a want to say thanks to any immediate virginia and others and especially the supervisor that helped me do any job this is a little bit unextended but very much appreciated thank you clapping. director reiskin. Finally id like to ask john our transit director to recognize the personnel. Good afternoon mr. Haley. Excuse me. Good afternoon to to my right is george and doug lee and a gary is the fleet engineering and the other two are the Quality Control group in keeping with the events of the last week through sunday ill try to recognize theyre terrific work in terms of whats happening with a lot of whats on our minds the super bowl as you recall some 5 years ago our league was the veterans the twilight of our career their performances was declining they could no longer make the plays they were not as reliable as they ones were and unprepared to meet the challenges of the unschedule so what and needed was to look to somebody to throw the playbook out and go to our version of the 2 minute rule in San Francisco you need to look more further than joe montana over the course with your help and support we added procurements we needed somebody to lead the projects that was initiative and look at it different situations could adapt and read the defense make adjustments as we went through the process the ability to check off and make necessary changes and under embarrassing leadership weve gotten a number of buses into the red zone but as you may know getting them into the red zone is not the same as getting them into the cross the goal line. Do you have a parttime job laughter . So as at all football fans know even when our closing the field gets short the last yards are the toughest ive winding up the statement and what you needed was a group of people to do something weve never done we never accepted vary sites and not a new pretty much in several years needed to once we got the our newly kwurd chargers getting them into the services so doug and george organized a Systematic Program worked with the vendors used their ability to block and tackle and resolve issues to get the bus if theyre in service now over the period of procurements it used to take us 6 weeks to get a bus into service now 6 cases primary to the leadership and skills so i want to acknowledge that their hard work in different areas and they are our Pro Bowl Team that has in fact delivered and weve talked about last tuesday a direct tribute to their hard work in honor to recognize them for in their efforts clapping thank you, gentlemen on behalf of the the board thank you for your outstanding work. Thank you, mr. Chair and Board Members and mr. Reiskin and thank you, my boss john halley what a privilege of working on this project i had fun everyday ive been with the program for 3 two years and privileged to have this job and a little bit about myself as a young child my family didnt have a car we rode muni i rode the green buses the late 60s with the gym i didnt see came out i saw them coming up california street i was excited it making made the funnier riding the bus my daughter rides the 38 gary she said buttons on every stop i dont have to reach crossed people my daughter enjoys the buses as well the muni has made blood progress in my cases limited service only on week days and saturdays and sundays this is a terrific increase in service i want to thank the board in every way for this vanishment. Forgive me this is my first time but i too wanted to thank the board and my boss john for take the opportunity to work with this group and john and people that are here that i really they support not only me but all of us we have a great group of inspectors we have inspecting traveling back and forth to minnesota so im giving thanks to them unquote them they wouldnt have all those buses we have 2 today and not we are getting them out no service i want to thank and john mentioned were open on the Super Bowl Committee so ticketed to hawaii. Thank you board so i think john and george theyve mentioned a fun experience to all of us. It is challenging everyday but we manage to overcome the problems in butt all the vehicles into service we have 70 new coaches and i want to take this moment and thank a few people first my mom and dad ive been needing the attention and thank you to them for guiding me and i also want to thank my wife i have a child 5 years old during the time im on a business trip shes doing the hard work behind the scenes and on the work side thank you for the upper management john halley they trusted me everyday a new challenge i pray to god ill do better everyday and proud it is an honor to work with all the working hard dedicated personnel like qualify assurance and engineering staff and without their support we wouldnt be able to make that happen and last but not least without your support i wouldnt have a job thank you very much clapping. were the lucky ones. Thank you i still get excited every time im waiting on the sidewalk and see one of the new buses come down the street and get excited about the stops thats my kind of kid and john mentioned it in terms of the super bowl were right in the thick of it you as you may know the street closer started on monday the events opened up this past saturday and peter albert is here as you may know lead the planning of this and it was done i think the proof of how great the execution has been the last week and a half much of what was designed has worked with a few adjustments weve made not to declare a victory but the crowds are enabling over the course of the, we, of course, the possibility of urban planted event but it is from a traffic stand point transit stand point bike pedestrian accessibility from every dimension of the planning things are relatively well and well working hard to make sure it stays that way muni operator uniforms did beloved brown uniforms that are 26 operators wear around town everyday to make sure that in terms of it is a part of San Francisco we saw an opportunity for a number of reasons to take a step back and review the contracts and elevate the uniforms and the central of making changes to them both improvements the material and changes in what comes with their uniforms but most importantly what colors the uniforms will be so right now we have blue the muni operating division there are two voting a brown and gray those were the top two from a survey of operators done last fall and were looking for changes like a different jacket and options for breathable lighter fabrics so we have a kind of road show through the division what man tennis or kins with operators seeing what the uniforms look like and that will, a place through the end of this week or beginning of technique this is partnership and coordination with the local 258 so far you if not to keep the tabs the gray is leading the brown by several margins we will defer to the worries about the operators on muni but that is possible possible as soon as april you will start seeing new uniforms they might be a different color wanted to let you know about that one other piece of good news is that and again, we didnt want to celebrate but the system drops by 21 percent from november to december 5th percent drop in crime december was the lowest month for recorded crime in 2015 and compared to previous years often crime goes up goes up in december so were pretty happy with that 14 and Mission Number one has dropped to 4 highest for the first time in many, many months and this is a result we believe of really good data and analysis from the security folks and the transit folks and good cooperation with the department in terms of the the sources to be purchased through our work order and Police Department using the data for the resources and good communication between Transit Security and Police Department has been i think responsible for this and keeping it down with our Strategic Plan goal of reducing crime by 10 percent in each circle and Capital Projects the balboa park station well break ground mid february the next week or so on the stationary planning codes improvements project this is something that has been the planning for quite and it is initially from the balboa park station area plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission a number of years ago with the community this is kind of a streetscape portion of plan what that plans called around the balboa park muni and bart to improve the safety accessibility and the improve of transit and the overall Customer Experience in this what is actually a very easy multi facility not only for the light rail and the bart station but the bus line that go through the area particularly in geneva the scope is the sidewalk widening and relocating the medium on geneva transit only lanes red only transit lanes and the pedestrian lighting and flashing beacons and the curve ramps and moving the polled out of the walkway for those 20 who use the Santa Fe Geneva corner and coming out into the bart station if below poles that hold the overhead wires close to the tram way well remove those impedes for the traffic and construction is if all goes well should wrap up this fall make a very big impact on the area wear skeleton to try to avoid the trufrpt the week day traffic that will be some noise some disruption but well working hard to make sure we keep that to a minimum and make sure that everyone is impacted with the information it is a great project that will make people who are assessing transit will audits move to the intersection with a more pleasant experience. Youll recall for the second half of 2015 we are that shuftd the metropolitan we recognize was a inconvenience after 9 00 p. M. But recall the purpose was to make critical safety improvements and enhancements there were two things we were doing replacing the old radio system and replacing the integer phone those are items that go back to the 70s when tunnels were built so for about 6 months up until january 23 shutting down every night on the 23 and restore the regular services because first and foremost the tunnels have been completed a little bit of remaining work left well do during the nonregular hours and happening the station so folks the workstations to complete the work but while we recognize it was inconvenient that was really important just to do the repairs and safety work appreciate everyones patience happy to report that the work is nearly complete and then finally with the sunset tunnel were doing well replacement and overhead wire and genre furniture that is 100 percent one shut down think weekend doing this for a weekend at that time, and the last one in january, i building 3 more two this many month and one in march in nothing interferes with those well be done with that project in midmarch all the tomb track has been replaced there are important schematic upgrade with the tunnel those are breaks we identified the engineering with the rail replacements so simplistic argued and this parallels the triplet will signal loan the n judah through the sunset 80 Percent Complete so that will be done in about a month and combination the state of repair that will improve the ride for those on the n judah so grateful for your patience and hopefully 3 more to get this done and another significant part of our Capital Improvement plan youll authorize the Capital Improvement plan that ends my report. Public comment. One member of the public that indicated an interest Herbert Wiener. This is section to address matters that were. One brief anything or thing about the super bowl my feeling mta shouldnt spend a dime towards it i feel it adds towards the shortfall in future years and i believe that the expenditure and thats all i have to say about it thank you. Breblgz. I want to say the Capital Projects the balboa park improvements is easy to remember what a huge transfer service ive walked around in circles trying to figure out where the 29 and ocean avenue i think the wave for in area is huge cut down on the confusion as people come out of that station and the radio project that was improved a long time and people may have forgotten what a big impact can you remembered you briefly how that raises the bar for the communication. Yeah. Sure and very old radio system right now that has a number of limitations including the physical hardware no longer manufactured so we have a shrinking inventory of products and infrastructure that we need in order to communicate so modernizing is it critical it is Single Channel system so one person talking at a time it doesnt have the modern redundancy modern radios have and thats 911 on we appreciated the importance of were doing as part of project not just replacing the old system but a huge thing 2, 3, 4 delays they cant get through to the center so an Immediate Impact on the delayed i system but putting in a computerized system and a local system that allows for communication not just between the control center and the operators but folks the field our control center will have better realtime information that is happening what the vehicles are and theyll be able to deal with issues not only through voice but data communication well significantly impact the way we manage the system as well well be going from a single pipe oldfashioned radio system with much of the rest of the Street Management done with pencil and paper to a modern multi channel high band with a radio system that complimentaryly enables us to have the modern means right now the bus installation for the new radios will be starting this spring the tunnel work was necessary the railcars will follow and perhaps to a point where we are starting to get those the buses and starting to put them into use we can come back with an update but this project started many years ago before i got here and were getting closer to the finish line were managing the system we get. Thank you. If i could just i wanted to compliment staff and whoever is responsible i know there is great information about the super bowl rerouting of buses the downtown area that was great to pot people the community with the information to the accessibility for people with disabilities and so thank you to all i know that was a group effort i appreciate that information was available. Ms. Bloomer. Decorations item 8 the siding i dont see the chairman of the Advisory Committee so no report and on. At this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, mr. Chair we have two speakers Herbert Wiener and carl Herbert Wiener. Herbert wiener i know what some concern about the new rerouting the 22 fillmore that will end at mission bay i wonder if not a back channel for the 33 to stop at third street and 20 streets that means that the 3 that will no longer stop at San Francisco General Hospital now there are voices of concern about this because many people take the 233 to go to San Francisco general there are 3 bus routes now people need San Francisco general as people need bay area you cant rob people off the vitally service San Francisco General Hospital is a Major Service center for the city and the 33 should not be occurring tailed from running to it i believe that when were going to have a new start terminal point for the 22 that was going to effect the 33 there will be only 2 bus route to San Francisco General Hospital that are direct the 48 and he i believe the 9 now it is advocated that people transfer from the 33 to the 9 but 23 your severely hufrt or severe medical needs or seriously ill this is a cruel imposition to travel to a coach i want to see this addressed i i dont want to see the 33 curtailed you last person to turn in a speaker card carl. Good afternoon. Thank you, tom the past three weeks two medallion holders passed away that were on the medallion surrendered list and the widows get the it is unfair the stagnation and movement on the medallion surrender list is 25 the directs vehicles operating in an unfair competition without proper insurance and backward checks and other things like that im hoping that director reiskin might take the lead in coming up with an amendment to the transportation code that provide that anyone on the surrender list for more than a year or whatever amount of time the heros can receive the benefits i know idea float around about a conversion proposal that might allow for pre k and pre k status meaning the people that obtain the medallions that bought them under prop a comes with a property right so they might be able to get the money there is a difference the payment the surrender appraise is 200 thousand and the sale appraise it 237 it is appropriate for people dont have the money and go into debt this is a risky thing because of the conversion thing that is being discussed i think there is a need for an amendment to be protected as ive spoken to thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chair the last person that turned in a speaker card. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Im patrick i neglected to turn in a card but hearing here herb i wanted to echo his concerns about the 33 at the point the department of Health Commission was debating whether to move the sf g h diagnoses center to laguna honda i work for the coalition for eric sf that staff and we lobbied the Health Commission not to diagnose move to it will place an undue burden by fraction thank you, sir where patients get their care they will have to go to laguna honda and back to sf ph for the graphs it will be a burden to get back and forth i would like you to consider as mr. Wiener suggest maintaining the 33 is social justice issue for people with disabilities i think you have it within our powers to help protect the elderly and disabled and people that are rely on that ph for their health care and placing on undue burden with having to transfer buses particularly when in theyre in cheers or on canes like i am would be unfair to them so i urge to keep the 33 operating just as it is now. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anyone else. Mr. Chair no one else consent calendar are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. Mr. Chair none has can do an interest in discussing any consent calendar item. A motion on the consent calendar. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . The is have it. So thank you ms. Bloomer. Moving on to item 11 on the regular calendar presentation and discussion of regarding Environmental Review responsibilities of the sfmta. Director reiskin. Yes. Members of the board as part of the requirements under the charter for training for the broshgsz and also, because it is a common and important issue we face we have before you kenny from our agency and others from the City Attorneys office to give you kind of a refresher course on compliance with the California Environmental quality act. Good afternoon director nolan im adu ray a Deputy Director so thank you for the opportunity to share with you what we know and kind of go over the board role and the ceqa process waiting for the overhead so first saturday with the ceqa basis well talk about the applicability of the second to sfmta projects well go over some of the calendar items you get and some of the victor will talk about the ceqa reform through the San Francisco Planning Department and then have time at the end for questions and answers feel free to interrupt. Ceqa is the California Environmental quality act it is a state law citys charter cities are required to comply it was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1990 no two old our the liable democrats or the job killing or overly regularly things in california although people said that what it does it provides Decision Makers with the an analysis of project impact on the environment sometimes what gets lost not intended to be an analysis the merit of a project it is an analysis the Environmental Impacts it 9 Decision Makers is supposed to use when deciding whether or not to approve a project the Decision Makers can make decisions with horrible horrible Environmental Impacts like the mitigation measures and the merits impact is not supposed to be the Environmental Impact youre not supposed to do that that is a report just that but it is important there are you know some official reasons it is important there is the protection of the environment, is of the utmost important in california says it the Public Resources code and it is important that the Decision Makers and the public has much information and important that ever sort of the highminded importance but practical reasons why it is important particularly before as you get to the nittygritty of what ceqa requires and thats because if an opponent of a project didnt get their way one of the easiest ways not the only way but the easiest ways to champ that approval in a court of law through ceqa judges have a hard work overturning a project because it is a bad idea this is not really their role saying i dont agree it is a bad idea you cant do that is much easier for an opponent to say that the process the body uses was not correct the ceqa process was not right so that is important to get the ceqa review right chances that is part of approval you got wrong. Ceqa is a state law and another one the federal government he go part of ceqa go sfmta does have to do it fairly often it is for usually when we get money from the federal government from the fta and federal property or federal permit we need the processes are slightly different but a lot of over lumbar ill see joint documents and ceqa documents mostly on some of the projects. What is a project . Ceqa is required for all discretionary hundreds of cases trying to determine what each the words mean or mean well talk about really about what a project is a project can be something that something that the approved by the mta board or approved and staff level it excludes contracts and capital plan it includes fair increases but the actual definition an activity if causes a direct physical change the environment or reasonably for assembly change the environment as to how there is a lot of keywords in that existence case law and what those words mean the most important word is may it is not only 0 projects that will cause an Environmental Impact that you have to do ceqa but projects that modesty have an impact on ceqa review so it is projects like you know construction of a building you can tell what the physical change will be but also promotions where that may not be the physical change might not be now but the future the impact might be the indirect change to for example, if the board wants to ban cars on Market Street thats not been provided for this is you know that could be a piece of legislation a couple of pcos not a huge change in the physical environment but the indirect changes the environment are something that second is interested in looking at where are the cars on Market Street where will they go to mission or howard those are the things things to look at the physical changes but the surrounding changes what else do i have ceqa is the assignment is all Different Things underscore are land air water and minerals and noise object are historical or aesthetic significance including man made and natural items it is applies to beneficial projects as well as projects you know will have impacts to the environment so youve got the power plant and have your bike lanes a lot of people think those beneficial projects will be great beneficial impacts on the environment and thats not the test. There is a check list that ceqa provides of the different types of Environmental Impacts that needs to be reviewed the most common one for mta is history projects and transportation and calibrations and air quality but also lots of other categories a little bit smaller but Green House Gas emissions and shadow and recreation and Public Services whether or not youll have enough water, forestry and geology it is the game bet on what is an Environmental Impact ceqa is less concerned about economic and social impacts it is not supposed to be reports on the economic and social although those impacts have physical manifestations a report to look at that the Environmental Impact of the social impact a common example of that is like a walmart a lot of case law on walmart and a lot of opponents of the walmart wanted eirs to look at the you know just because it is a walmart you have to do on eir thats not the test from the amazing is going to cause mom and pop shops to shut down from the walmart causes the mom and pop shows to cut down and known it going through anywhere that is a ceqa impact in the just the social or Environmental Impact in and of itself and then i think well i turn this over to ken that does ceqa review for sfmta. Thank you good afternoon. Director nolan and members of the board of directors in my mind is kenny work the sustainable streets legislation ill continue here im going to focus specifically on the applications of ceqa as it relates to sfmta projects many of these are projects youve seen before you on our past agenda one category of projects that mta is engaged in are traffic and parking modifications those are often on your consent calendar items 10. 2 including some of the ones such as the modification for traffic regulations i know there is one that came before the board the powell street pilot to reduce auto trips and prioritize pedestrians these are the types of projects that generally require Environmental Impact and of the physical change is for example, youre looking at stripping and changes term restricts and red pant on the sidewalk the indirect issues were needed to be addressed the Environmental Review and you didnt see parking we address parking under our city and county guidelines we dont consider parking a environmental factor a primary factor we know that parking additions for the members of the public and Decision Makers we provide a parking analysis for large projects and for you to consider as you look at the totality of the Environmental Impacts and in addition to that, the parking space itself has been removed for a Factor Analysis for the Housing Element under recently state law passed in the bill that actually another great aspect of that will be excuses later in this presentation in addition to traffic and parking modifications we also at mta, of course, have a large amount of the work in San Francisco and projects from low to bike lanes to as director reiskin appointed by balboa park involving the pedestrian improvements those are all elements that also require the environmental analysis generally they can be reviewed and then given a category california exception ill explain that a little bit more in a future slide be aware that as much as beneficial projects such as the beautification for the streetscape improvements those do need to have additional Environmental Impact there is a picture of the project that actually ill get through this staff worked on this project and a great addition to the Mission District also, we, of course, have a tremendous number of improvements currently across the city and even something as minor as a 3w0ub89 requires an Environmental Review as central subway or van bart the 11 of the scale with the type and size of the project like the bulb out will be considered as categorically exempt based on the city and county guidelines like the requirement for the significant analyze and typically requires an Environmental Impact report and youve seen those before for your training and the public watching i will go over what the can can go can goal exclusion in a subsequent slide even infrastructure repairs and replacement the rare work director reiskin mentioned in his report those types of projects require the Environmental Review and the team reviewed and worked with the mta construction to make sure those promotions had expedite review but make sure that an agent in the physical environment goes through adequate ceqa analysis before the contract is approved that can be approved within the agency delegateed by the city traffic engineer and the physical change from the action takes place within the city now in addition to the physical changes weve discussed in terms of parking and traffic streetscape improvements and transit improvements there are other actions that the board takes related to financial activities this includes the sense of grant fund approvals current leases and permit and the transportation code any action that requires a approve by in california the as appointment it is a project or not in many cases mta is required by the state of California Authority and by the federal Fund Properties or the federal administration to have the Environmental Impact completed before awarding the grant or the funding of the grants so a project Development Process it has quite a bit of work that the mta staff and others undertake to make sure the total outlet felt virus or the proposed project that is funded by the grant and those are we have to have before we add them to you or go to the federal government one thing weve noticed is that ive seen in my career a trend towards funding that has completed the view prior to going after the Grant Funding weve endeavored to increase the our Deputy Director leadership who will be presenting after me to entrance the process to make sure we bring our projects about there are no the Environmental Impact process to make sure theyre eligible for state and federal funds. So, now walk you through the 3 types of environmental documents and theres a fourth special type the 3 categories the environmental documents actually, the figured out special type youll not see here those are items that are not considered a project under ceqa as defined you know it creates a permanent change or considered a project under ceqa items that does not effect the physical environment are not subject to ceqa so many actions we take administrative fashion are not subject to ceqa and the last fiscal year the mta worked with the City Attorneys office has added an Environmental Impact section to all calendar items and you generally will see a differentiation of whether or not an item is physical or not a project those determinations with made by the Environmental Impact staff and at mta we gPlanning Department to make those detector but for items that have the Environmental Impact 90 percent of the work is exempt from the California Environmental quality act and there are two types of exceptions that are available to us under state law and the state code first, the statutory defined by the state legislative by statute exempt from the further analysis, however, the project must fit the definition of the code and so there is a one example youll familiar with are changes to fairs and finances and fees those activities make the modifications to transit fairs or those are statutoryly exempt from the Environmental Impact the more boarder exemption are categorically items that have been defined by the governs of the research as being exempt because they fit into a category that determines to have a less Significant Impact to the environment we do for these types of projects conduct some limited analysis internally to make sure the property project is in fact meets the classification one very common exemption class one exemption the minor modifications to the physical environment that includes administrations to new facilities, removal of Parking Spaces for a bus or loading zones and items youll see have a class one exception and generally one the Environmental Impact team is signed off and or an officer of one of designees and maybe an understanding there maybe Significant Impacts we undertake a higher level of Environmental Review for those projects two standards were able to in cases do a Detailed Analysis under the category california exemption we call that a certificate of exemption issued by the Environmental Review office with a higher standard review but in most cases projects that may have some Significant Impact and this is determined through the initial study the check list that Deputy Director pierson showed you that the Environmental Review staff will show you one more of the items for the project has a potential deficit Environmental Review and do admissible studies as initial studies do an additional analysis to determine whether we can indeed make a finer statement the project does not have any Environmental Impacts so that written statement of depreciation is determined not a significant Environmental Impact called a negative declaration that sound like like 9 is involving a lot of Technical Analysis and 1 of work for the factors and the transportation and air quality are are some of the two keys that we looked at here the city but the negative declaration provides a legal basis for the mta board whether in their doing an approval action to approve a project and building we as it was determined that there was a Significant Impact to the vitally one slight modification the negative declarations was there is a project that may have an slight change on mitigation or a factor can be reduced to have a less Significant Impact and significance that is it equals the threshold of significance or a set of metrics determined by the Planning Department for projects for San Francisco we look at currently which we look at the level of serves as a way to identify the transportation impacts and a hang in a project that makes a specific intersection exceed the level of Service Threshold for operations that is a significance go although a intersection is operating in a category c congested it will take away the lanes and that intersection during the peak hour well drop it down to a Service Level hope this is not too much for you, we consider that but a modification of the timing or administrative review the roadway and that level of service didnt cbo below the threshold well issue a negative declaration those are issued by the Planning Department so mta staff we are working with the Planning Department but the Planning Department Environmental Planning division is using theyre the lead staff on those documents one advantage of negative declarations lets see this is on the slide between the negative declaration and the mitigated declarations as you can see the initial study its off the analysis as to whether the project has a substantive effect and the negative declaration will identify who there is potential negative impacts or potential impacts but the reduction of those to a level and example of a project with a negative declaration the last few years was the better streets plan and approved a set of streetscape and beautification improvements across the city we approved a number of streetscape projects across the city and those types of projects do take some amount of time and fund to repair precipitate the analysis but once it is done a Public Comment period and any concerns can be addressed by the approving body and after adopted by the Planning Commission used for a major project that is identified in the plan those help to streamline the process so we dont have to do a Detailed Analysis for a negative declaration getting them done. Now go to the big Environmental Review this is the Environmental Impact report when ceqa first developed what was actually a very simple document used to be our 70 indians 20 pages now they can range the thousands of pages and that is just for the draft document but the idea behind the reading is provides an analysis of a project that based on the initial study determined to have Significant Impacts to the environment and as pointed out this is absolutely a tool for the public and policymakers to understand the Environmental Impacts and whether or not the project should precede as part of Environmental Impact report process any impacts that have been identified as part of study those are now through the detail where there are impacts determined to be significant and causing harmful effects to the environment based on the city analysis they were feasible and where there are areas where we are not able to provide mitigations and the staff is not able to reduce the impacts to the less significant level those are also doing an Environmental Impact report you can approve a project that has an eir that has impacts that are significant additional what the term significant and unavoidable so an intersection that no matter what you do we could do cant be improved to function but want to build something that happened with the bart the board can adopt the Environmental Impact report and also adopt a statement of information that is despite the potential or documented impact to the environment as a Public Agency will go forward with this project so it puts the public on notice that this project is preceding and one thing to note during the Environmental Impact report Environmental Review there are amble opportunities for the public to comment on the scoping process or this process that defines virtual factors for the initial study and what the publics brings up and other public agencies that may have been effected by a project and once and then the Environmental Impact report the draft document is issued that is subject to you public review and comment and final irrelevant is published that addresses all of the comments mentioned by the public just wanted to briefly show one of the things weve done at Municipal Transportation Agency as you may know jerry rob United Nations was the manager the projects used to lead the Environmental Review work and the last notch we built on what he did to document the process would be was in his head before he retired what we the expanded on it since then forced the process began internally to work with the project manager with a specific project if there is an actual project under ceqa then the Environmental Review done and if necessary negative declarations or if not necessary than an exception is issued by the mta or by the Planning Department you know ill jump forward to the approval looking at to reiterate the Planning Department does serve as a citys lead agency under the California Environmental quality act and under San Francisco administrative code to director rubke that has been aware of and but we have a memorandum of understanding between director reiskin and director rahaim from the Planning Department that delegated the authority for the can go exemptions to mta staff that is actually running in effect for a number of years but the last fiscal year enhances this memorandum of understanding and really i believe increased our prosperity to the projects i mentioned this but class one exemptions you see this is a flag that show us a public hearing agenda all the items that are under the transportation code able to take effect after the transportation hearing those get signed off by a member the Environmental Review team. And under Chapter Three 1 the citys administrative code currently when a environmental document is made available to the public there is a pedestrian of public review documents like the Environmental Impact reports and the negative declarations there are regulatory review periods list and the state code and state law San Francisco has provided more clarity on those review periods for any project the city and county that falls under second and has a part of ceqa a thirty day period to appeal the are termination so this is in many jurisdictions there is they exist we have that in San Francisco all issued with mta and the Planning Department are published on the web and theyre available for the public within thirty days they can be appealed to the board of supervisors once issued from the appeal is denied then the recourse of a lawsuit but didnt have to be bans the environmental analysis of the project the merits of project itself. Now im going to turn it over to victor wise with the San Francisco streets division. Thank you, ken i cant and good afternoon director nolan and members of the board i want to provide you information on the ceqa reform and as you may know and remember we have been talking about this for quite as part of the Transportation Sustainability and quite for some. Before that im excited to bring you news we discussed the level of service is not a good metric of the impacting the environment and in 2013 the state agreed thats why they passed senate bill and folks at the office of planning and research have been working diligently on updating the ceqa guidelines for the practitioners best friend to implement ceqa so give guidelines guidance for the bad the metrics to analyze the land use and transportation use under second as part of work back in august of 2014 they published a draft which essential and so forth the metric this is the miles traveled or the m t they said as part of it is nice to have it directive at the state level that draft underwent public review the lots comments that the office of planning and research received in 2014 including a comment letter from a city family with the public works puc and collective letter we wrote me giving them information about the state of practice and some of the implementation for us i have to say they went away and took a lot of time to review all the comment letters and spent a significant time doing Public Outreach with the stakeholders with life number of people that are opposed to the people and working and coming up with Different Solutions and working to those issues so im happy to report on january 20th theyve printed a draft of ceqa guidelines addressing the comments over that time period just a brief overall within that january 20th draft and where we are headed Going Forward and for land use promotions what the draft says if youre a city lufltd project with a halfmile the transit corridor theres a ceqa guide now we have this term that was the prior draft and that make sense it is essentially from our policy prospective were encouraging it in Fill Development where a ability of transit and Residential Projects lets say that need to calculate the vehicle miles traveled the new metric were using if youre project exceeds the existing city household per capital ratio minus 15 percent and existing regional it could result in a Significant Impact another way of saying that from the project as a b m t 15 percent lower than exists the city and where it is originally means our county day area similar guidelines for commercial projects and more towards the regional per capital minus the 19 percent reduction and the retail projects because there could be situations in a neighborhood were putting in a Grocery Store so not only focuses on bart but need to consider the other transportation modes and transit and pedestrians and bicyclists in San Francisco weve been doing for a long time and for a finer methodology with the publication guidelines and now for to talk about transportation because that is our jurisdiction here this is really exciting and a lot of exciting news what the guidelines say the transportation that reduce or have inform impact on at vehicle miles traveled have a presumption for a lens Significant Impact if you have a project that increases the miles traveled youll have to do a analysis a good way to think about that if youre adding or adding lanes to an existing trees there sob demand and short time and long term Police Station and you need an agency to take into consideration but the good news is that the guidelines the technical tends that come with that a lot of information about what is kind of projects we believe not to have increased d m t neutral so the state lists the examples for the agencies those include the conversion of traveling into a triplet transit lanes and modification of Traffic Signals and conversion of one way streets to twoway streets noted providing the capacity and changes to the offstreet and new installation of other things so have the fact that those kinds of projects we understand not to increase b m t the bottom line which means the Service Moving forward our transportation prongs are not need to do a lengthy level of service and in addition we understand the projects we do there is an acknowledgment so this is existing a word about safety the past weve focused on streamlining automobile flow and accommodating the driver error so sometimes con founding the mobility with Transportation System safety so the Draft Guidelines take a much more holistic approach and basically focused only 3 strategies that are reduction of speed and there to driver attendance protection of vulnerable road yours and the overall miles we know that the b m t has more conflict related to safety as you may know white well, weve been focused at sfmta under your direction and limp that is great to see those throughout the state in o p r with that, you might be wondering your talk about another draft there is probably Public Comment when did this happen youve been here before talking about this a couple of notes about the process at the state what we anticipate to happen and, yes under those a draft and Public Comment on that and, of course, providing feedback to o p r and thai will go through a formal process we anticipate that hopefully it excludes by the end of this calendar year this might take place in may but take a pause theyve been working diligently and express my thanks for listening to the feedback we as the city have been providing to them we appreciate how responsive and frankly go reflective in this latest revision of the draft good news this can happy at the state level the Planning Department is taking a remove removal with the in about a month. Were very much hope the commission will adopt the resolution and the city will enforce this resolution good news like to close the presentation and take a moment to acknowledge the Environmental Review team that worked on the presentation and make sure that mta is scomplient with the California Environmental quality act and these are the members of the team under the leadership of frank mary witnesses happy to take questions about the training or ceqa reform. Thank you very much excellent presentation we have members of the public that want to address. The only person that turned in a speaker card was Herbert Wiener some concerns i have i noticed that sometimes Environmental Reviews are waved and before their waved or before the final decision is made i believe this should be subjected to a public hearing a public hearing should happen whether there is impact and feedback from the public i know this is very necessary because if this is simply made by the administrative decision than we dont get a full review necessarily secondly, im wondering if medical reports cant be part of an Environmental Review now for sometime ive been assist that when bus stops are removed and bus runs are revised and individual have to walk a quarter of a mile to a bus stop whats the physical and medical impact we do need to have medical testimony on this this should be written into the rules and regulations thank you. Anyone else a care to address the board . Sir. Again, i didnt turn in a speaker card but bans what i heard we want to make a couple of comments if ceqa says there might think an impact or theres going to be a indirect impact on the environment it may need to do the second reviews for instance, with the commuter shuttle Pilot Project there may have been beneficial it been made an beneficial project but had a medicaid waiver impact on passersby like myself it is interesting how the draft regulations being development by the state says that you need to consider safety protections for vulnerable pedestrians that would be me. Every time i have so get off a muni bus the street i worried about breaking my angle and spend significant time getting around the city on a cane or walker im afraid of at any age having a nonhealing fracture i hope request the Planning Commission considered in the next month speeding up San Franciscos ceqa review changes from lost to b m t that will focus on the safety protection for Vulnerable People that is something that board try to work with the Planning Commission and make sure that gets incorporated the San Francisco ceqa changes. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, Board Members. Thanks for that presentation and update existing to hear about the b m t that funds looking at eirs where the project will take a level of service at so like it was not very useful information and not clear how you do the admission to present that i have a question i know with the Planning Department posts on the website but does mta do the same thing where there is a place for people to see the list of projects considered exempt. I can address down the road question the all category exempts for the city and county public for the projects on mta projects and other agencies including public works, puc and other departments. Great i wanted to clarify that and maybe you can talk about i think i i mean, it was good to explain the document is not a judgment document but analyses impacts of the environment and determines what t a project has maybe talk about when you had a review what is the baseline and kind of 5e6789s of alternatives examined when you look at a project youre not looking at percentage project but comparing it the existing conditions and maybe talk about that. Certainly so we the Environmental Team we look at the existing conditions of what is existing if it is a traffic flow but look at not only vehicle traffic but bus if they do bicycle ridership and working with the project manager to see how the plans will address the impacts to each individual transportation mode we dont a conference of review how a project would be beneficial and look at the potential negative impacts and we also will under this current paradigm look at our standard we do alternative testing where of the currently the most optimal safest proposal will result in a level that is significant we will work with the project manager and project sponsor maybe not as optimal but meet the citys criteria so we dont say an Environmental Review so one example the change with the implementation will right now for projects to have safety impacts im sorry 50 benefits that address the safety concerns where right now there optimal design will not be allowed or require an irrelevant, in fact, this is the case when zero high injury course were working with those projects those promotions will be considered less than significant then if would be the Environmental Review process so other impacts that would trigger a Significant Impact would, still might have to do an eir but the amount of vehicles that operate in the intersection that is no longer considered we look at a range of alternatives for projects before our review is completed. I think that was interesting the existing conditions are baseline so whatever or whenever it is happening the baseline the Environmental Review looked at like would still you know depended on the baseline to say whether or not those are exist would be so help to clarify. If you have a street of kind of high injury and fast moving traffic that is not the baseline we want it is the baseline we have. Thats something to be understood we talk about transportation projects a little bit different than the typical building project that baseline maybe smaller buildings or nothing at all the spates were talking about existing traffic conditions on the streets that is something for the public to understand when you look at whether or not this make sense to do you know largescale review. One of the thing i neglected toe mention in addition to the existing conditions on baseline we look at into the future and they are best practices to look at generally a horizon year or a year that is xindz 1 sorry usually 1 to 25 years were looking at the year 2040 to determine in the future if American People improvement is made or not made what happened to the transit ridership and the corridor advertised generally based on the baseline conditions or approved projects we know will be built or bunted funded using the category that will not limit the projects allows for mta for the mta board for that impact to the public. Identifiable weve often tried to solve the safety so thank you. Yes thank you, mr. Wheeler he feel like youve got the heavy lifting and make sure you did your job the expire team did a great job this is a confusing traumatic for ourselves and the public and thank you for answering the questions of when, where and how so one question when we talk about vehicle miles traveled is that definition limited to sort internal combustion engines or skoorptsd that are more and more popper include the traffic calculation do we know i pay more and more things. Such a wonderful question we dont really know the row it is just the standard definition but i think as the ultimate modes of transportation including the scooters well have to look at that and see how it fits in and calculate for that. Thank you thats my only question through director nolan thank you, mr. Wheeler for the presentation and ms. Wise and everyone it is a wonderful primerer and something that a lot of us have the future the dealing with on a day to day basis there is that credible steep i for one am excited about the b m t the a or f interesting to point out from a lot of traffic engineers prospective and level of services a which is you know theoretically a lot of people see manage that should be favorable but seeing an intersection go from a a to a d or f. An engineer seize it differently it is opposite of what we want to see and go as far to say that is the case in a lot of communities so for me a welcomed change im looking forward to seeing overseeing changes adopted some of the concerns over the years with ceqa is that unfortunately it is the only lever a lot of time for the community to really sort of you know engage around issues before whether it is not pulling up close enough to a curve or maybe you know in other impacts that are beyond the range of ceqa and in that regard is the mtas the city or anyone working on developing a protocol that addresses those things outside of ceqa a lot of times they happen over and over gastric but we see saementsz or so things of this nature that turn into well, a lot of impacts with the new ball Park Initiative with more Affordable Housing there are a lot more other ways it address those issues i dont understand ceqa im wondering that there is a protocol to address those other issues that people are concerned about can anybody. Ill that is is the general plan kind of does with the topics with the Investment Development the general plan of the city and county of San Francisco has in each element that deals specifically with you know where our judgements are for enabling the Affordable Housing and the vitally and other very nuance areas those get talked about within the ceqa document but that is you can in terms of what planning makes a decision that is the base for those decisions with reply rap and Housing Elements that is sometimes, the confusion that people thinks that ceqa needs to tale dealing with those issues but ceqas role is different than the publics role. I agree with down the road ill add your point to the importance of doing comprehensive public roach outreach and not thinking that ceqa is a box to be checked so we talk about you know improving our Public Outreach with the goal of the way we talk with the public before we bring overseeing projects before you were constantly looking for ways to make sure those issues are covered and give the public the clan to tell us they effect our transportation. I appreciate that effort and certainly one that is merited i think that we can see it a lot of times and projects no matter what it is a transportation project or a hospital expansion or a warriors whatever it is there is a lot of impact that goes beyond ceqa and unfortunately folks are not aware of other Affordable Housing Bonus Program of addressing the issues and ceqa is a lever to stop the whole thing and address those others issues but that would be helpful while ear talking to whatever a stakeholder that they become aware the avenues and the approaches on those things that go beyond California Environmental quality act is not the end all of making the project better so thank you very much for all that. Thank you. Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chair actually, you taken Public Comment on this and so since there is no action mofb to youre next item item 12 presentation and discussion about the commuter Pilot Program. Mr. Chair wanted to take this opportunity to give you an update on the commuter shuttle and just to maybe back up and provide context to refresh your folks memories for the benefit of the public so these buses are the relatively large buses the streets of San Francisco that are carrying people to work and places both within and outside of the city those buses have been around for many, many years though theyve increased in number and in recent years just to remind folks were comforted with it is a choices of whether we have or dont have the buses we dont have the authority at the sfmta are the city to abandon those buses they have a legal right to use the streets and seeing the numbers grow we took the initiative to step in and try to regulate them to minimize conflicts with muni and make sure that they were operating safely and just making sure that people can still get around youll recall in august of 2014 a Pilot Program where we created a regulatory permit structure to manage to try to better manage those vehicles up to that point had virtually no regulations generally following traffic where fast forward to this past november we brought to you a proposal for an Ongoing Program based on the evaluation of the pilot and there was a lot we learned the pilot when you approve the pilot you ask doed for a stephen analysis first of all, many san franciscans getting on this muni to get to work not an insignificant number of people using overseeing vehicles from a survey we do nearly half 47 percent said if they dr. The option of the sthurlts theyll likely drive to work 5 percent said theyll move closer to work so shuttles provide an alternative to driving automobiles so we thought shuttles in terms of travel choice based on that feedback and what we learned from the pilot we brought to you in november a proposal for an Ongoing Program and made adjustments bans what we learned the pilot and analysis a couple of significant ones to increase accident amount of enforcement to make sure the rules and restrictions of the Pilot Program will be having higher compliance and also getting these somewhat large buses off the smaller streets in the city so you approved that in november but the environmental determination weve been hearing about for the program with substantially appealed and the board of supervisors has innovate acted on that appeal which puts us in a position we cant implement the program the pilot you authorized the pilot for 18 months that ends this past sunday with the being the situation where the pilot was end yet we couldnt put the Ongoing Program into place i issued a directive to staff to continue enforcing the program under the terms of pilot with the addition of the labor harmony position the board of supervisors encouraged us to adopt you adopted in the new program and i did this with concurrence with the citys sarah jeopardize that has joined he is here today and can speak to that authority it is a limited authority so what i directed state and federal City Attorney have to do continue to enforce until mid march i understand to be the limits of that authority and id like to do is ask the lead staffer to come up and kind of get you up to speed on what is happening. What the next steps are. Ive been told since a pending lawsuit over the Pilot Program questions about that will have to be scheduled for a separate meeting by february 16th not talking about that this item well hear the staff regarding the status of ceqa appeal. Thank you director reiskin and tom nolan and directors i dont have much to add but to give you an update just youve heard this is a second ceqa and this was approved and that program was to take effect yesterday it followed on the pilot the authorization tenant on january 31st on sunday the board of supervisors was scheduled toe hear the ceqa appeal of the nicaragua ceqa depreciation for the ongoing pilot on the 26 of january they continued the hearing because of public input about parts of program and as you can see the key issues on the slide some concerns of the maximum caps and the number of stop 200 zone cap around the city the same zone cap one and 25 zones so folks wants to bring that cap down a little bit rather than an Ongoing Program we say that it is a participate a 2 or 1 year program and mta cakes and presents theyre finding from the past year and studies of others configuration so our proposal well bring a revised something rise 0 thirty this board on the february 16th hearing and ms. All dependent on the ceqa appeal on the 9 of february from the board of supervisors continues that are uphold it were talking about a different it will well cock it will feel like ground hog day again as director reiskin said in the interims weve asked the shurment drivers to continue so were to provide in response to the board of supervisors resolution and also ask them to continue with the shuttle thats all ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Members of the public. Request mr. Chair two members of the public mark gle son. Good afternoon decorations mark with the union i have a quick statement to read there are those who would like to make that program a referendum on the high tech on issues like interquality and housing gentrification we share their discerns but our approach to organize the tech people that driving those buses so the Service Workers may injury a better piece of the pie we have hundreds of bus drivers in this city into the middleincome and more coming thats why the labor harmony piece is critical without that well pull the rug from underneath the workers that are enjoying the working conditions in order to have that we need labor harmony and appreciate the board of supervisors and the mta recognizing that first and foremost we need both of those we want to thank director reiskin for recognizing the importance ever that and look forward to working with all of you as this Program Continues thank you. Anyone else keeper to address the board. Yes. Mr. Chair. Im having tribunal with that monitor you want to overhead projector. You want the overhead projector. Yes. Would you, please distribute those to the board membe members. inaudible . Its unfortunate ms. Bloomer is being uncooperative. If she handed you thirty this sheet it is data from the Pilot Program analysis october 5th ive changed billing data that shows 70 thousand stops during october 2015 times 12 months 4 hundred plus hundred commercial shirts 41 percent increase and add three hundred and 46 thousand more and 1. 2 million shuttle stopping and muni red zones and the 2. 7 percent rate of blocked muni buses youre looking at 32 thousand blocked muni buses that have no place and doing that without a full eir this is not including the blue shuttle buses stopping record to be had and second handout ill im to ms. Bloomer taking photographic analysis and last week observing the free shuttle buses blocking muni buses unfortunately, i didnt have my digital camera with me but it is what youve dunn done taking the wild west shuttle and turning it into the wild west endangering the safety for the vulnerable pedestrians like me youve switched one wild west for another and increasing. Time. Thank you thank you, sir. Thank you. Next speaker, please thank you. Mr. Chair thats the last person that has turned a speaker card and i dont see anyone moving forward towards you today. Yes. So i time to be clear im going down the right sort of were not talking about the loss but the ceqa appeal on this i want to clarify if i got to wrong stop me i want to clarify a couple of things we kind of accomplished the transition through the pilot and to the Permanent Program i know we havent completely gotten get rid of the conflict between the muni buses and the commuter shutters but we have measurably decreased them im looking at you, mr. Wilson. The number that was the elevation report was the 33 percent decrease and the blockage of shuttles. So we could hope as we go forward with the Permanent Program through the Data Collection were getting well be able to continue to increase enforcement and continue to minimize those conflicts of the stops making the stops longer or moving the commuter buses from the stops. Like you said increased enforcement and Capital Improvements through the red zones all those things are will help to move those figures down further. I understand the ridership frustration the buses are stop but weve made good striving the initial study up to the pilot showed many of the shuttle are intershuttle not popping around from the academy of art to Health Care Centers and things like that; correct . Thats correct, yes. I definitely again, i hear the Public Feedback on wanting to make that minimize the disruption and wanted us to have the best permitting program we can have im scared of what happens if youre authorized that takes u. S. S. To mid march and what happens do we lose the ability under the program do we then just lose the authority to regulate at all what is happening in that situation do the buses go back to the smaller streets we redirected them from. Thats our main concern the program is not approved well go back to the prefiling dates we have no permit and not collecting fees with no improvement and no data and the shuttle are free to drive wherever they want well not have the resources to do that. Thats not an encouraging answer but thank you thats all i have. Yeah. I also want to echo the vice chairs comments regarding at least this Board Members interest in fine tuning the promising panel we have a long way to go but i feel also that this has clearly respond to the concerns that are raised with those different programs always looking to improve i feel like the shuttle themselves have tremendous value this board is doing its job we are addressing a number of intentions like vision zero making sure were doing our job doing everything we can to reduce the amount of vehicles on the street and or making the streets safer whether is it safety for the gentleman who needs to get closer to the curve to not risk an injury those are things are high priority for this board i can speak to i certainly appreciate you know mr. Mason is here in at back of room that gives us reports how this program can be improved and when i voted within way to move the project forward i do so with the intent of fine tuning it i hope whatever we do we continue to improve that it is relatively new and will take work i appreciate the time as communicated to us the things we want to find that happy place were accommodating ways to get more cars off the street and continue to deliver the service that we all need thank you. Absolutely thank you. Can i ask a followup question for for a person on a bus as feedback to the best approach to sgablt your bus is blokdz is that appropriate to ask the driver to pull in all the way what is the advice for the members of the public. I think that is exactly right the obviously muni operators are supposed to pull all the way to the curve every time and a reminder is useful like i said this year a lot of policies designed to make that happen it didnt work every time. Okay. If you have a director heinecke thank you. This is balanced for the city and consistent with a lot of the higher end goals with Public Transportation getting people out of private automobiles and increasing the safety of vision zero having one thing trained driver seeps to 20 trained drivers we cant if you want to build a big picture consider the emissions issue overall this is a program that should continue and the program has gotten better i guess there is ill say to our friend representing labor very eloquently stated that this is an ongoing process that certainly is my view personally i think we should move forward and hoping we get environmental approval to continue to modify this and continue to with work others in the City Government to make that better harmony within of the things we want to make sure we resolve not only for the implicit avoiding bronze blossoming of the transportation slow down will reset us it seems to me the best thing to do keep going this board is continuing to improve the program as we go along for those who are concerned out there this is not going to happen i can tell you from me personally and hearing it from others having a Shuttle Program is better than not having a Shuttle Program and the efforts to be perfect if keeping us going but at the same time here we go lets keep on listening to the Community Input and make that better. Im hearing from the colleagues director reiskin and the staff to work with the board of supervisors on the next couple weeks if something comes back working through the people of the city of San Francisco. Yes. So that is with that direction we will engage with the stakeholders with the members of the public that have concerns to see if we can get to a adjusted reif i understand program that addresses some of those needs so it it our intent that therefore binge you back something at the next meeting on the 16 assuming that the board of supervisors advanced this on february 9th in any case well back on february 1, 67. Thank you for the staff for bringing this please remain standing next item. No action being considered it is appropriate for item 13 whether or not to conduct a closed session. You said j yes are we still having one. Motion for closed going so sloughlough ough us okay. All right. Item 14 in the meantime of closed session the Board Members meet to address the cases and both matters were settled no announcement of the amended motion now a motion disclose or not disclose. Not to disclose. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . We are adjourned thank you very much good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, i want to week you back to the San Francisco Land Use Transportation Committee supervisor cowen whatever of the committee and to my right is supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin now part of this committee our clerk alicia and phil jackson and jim smith is from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements please silence all electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the february 9th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you all right. Thank you very much im going to call a few items out of order could you please call item 2. An ordinance amending the planning and Building Code for this conditional use authorization please forgive me not item 2 but item 3 first. Item 3 a resolution imposing interim controls to require the Planning Commission to require the design for the large project authorization the showcase Square Potrero Hill and central wasting area plan the author and cosponsor of this legislation id like to go ahead and discuss in item about interim Zoning District that all projects receiving the kwoufgs u conditional use authorization from the Central Waterfront and potrero hill get the design by the Planning Commission while the parklet works on the citywide planning controls it requires the Planning Commission to consider whether projects other projects have demonstrated an awareness of urban patterns it harmonize visibly as well physically with other building that are established the neighborhood in relationship is critical to the residents and also looking for harmony between the streets and open space and natural features and corridor this is a piece of paper protective i worked on with the neighbors particularly on the northern slope of potrero hill i dont know if anyone is here from the Planning Commission to speak eject seeing none, go ahead to Public Comment. Public comment is open for item 3 please step forward. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed colleagues is motion to send this with a positive recommendati recommendation. Madam chair ill be happy to make that motion and commend you for this piece of legislation and i think it actually is instructive to should be instructive to board of supervisors as were cranking out the magnificent parts of city we can and should insist on good urban design has been president ing in certain projects in that area so let that will a lesson as we could those redonalds we get the good urban design and i look forward to the interim controls. I look forward to that is that a second. So moved second. Thank you well take that without objection. Unanimously well take that without objection. Mr. Clerk item one. Number one an administrative code by the 5 hundred square feet for the development and maintenance for the scomblap water controls for the projects. Colleagues, we have a brief procreation from jumping will i and amanda from the puc to present. Good afternoon chair cohen and the members im amanda from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Administrator here to present on this item as part of background in december 2010 the board of supervisors amended chapter 63 for the landscape ordinance for the landscape ordinance for square feet after the drought last april governor jerry brown issued a state ordinance to increase water and including the ordinances applicability from one thousand to 5 thousand square feet it was approved in july and agencies must update the San Francisco public works has also updated the rules and regulations reserving the irrigation amongst the water facilities thank you for your time and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you is ms. Ortez going to present not a problem thank you very much go ahead and go to Public Comment. All right. Our favorite time of the day for item number one is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item two minutes to speak for item number one seeing none, Public Comment is closed at this time colleagues is there a motion or discussion open that item if not put your name on the list. Seeing none, may i have a motion motion made by supervisor peskin and well take that without objection. This that motion carries all right. Thank you lets see is supervisor avalos here seeing none, madam clerk item 3. Item 2. Excuse me. Item 2 an ordinance amending the Planning Commission for the removal of any residential muni building alleges and mergers for the mandate of an illegal unit. Supervisor avalos is the author of this item but hes not here to lead the discussion well start with the Planning Department. I apologize the planner has not arrived but theyve heard the item and recommended approval of the ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you supervisor. Great, thank you madam chair colleagues in 2013 i supported an ordnance for the removal of housing for conversions but as the housing crisis has wolgz that is clear we need inform to reinvest those controls this ordinance for the cu for the removal of units legal unit and thinking authors the notice of violation lets Property Owners know to apply for a cu to remove the unit the Planning Department balance report has shown that we are losing housing was quickly as we are about building this the Housing Stock will stop demolitions and mergers of dwelling units a number of long term tenants facing evictions if landlords that want to convert batting back to Office Building this year for the justification of loss of housing in any district district 11 im concerned with the permitted inlaw units weve seen this grow from 2000 to 2010 and through that population is growth is in unauthorized dwelling units this ordinance will fill the void of necessary controls for retaining this important portion of our Housing Stock and many of the tenants are occupying for lower rents the home exasperates evictions and displacement in San Francisco we have heard Horror Stories if many, many people of landlords use of notice of violations from dbi as angles unpermitted use to evacuee tenants without an local eviction the case of inlaw unit and singlefamily homes this doubly disadvantaging policy to the Housing Stock it will be an inlaw unit our affordable units and removes the how are you from rent control we understand the legalization process walking by can be a burden the city as waved the fees for legalization to allow owners to legalize their units and dbi have a loan fund for landlords and working with dbi making that happen through the budget process in june ive asked the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to designate a portion of Housing Stabilization fund to help the low income owners and hope we can codify this years budget we recognize that not all unlegalized units and the ordinance attempts to address this this doesnt mean an imminent threat or a separate entrance for the main Living Spaces and the Planning Commission will consider the feasibility of legalization when evaluating a cu application for the removal of an nonpermitted united were working with the dbi staff to delineate the units that cant beleaguer list but the loss of housing we ask the committee send this to the full board but keep a duplicate in file in committee i have amendments to id like to see if we can hear the amended version as a Committee Report for next weeks meeting i have the amendments i want to essential clean up language and to grater projects weve are intending to maintain and the amendments the motion after Public Comment are grandfathering corrections the section c2 not inform exempt unauthorized unit overthecounter by the Planning Department so maybe my colleague can speak to this and have a Retroactive Application c3 one for any permit issued issued before march 2016 and there is a project that has been prominent that we are hoping to protect the tenants and Security Guard the units for long term rentals i have a number of speakers 4 and im not sure if this fits your timeline madam chair but like to call from the Planning Department. Before we go any further id like to take a recess ladies and gentlemen, my regulates we need to recess until 235 then go into Public Comment great. All right s. Welcome back to the San Francisco Transportation Authority supervisor cowen will be returning shortly im reconvening this meeting to moved on item 2 i believe madam clerk okay. I think we were just getting ready to move to staff presentation if my memory serves i say Planning Department yes is going to do present in a new location. Good afternoon, members of land use im Kim Department staff first, i wanted to thank supervisor avalos and supervisor kim so far taking on this important piece of legislation the Planning Commission has harder this item and has approved the legislation with some minor amendments that have been taken in the substantive legislation that was introduced two weeks ago the impetus behind this legislation is preserving over existing Housing Stock and discouraging the displacements of tenants and this goes emphasis in the Housing Element of the general plan the existing Housing Stock has a strong roll in Housing Demand and comparing to the newly built housing and also on your data shows the 5 percent turnover and 10 percent turnover for rental are higher than the percentage of Housing Units to one percent the removal of Housing Units is one of the major causes of tenant eviction the past 10 years of 45 hundred no fault evictions about 11 percent were removal of units this legislation would propose a cu for removal of all residential unit and illegal units this is the user authorized units in the legislation currently different types of requirements for removal residentials or residential units the Zoning District and unit numbers of building this legislation will make that consistent and create a cu requirement across the board for all types of residential units we currently have an administrator contest for roving the residentials through one is through administrative pricing out of the units so from the unit is more expensive of a threshold determined annually and right now is 1. 6 or 7 million in this the unit is more comprehensive they can go through an administrative process and not a cu or dr to remove the unit another approval, of course, which through Technical Report a demonstration that the building is not sound like this legislation proposes to remove those medic active units approval and create a cu for all types and this is recommend by the department and the commission it creates a consistent and more clear rule for removal of units we have a few number of units that use this 55 units have been using used this administrative process out of the nine hundred which is 6 percent of those and the staff and Commission Recommended the approval process is lengthy and technical and sometimes called outs u outside of the parentheses we strongly supporting this change as well and one major change that legislation is doing creating a new did definition of thinking authorized units the planning code we working closely with the Supervisors Office since this was introduced to define an unauthorized units are we know that there are different varieties of unauthorized unit some have kitchens and some dont we keep is broad to capture a wide variability of instances it creates the definition of the unauthorized units and adds 3 major finding the planning code to help the Planning Commission decide what to approve the units those criteria are first, whether or not they can their eligible for legalization and second whether or not legalization process cost is reasonable and we define that from the database that your collecting since the lightwelltion program for the legalization of each unit and third whether or not it is financial feasible to legalize and the way we determine that is from the cost of legalization kwlgz or is higher than the value added to the property we see that as feasible and that value added has to be determined by a codified appraiser we think that the legislation would help support these unbeknownst authorized unit and especially the tenants that live there but still leaves flexibility for the Property Owners to merge or remove an unauthorized unit and those cases can be if that hadnt been uses as residential unit so we will the commission will have that flexibility to allow that for the removal and second another example is if a family wants to grow and merge the units it is another criteria so a flexible built into the code to allow for the commission to allow removal in certain pieces weve also had in this item at the dbi commission and weve heard their concerns and we made the supervisors made changes to the ordinance to address some of the concerns one in that theres certain exemptions weve provided no legal path for legalization they dont have to go through the legalized process for removal and second if there is imminent threat for safety of that unit and the city determines the unit needs to be removed that unit didnt have to go through the cu process and lastly we added languages for residential unit that have gone through a process like the dr or conditional use or administrative approval and secured that permit from the Planning Department but not yet have Building Permit approval so at the dont have to go through the process. The Planning Commission strongly supports that legislation and buildings this will take a step towards helping the stock and displacement of tenant thank you. Thank you very much at the thank you for all your work and dependent on this as well next up is bill strong from dbi not seeing mr. Strong farmed Deborah Walker from the department of building inspection. Thank you supervisor as many of you know weve been dealing with the issue of illegal units and how to encourage legalizing them for a while i think one of the things we did a bit ago to help supervisor wiener with to make sure that tenants in buildings even those unpermitted were given the same courtesy as being notice with an action as far as the permit to either do work or demolition unpermitted unit so the tenants knows in a timely way to engage our department and other programs we have now so i actually think this step of that applying a stronger a more stringent detergent review of a request to demolition those units is really an important step right now it is a is it correct step we need weve spent a lot of time with supervisor chiu and supervisor wiener around a path forward to legalizing units weve done a lot with the Planning Department and to encourage folks to legalize those units so we dont create evictions and displacement how have it has not been successful i think that one of the things we need to do at this point is to have a evaluations around demolition requests go through a stringent process one of the things eave brought forward at the commission i think we have a willingness to have our Department Help with the code compliant aspect of legalizing those units in the form of a financial loan or Grant Program to help building owners and encourage building owners to do this work many of the people that own those have owned them for a long time some of the people get put in hard progresses so we need to look at that proactively to provide and carrot and hopefully be able to encourage people in those buildings to legalize those buildings and could use funds if there is temporary displacement there is a difference continue the bigger buildings and the singlefamily homes i think that it might be time we actually look at those as a separate issue to see if there is different concerns and a different process we dont want to a cu process is cumbersome i think that generally cost more to do an evaluation and make sure were not adding to the cost of housing or to the timeframe of legalizing the unit so i think that overall this is a good next step in this process of trying to encourage the legalizing of those tens of thousands of units that always remain at risk and not permitted. Great thank you, commissioner. Thank you. I have a speaker ted egan from the Controllers Office i dont see mr. Eagle on was a brief irrelevant with a brief confusion we have an email saying that was positive Environmental Review and todays report was initialed seeing saying it was neutral so im not sure if anyone from planning has seen that none mentioned it was neutral and he actually think that has a Huge Positive impact luke the number of households that can have a say of relief about greater controls over their property and renters staying in San Francisco and have a huge Economic Impact so the absence of mr. Eagle on were on to Public Comment ill see if we have Public Comment. Before we go to Public Comment i have questions about this so, so putting the cards together i have questions about the legislation perhaps i dont know this might be directed to supervisor avalos or the city staff so the ina lot legalization puts us on a path to requiring the legalization, of cours legalization supervisor chiu was passed a few years ago for the first time created a full path to volunteery legalization for the legal inlaw units i was a supporter it passed unanimously that has taken the next step to you maurntd r mandating those units beleaguer listed there are exceptions for economics feasibility one of those those exceptions dont include the ability to pay so i have a question and supervisor avalos or the Planning Department staff that you have one o someone that has an illegal inlaw unit and not the ability to pay what is that person to do do i know that commissioner walker referred to the loan fund she and i worked on and dbi put more money into the fund and we created that fund an important thing in terms of helping the owners bring their property up to code right now 4 million in the code and more to be added but the the cost of bringing one inlaw unit into the compliance or 75 thousands of dollars and 10 of thousands of units that quickly will be depleted i am to get a response to that particular issue from supervisor avalos are planning. Yes, thank you for your question we have been talking with commissioner walker about the loan fund and that could be a source that 0 could be available for people struggling to pay the cost of legalization i also had anticipated this issue a long time ago in 2012 when we crafted the Housing Trust fund and we had language in there that made funds that could be availability for people looking at legalization or bringing the buildings up to code or people of low income ive dlaerd to work with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development for a very a long time and not taken up the issue and not provided guidance about creating the resources to do that and thats been unfortunate but there are the funds that are available in the Housing Trust fund and the housing shakeabletion funds are eligible to be used to resources that could a Property Owner can use with the legalization process so me that is still in the works but a valid issue for the city to resolve those funds are gaertd to helping the middleincome and workingclass to expend their ability to bring their property up to code and maintain their property so i think this is a worthy goal. Thank you so first of all, let me ask Planning Department staff am i correct this legislation effectively requires puts us on a path for people who union illegal unit inlaw units to. If you want to remove an unauthorized unit you have to go through this process that you the notice of violation from dbi or the decision from the Planning Commission basically says you cant remove the unit unless the Planning Commission allows it this only applies to applicants that want to remove is not a from those for the city for everyone to legalize their united for retroactively that we have and requiring this is requiring a pertaining to do the retina if you are removing or want to remove you have to go through the process. To legalize. To process of the Planning Commission deciding whether or not you can remove it. So the Planning Commission can based on the finding allow for the removal or decide to require legalization. So if lets say i own a home with an illegal inlaw unit he does but any neighbor files exclaims against me and dbi comes out and says you have an illegal unit what happens under that legislation. There is a notice of violation issued if perhaps that unit is illegal and notice of violation used it says this legislation amends the Building Code so you need to basically remove this correction and the correction means right now go to Planning Commission and get a permit for remove of resolve and from the Planning Commission explicit allow you, you have to get a legal less. So im glad were getting clarity so if someone files a complaint of the think illegal unit you have a notice of violation and you either have to get permission from the Planning Commission to remove it ill say unlikely and if that doesnt happen your mandated to legalize it and bring it up to whatever the applicable code under commissioner chius legislation. Correct. There should be a legal path if there was not a legal path for you to legalize that for example, some Building Code problems it cant be corrected youll need to go through. Lets say im the homeowners my neighbor files a complaint and dbi says violation youre not able to get the permission to remove it lets say you dont have the money to bring it up to code lets say you dont qualify for the exemptions but an ability to pay what did you do i know i under that ordinance what do you do theres no other ordinance in terms of funding youre out of luck. Youre required. Maybe sell our home to pay for it or actually im not blaming the Planning Department it as real issue did we know in terms of the range of costs to bring an flment to legalize it what the range i know that there is a wide variety of illegal units. Yes. The range if 9 exception program to one and 50 thousand the average about 45 thousand dollars. So the average cost cost is 45 thousand right now supervisor avalos referred to the code compliant resolving loan funds 4 million in that i think that dbi is adding another millions hopefully that happens okay so 4 million now the average is 5 if my math is correct thats 80 units costs 4 moiltsz maybe 4 million buy you legalization of 75 units is my math right i was not a math major i think that i think im right. So you have 40. 4 million buys you 75 legal unit units with the average 55 thousand. Yeah. So 75 units i think maybe estimates like thirty thousand illegal unit inlaw units in San Francisco and the current code compliant fund if we use every penny of it for this we get 75 units and a Million Dollars per year is 20, of course, this well not be using any of that money for any of the other codes work in terms of getting landlords to deal with fire landscape and other issues and so i dont know what will happen and supervisor avalos it has been pushing that issue and maybe that will happen maybe not my point not to say this is a good or bad idea there are merits for sure to this proposal but i do think there are when you look at who has a legal inlaw units there are low income and workingclass homeowners who have homes with illegal inlaw units that cant affords 55 thousand dollars to do that and if the city can come up with a large way of funding to pay for that thats great ensue it seems to me before we should figure out that and add a cap before we start putting this mandate on owners that cant afford it so thats the issue i want to raise and ill invite Public Comment and discussion of that. Sorry can i. Yes. One point so just to give an idea of the scale of this legislation currently since may of 2014 when the Legalization Program become effective we received one and 80 applicants for remove of the 55 its been complicate we have 98 that have been issued and has an opportunity been completed yet this legislation basically applies. Thats 98 plus 55. 55 plus 98 and a few have been revoked or suspend from the one and 80 this legislation only basic applies when an application for resolve is filed to the full stent is 98 have been issued and not completed yet. Okay thank you two other quick things one is commissioner walker referred to the issue of whether a singlefamily homes should be handled on a separate track but my understanding the definition of a units legislation includes singlefamily homes when i think were typically referring to multiunit buildings maybe ill ask the authors was it your intention to include singlefamily units again, the remark that commissioner walker made going on a separate track it was our intention to include the singlefamily homes that have unauthorized unit theyre not all singlefamily homes but singlefamily homes that have a separate entrance for people to occupy. Okay which is actually every other house the excelsior. Right. And other parts of district. One other clarification on that point currently the existing regulations apply to the single families we require dr for removal of singlefamily homes almost everywhere except inform zones but this ethnicity approval and commissioner walker. I actually im sorry, i should have been more clear i was not referring to the inlaw unit but the merger demolition the definition of unit regarding that inclusive of singlefamily homes supervisor peskin. So in terms of singlefamily homes not a legal or unauthorized inlaw unit. Thats correct. That was over intention. Okay. And just in terms of commissioner walkers comment about whether it should be on a separate track do you have a response to that if we put it on a separate track. I think there needs to be additional work to understand how to work those a separate track might be worth doing duplicating the files were contemplating that next week to do that i think were in we want to get the biggest protection we can today i think that is making sure that were protecting multiply units and apartments and whether it is clear authors or unauthorized inlaw units with singlefamily homes. Thank you i have one final question and ems to supervisor peskin do we the department do we have an estimate how many buildings would be in terms of the Legalization Program or in terms of buildings in San Francisco with illegal units whether singlefamily homes how many buildings are at issue or issue not units but actual buildings are at issue. Other than the numbers ive mentioned we dont have a record of buildings with unauthorized a unit no record of how many unauthorized buildings are out there but we do have a record that since may of 2014 one and 80 applications have been filed for removal and the program we have 200 and 39 plaques applications for one hundred and thirty are issued. Of those either applications or violations whatever pieces of unauthorized units came to the Planning Department attention in terms of singlefamily homes versus the multi units a breakdown between the two. Sure definitely a larger percentage of the homes. Can you give me a ball park, 70, thirty. Let me find that okay approximately 75 percent of the applications received one or two unit buildings thats the number i have one or two buildings. And under supervisor chius legislation if i go to the inlaw unit legalization it is abandoned if subdivision; is that correct. If i threw the Legalization Program yes. Right if i legalize over unit your permanently banned from the lottery if you have a two unit building an illegal unit on the side and i have no intention of legalizing it lets say those two legal units are Owner Occupied their entitled to condo convert your neighbor came forward and reports you and dbi comes out and says you have an illegal unit you have to apply to get it removed the department will not likely legalize that your permanently banned from subdividing from condo ingress that believe. I leave to the City Attorney the whole building or the inlaw unit but a tenant there if you can show that that unit has not been used as an independent unit theyll get the findings that the Planning Commission can allow removal of that unit. If they dont and youre forced to legalize it youre out permanent from the lottery. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. Maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagues thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didnt have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said 2014. May have 2014. May of 2014. May have 2014 to may of 2015. So a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the Financial Resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of 4 million growing to 4 million doesnt sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things thats one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the Planning Commission didnt grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didnt have the Financial Resources eventually there will be a directors hearing at dbi and presumely have had the opportunity that will be turned over to the code compliant City Attorneys office i want to follow this all the way in a worst Case Scenario what will play out to that individual that was denied and still facing an nov . I think someone from dbi can answer that it is a process with the dbi commission. Commissioner walker from the Planning Commission and abatement Appeals Commission a directors hearing will happen the notice of violation will be upheld and the directions to the 14 to fix it it can be appealed to the abatement Appeals Commission we uphold or deny the appeal and at this point it leans against the property the fee currently there is no mechanism for fixing it if the owner doesnt fix it other than liening the property the concern in the meanwhile a tenant in that location it is the issue we deal with unpermitted units we have a problem that needs to be fixed in some cases it is had been ability issue if we dont get a resolution from the Property Owner it is in limbo we have situations im sure that tommy from the hufrts committee will unfortunately, we have to evict the people have to be evicted with a health and safety issue mold and crumbling ceilings and stairs that cant be used no assess many number of things that could be the problem it is one of the i think primary reasons to create a resolving funds in those situations we have it as an emergency demolition funds the property on top of Davidson Hill was down the road in a heath issue were not proactive when we can fix it so thats one of the reasons there is an important time to take the step because we have a lot of programs available to expedite and building owners but commissioner walker in that process do you have the latitude and legal flexibility to work with an individual owner that wants to comply but not with the Financial Resources can you elongate percent. Yes. Okay that would be helpful and my im sorry for negotiates if youre doing 55 thousand work to one and 50,000 whats the duration of that type of legalization activity and wheres the extra tenant likely to have to leave during that periods of construction. It really depends on how much work is needed and i think it is a rampart question i dont know many of those applications need to have the tenants leave i dont have that but it depends on the amount of work. My final question is not i hope a catch22 but maybe youve people spoken to the exceptions the number of c3 on page 6 this is the provision that says the removal of on unauthorized unit doesnt require cu in the department determines there is no legal path for legalization does that mean it turns out you cant legalize you can rove without a cu how does that work. Correct you dont need to go through a cu to remove it we determine no legal path to legalize our unit you can just get approval overthecounter. Thank you. Thank you supervisor peskin and maam, one quick clarification the numbers youre saying in terms of what was coming to the department for the inlaw units you were referring to people that are voluntarily coming forward to legalize their inlaw units. Two sets of information one for that i think 200 and 50 applications for the volunteery legalization and one and thirty have been permitted and the rest under review for the volunteery legalization voluntary remove or remove due to a notice of violation. Okay. So we dont know i agree with supervisor peskin if those numbers were to Carry Forward in terms of the number of applications ultimately voluntary or mandated to the department clearly we have more flexibility in terms of what we have to help whatever percentage of those people that have Financial Hardship but if the number starts to there significantly as more people get recorded and go through the system or mandated were told you must legalize is that number could become significantly higher we have no way of knowing for sure but creates a new universe of applications that were coming to the department the mandated applications. We have no way of knowing it will under consideration or decrease and encourages people from filing applications we dont have a way of knowing. Do we expect a new trend to merge with the notice of violations have been consistent in their number over the years do we expect that will change in any way. If anything i would expect the numbers to go down because people dont want we know that a vigorous process people will decide to keep it legalized. Supervisor peskin. Or did was that from before. It was from before im ready to circle around to the singlefamily question. Go ahead. As supervisor wiener was defining singlefamily homes in terms of not with a secondary unit legal or legally how many applications do we get or have we gotten over the period of time do you know. Since 20109 had and 5 units were demolished and out of those 47 were 6 percent