Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 32017 20170330

Mr. Clerk, any announcements . On the mayor 28 agenda oracles. Okay just to be clear shall we be choosing supervisor tang. Make a motion at your discretion and supervisor kim and seconded by supervisor peskin 0 without objection item one please item one ordinance for the downtown support special use district to authorize a contribution inlieu fee to satisfy the open space requirement excludes feature fraefrnz from the gross square and spent foreign the lighting on victoria manolo draves park okay. Thank you this was sponsored by supervisor kim im going to turn it over to her. Thank you chair farrell the International Congressional hotel approaches my office as privately owned public space in the hotel on the 4 and 6 floor are their interesting in figuring out an alternative for low usage by the public given the floor and offered their interests in renting out this space for private use when the popo was required on the abruptly Congressional Hotel during a time he we were go developing a concept of a usable and privately open space this was one of the bad examples of a popo and wanted to work to figure out a way they can either fee out or found on alternative shugs space in district 68 as you may know district 6 has a few it and smaultd parks in the city of San Francisco and second only narrowly beating district 3 supervisor peskin and so parks and open space are incredibly important to the neighborhoods in the south of market and the tenderloin we spent the last 3 years working on a proper solution to this issue exploring a number of alleyways we can merit into open space and finally after years the Community Outreach realizing after speaking with the Community Month folks want existing open space in the in particularly at victoria manolo draves park is only multi use park in San Francisco now this is the first project sponsor that is seeing out of their current popo requirement and so we spent a lot of time with the Planning Department and figuring out what is the probing appropriate proximate and changing the popos in the south of market they become usable and happy to see the Planning Department has recommended that all popos on the ground floor and insuring halfhour use unlike the project sponsors to build popos in upper market floor is difficult for the public to find the proposition before us today is over years of negotiated fees looking nearby area plans abby seeing what that costs to improve maul open Space Acquisition in jangle 2015 the Planning Department made a preliminary recommendation that identified the acquiring of open space and Park Improvement costs their recommendation resulted in a fee of 2. 3 million vbs of time we dwoefrd that actually, the requirements for congressional was slightly larger than we had originally that the Planning Department had in popo were not acquiring the open space the city cant legally ask for acquisition dollars and capped the fee at 200 and 50 thousand for improvement costs and added 15 percent to that amount and then we had the required open space of 18 hundred square feet resulting in a fee of 2. 5 million 200,000 more than recommend boo the Planning Department two years ago this was before the land use and Transportation Committee in the month of december and we had learned that the intercongressional left a rental proposal for this privately owned public space on the website i want to recognize and thank you to the hotel to make sure that before we approve this inlieu fee we worked on making sure that they paroling accounted and remitted for this as a private function space they were transparent with us they had inappropriate use the space for 6 hundred days between 2016 having an penalty to the of hundred and thirty days of overflow is a penalty of ultimately without actually any indication from us the project sponsor that they complied with the fire code that allows the fourth floor of popo to be a total of one and 80 days per year we worked in the weekend to in of the hotel can use this space as a private dysfunction and expanded the one thousand plus days and this generates a roughly 300,000 the interCongressional Hotel agreed to make a 300,000 gift to the city for the district 68 located park the San Francisco alliance will be the sponsor and the funded sdrblthd by the Parks Alliance were working closely with the supergreen Congressional Hotel to make sure those funds are appropriately used the Community Says one of the needs of the interparks is expanding and making the park usable in the evening with the winter when it gets dark around 4 or 5 oclock that requires the light it is inadequately lighted it opened to a later hours members of the community cant see very well in the evening those fees will be utilized for lighting at park and hope to work with rec and park to implement that as quickly as possible to make sure our baseball and are curiosities can be utilized in the evening and a well utilized park for dogs and while were not building another open space in the district we are expanding the hours as a multi use park i want to recognize the supergreen Congressional Hotel for working with our office over the last years to find a proper solution that has the support of the Community Members and the office of Economic Workforce Development proposal and recognize the p pa with worked us with us to come up with a fee that is adequate for relinquishing the requirement for a popo International Hotel Scott Sanchez for the support for the process over the project and the vetting of the proposal and from the Enforcement Unit for walk through on the office of the Enforcement Office and to the City Attorney for helping to draft this legislation i also see members of the friends victoria manolo draves park who are here today with calling names as well as jane thank you for working with us for a solution in support of neighborhoods and so i was hoping to bring up one of the project sponsor of oewd to go through the history how we calculated the industry payments good afternoon, supervisors aaron from the office of Economic Workforce Development i i guess i was asked to the take a look at the proposals working with the Planning Department represents and the original recommendation he was started with a 5 hundred per square feet fee applied to 4 thousand plus of open space and so when i started looking at it i realized the original are ordinance called for 8 thousand 6 hundred square feet of open space my initial recommendations to immediately file the 8 thousand 6 hundred and in speaking to Planning Department staff as well as rec and park staff and the department of real estate it became clear that while a search to find open space in d6 we can apply this fee to there didnt seem to be anything available, however, the Planning Department staff provided some nearby hard and soft costs fees or hard costs and soft costs they had if nearby plaza and open space projects including the emotional and the mint and the alleyway proposed costs that ranged from 61 square feet to 4 hundred plus a square foot and using the Citywide Development impact fee a negotiated fee not a impact fee there was no nexus study for the fee of this site so using the beacon and looking at the eastern neighborhoods in todays dollars is one and 1 per square feet and using the basic factors of a range from 6 is to 430 in the impact fees and open space from one dollar up to 1,600 a square foot and kind of land in the middle so we can apply a fee that all sides can agree on. Thank you so much. You said the original plans for 8 hundred hundred but built 46 hundred. Did requirement was 8 hundred and 6 thousand square feet my understanding is during the approval of the hotel the Planning Commission recommended is another 4000 square feet my understanding that 4000 square feet was a one time fee that was paid to the contribution to the mid plaza so 4000 to cover the costs of 4000 also just to clarify the Planning Department report identified when the identified the potential represents of the fee of 2. 3 million had said that the supergreen come requirement of popo was 4000 plus and they were mistaken what was the original code requirement of open space was 8 thousand 6 hundred square feet at the time the Planning Commission recommended this was not great open space for members of the public they recommended that the supergreen congressional i guess pay an additional square feet in open space fees. Thats my understanding another 4000 square feet probable 8 thousand 6 hundred and they basically bought out a part at the beginning. Bout out a park they pay a one time fee towards the plazas at the time and in my understanding was that was for the park space in the mountains of the 4000 square feet. Thank you i dont see any other questions from the members of the committee we do have Scott Sanchez our Zoning Administrator from the Planning Department if there are any further questions if not open up for Public Comment. Four speakers none 2 minutes calling names line up on the far wall. Is this so hi supervisors thank you commenting my name is jane im the district 6 representative to prozac and i live a few blocks from the emergenintercontinenta want to thank the group that works tirelessly and staffing will go a long ways to improve the park and large improved rec center will be a help the popos do nothing with the fancy hotels are doing nothing to move the life the mid market has said we have the least amount of open space per person as of 2014 district 6 two tenths of an open space versus 26 percent person in c2 were getting denser by the week it is faulty to allow the developers to create the open space for the neighborhood it is a theyll build what they want with the dark corners heightened inside of trump towers these are not visible from the street and doomed to be a homeless encampment encampment of anti social behavior this was the highest acquisition and the potential acquisition will be coming before you soon we need more than one park we need as much as we can get now not in 10 years 10 thousand new units that were opened in a timely way thanks thank you jane. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is Heather Phelps a south of market arrangement for 10 years work at united playaz and part of victoria manolo draves park it would be really easy to just close this and say the community negotiated a deal in 52007, 8 and see this the deal you said youll do the popos and thats it i want to applaud janes office for drooifld and saying does that space serve the community i think that everyone can agree that didnt serve the community that and so instead of standing by saying this is on the promise that folks shouldnt see out of open space and thoughtfully considering how to best serve the communities and open space and residents this is a great example where community has driven a solution that makes sense with the dmv is a huge safety issue it brings the usable hours of the park it increases it by a huge percentage families are using the park in the afternoon and opens the space for adults in the neighborhood to use it for sports leagues and social events and dogs it really a multiple use park this will be enhance by the kind of improvements my using to approve this not in fear it will set a precedence for other developers but how to best serve the community thank you there. My name is jackie and im working with Betsey Carmichael i started working with them and one of the assignment to find a spot to it had to be at least four blocks and walked around the soma and couldnt find a park for students and patents to meet that was intreps i go in the excelsior were blessed with the parks not one place that felt inviting to walk to school were trying to get the kids to walking and biking to school and not having a meeting spot is difficult in the excelsior it is one of the Biggest Challenges the fact we dont have a park nearby the park is one block away not constituting a gathering space thank you for finding the solution to this space that didnt workout and bringing up light to the park that would be great but keep in mind you need more open spaces in the area and more parks thats all i have to say. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im tim a member of the b n d and the rec center and worked with the rec and park reply and people dont realize that south of market has one of the biggest parks in the city but for the hall of justice they tore down the park and the city promised to put up a park but in 1990 when the jean center came up and so that area is also had few open space it was mentioned south park and some it is amazing if you think about it ever since ive been there because of organizations and they deal with this how allow a gang issue in the south of market i worked there for 40 years it is because the kids were playing this park is across the alley from the school and makes it an easy access for the kids after conditional but putting up lights and enhancing the park it will add tenfold to what it was and you know it will maybe bring back it is amazing how the years go by people forgot and transition happens one of the biggest parts of the city was the park thank you very much. Thank you is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on item one. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor peskin thank you chair farrell separate and apart what was accounted i know that supervisor kim has been working on it for a long time and i was involved in the original entitlement of this project and here for the december hearing where it seems like the violation was still happening it really raise a large populate question maybe i can ask plans relative to the elizabethcy of the Planning Department enforcement action around the popos in general, you have any ongoing of the monitoring how many popos not use for their original purposes and the Enforcement Actions do you and the department undertake and why did this one take so long. Thank you, supervisor we take it seriously over the past foe years the legislation to approve improve the signage for the popos when that was proposed the staff reviewed it for all the code compliant and found some not in complete compliance with the code since that time a couple of years our staff try to make periodic investigation for the popos we have active closing statement for one popo generally, the enforcement it bans the complaint but try to do the proper enforcement and have been doing that with the popos in t in the Continental Hotel a couple of items not just the popo but the enforcement related to the popo the knowledge of the violation so for the signage that had been corrected what was new information about their use the use of property for something other than the public activating that was more of a few information we never received complained to the office about that use of property for nonpublic uses but certainly under the code and outlined to the project sponsor given this type of outside open space it didnt need to be made public assessable 24 7 for the guidance of popos terraces maybe public assessable continue 10 and 5 00 p. M. And beyond that for private events. And relative to other Enforcement Actions you guys assessed and or correction for penalties. One that i just issued a notice of violation for so if they dont respond under compliance penalties for the assessable property. And relative to the proactive enforcement you have sufficient staff to go and randomly or comprehensively go and check them. Im happy to report excellent support from the supervisors to increase the enforcement staffing back at the time the complaint came in we have before a fulltime staff now more than doubled it with the will enforcement staff on focused issues and signages and shortterm rentals so i think were wellstaffed now we are going to be more proactive in looking how to improve the other tools and well be working with the City Attorneys office to try to improve our be enforcement tools to make them more efficient and effective looking to initiative legislation to make the tools more robust. Between the december resolutions and this committee that the violations were ongoing and in todays hearing my subsequent actions taken by planning relative to enforcement in this case. No issues of notice of violation were issued for the property but had discussions with the project sponsor about prop c and in compliance with the passage of this legislation there will be a path to obviously to make it so theyll not have the popo requirement but legalize the structure and pay out the steering wheels for the process to evade violations on the property. I had the honor and privilege of being worked out appointed to the California Coastal meeting and attend my first meeting they assess heavy Administration Penalty in their law and i have to say it remarkable when you assess some of those and entire communities of violators all of this relative to Public Access to you know the coastal line if you dont say the penalties tools you need this board of supervisors to give them to you im more happy to participate in 3 legislation. Thank you supervisor kim. Thank you chair farrell and just to follow up on supervisor peskins comments we learned some of the violations we did here an enter around the history over the last decade and going to have a hearing hope in april with the Planning Department with the Enforcement Capacity and history as well i think it is a to fold issue one make sure we are writing the legislation and the planning code in a way the city could a enforce our laws this is one issue i think that certainly recommending moving forward the popos are on the ground floor will help in that enforcement arena and second a violation how to support the Planning Department in issuing these notice of violations and something that the penalties fees and so figuring out the resources weve been expanding the number of issues that the Planning Department has enforced in the city recently with the expansion of shortterm rentals in particular that is important to have broader conversation on the enforcement finally i just wanted to ask the committee for ill make a motion to move forward with a positive recommendation i want to thank the members of our community and the south of market so for working with us along with the Planning Department office of office of Economic Workforce Development and also to the congressional helt to bring forward in proposed negotiation that supports victoria manolo draves park and 300,000 for the acquisition and programming throughout the next foe Years Committee members he ask for your support and happy were bringing over two to three years of discussion to a close hopefully today at the board of supervisors. Thank you, supervisor kim and ill say im happy to support in item today, i think that anytime you have you know those popos i agree with supervisor kims comment about the Planning Department staff is Going Forward more for the public it better he wonder whether the popos were not id like highway they were created and the Community Comes together my frustration that item is lined not outside of city a staff but my office has been working on it setting the 2017 budget and legislative Analyst Services audit plan police department. And it came forward i dont know what department but want to go forward i would certainly expect Something Better and different if we calendar this we need all the information well in advance with that said, this is a good thing for the community and want the hotels the intercongressional to operate freely and use those spaces so happy to support this so supervisor kim is that a admonition supervisor kim to magnified with recommendations without objection all right. Mr. Clerk item 2 item 2 ceqa findings sewer system Improvement Program, southeast Water Pollution plant new headworks facility. Chapter three 1 including the adoption of mitigation and reporting programs to raise the funding for the ceqa findings sewer system Improvement Program, southeast Water Pollution plant new headworks facility. Okay thank you very much i know the puc is here to speak on this item so lets get going. I believe we have a fingertip presentation as well. Yeah. And john will be preparing good afternoon chair farrell im karen the wastewater entries director at the San Francisco public works and before i move into the details i want to give you a little bit of background about the Improvement Programs and the ahead works facility the map in front is to orient you have the wastewater and be stormwater treatment use within the 49 square miles of the city we operate during dry and wet wleefrn and up and down showing in orange we have two drainage spaces and john, i want to highlight the Treatment Plant to the west the young i did point oceanside up to the northeast the wet weather the north plant and lastly the facilities where the work will be occurring southeast the bayview Hunters Point the southeast control plant that was planned r planned in the 1940s and exclusions in the 1950s thats where the budget will be occurring some of the challenges are odor and noise, visible, maintaining Water Quality as shown the infrastructure schematic safety the wastewater has not been upgraded as the departments in the city and rational liability and now having a Sea Level Rise so our solution for the 0 Improvement Program has 3 components gray meaning building more pump stations and operational green counting stormwater to slow down the movement from the system because it does get overwhelmed and the maintenance for the clean ocean as part of program established a level of service enforced by the commission and guide the project acceleration i want to point you to the first one all of these are obviously important but the ones that focus on southeast plant i think like the compliances with the regulatory permit with the regulatory and the commission of the crome safety to operate in a wide range of southeast plant not been you got were at risk of aging system failing and making us not compliant that is the styling of the urgency were under and the ssip is 6. 9 billion shows the definition of treatment and the Collection System weve within authorized for phase one that is the first column 2. 9 billion to billion dollars of the fund are going to be have found in the southeast plant for facilities if you look at the highlighted like that in yellow that is the new ahead works facility that total is 359 million for this project of the project of the 359 million 200 and 56 million for the construction the Construction Funds are only controllers appropriation reserve that is to the Commission Approval you received in february 28th and your consideration adoption of the ceqa vpthdz im presenting to you today, i want to advise you that the puc is pursuing low Interest Fund for the costs so this is happening in parallel the next the aerial of the southeast plant every skweech is covered an impacted site it is in bayview Hunters Point it treats 80 percent of citys wastewater 24 7 it is a constrained sites by residents and businesses and has caltrans in the back their aging and while we do the construction well be operating the Treatment Plant not a back up plant but id like challenges that we have this is the plant for the future these are some of the new facilities that will be built the blue is the facilities that were back to talk about that another day the green where the ahead works is where everything enters the plant from the north and setting the ahead works it moving large obstacles like tires and bricks and two by for us on the system and has to remove sand and fine grit so it takes up valuable capability an esteeming odor reduce portion so much air is a changing place not got the more than control ulthd for the schematic the standards were different than today so those are located at overview advanced this is a shot of what the new facility will look like a lot of the focus on the grit removal for the fine screening to get that out of the system before that enters the rest find plant and enhancing the control for the status quo control system this is a cut a 3d cut of new head works a challenging facility it has to be able to operate at dry weather and maximize in wet weather the new 200 and 50 million from left to right the facilities screenings and brick handling a a distribution structure and has a control room and electrical facility if we look at the schedule we have received the final mitigated negative declaration from the Planning Department we have authority from the commission to move forward february 2ndyear budget with the committees recommendation well begin construction in august a 5 year construction period now as i mentioned the project has received a negative declaration and determined the project area has a sensitivity for agriculture site if on previous geoagricultural points now at the bottom that was conformed using tier engine for operating the enlistment and diesel not to exceed the pollutant for the oxygen dioxide and lastly in the future when your driving down evans theyre working with the agricultural and the city intervene on the agricultural concept that slide a concept that is approved in phase one and will be turning to the review for approval shortly the gray white patching is an area we are having a public art place for the selection and that art is underway so at this time i wanted to ask for the adoption for the negative declaration the ceqa and the monitoring and reporting program and direction for the controller to release and like to ask the committee supervisors to Carry Forward a motion to correct a clerical error the wrong index code on this page we would like to get that fixed and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. About the project or the ssip. Thank you very much supervisor peskin. So sorry for my ignorance generally ceqa documents are adopted by the department of decide planning why are we making the findings for the adopted diagnosis. This has the requirement in the funding of the legislation payroll this is an unusual thing pointed out by the manager as well youll be seeing this and returning at other private documents we want to make sure all the dot all the is and cross the ts on this it was wart of the funding. And relative to the correction on line 12 for the project number is that what youre referring to. Yes. Recycle. Line 14, page one. No numbers on line 13 but. Well 12. Whats the correct number. C w w ssip example s e i two. It says and thats incorrect. You want it to be. C w w ssip s e zero two. I get it. And relative to Community Outreach any controversy. This one we received no comment on the viral process we had great support on this project i think that the project that is attracting perhaps more Public Interest the project just this past weekend a working group an open house out at a boyer opera houses attended by 40 residents to learn about the projects we have there has not been the level of controversy or questions been support or people realizing that is a project for the Wastewater Treatment a understood and relative to outreach what kind of outreach do you do relative to noticing. Many, many Public Meetings and workshops. We had been 30 or 35 meeting in the neighborhood about this project it is with do you want to come up. I guess what im trying to get at karen month folks think of ceqa documents as going to planning so people in various communities that follow those are following calendar and not following the hard calendar 99 percent go the answer you noticed everybody in the same way that planning notice people for a fundamental document thats what im getting at. We be continuing do the working class forward at this. 2000 on the southeast plant er bike tours we are trying to get it so everybody is aware of what is happening at the wastewater plant. Thank you okay seeing no further questions open up for Public Comment. Thank you i have one card i know that is david pilpal. You are like the soccer star and anyone else. Mr. Pilpal. I want to speak in support i served 3 and a half on the Advisory Committee and 10 years on the wastewater im familiar with this component project that was an important project that took place for the aging infrastructure babe bar screens and other attempts further up the line to remove odor and contaminates this is the first opportunity to remove grit and other materials that interfere with the treatment process so i believe this will improve the efficiency of the process and reduces the oertdz and replace the infrastructure blah, blah that was properly followed and staff karen and others have done great work i support it i believe you have an amendment to the bearing the same title and it corrects the project title under the old Financial System and makes minor changes for about the admin code so i commend that and urge your support have a nice day. Thank you mr. Pilpal. Supervisor peskin. I want to thank puc staff and the deputy City Attorney mr. Pilpal we do have an amendment of the whole before us ill clear on the language on line 12. That comes to us from city staff ill adopt it but not from the public just the chance in the index code i dont know what version that is. This is kind of weird kind of annoying ill check to see if this is on the website at the top that says amended in committee 3, 2017 and today is monday, march 20, 2017, so weve not taken an amendment i dont want to sound like a process queen but on the website how you guys took action before we take action how do you take an action on our on behalf mr. Pilpal is correct it says amended in committee monday, march 20, 2017, how do you guys put something on the website before the legislative body has taken action. We were working on the draft and it was disdisclosed were moving at this time. Just to be clear on page one. Who knows it is amended as a whole no red line and the road to hell is paved with weird stuff like this. So you couldnt ask them to the City Attorneys office or the staff. Ill propose to do this what karen said i will make a motion at line 12 on page one cu w 20 and replace that with c w w ssip c zero two and make that amendment. Just to be clear on line 12 page one well adopt about motion i by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor kim as amended. Thank you and then the other line item to move and seconded by supervisor kim and without objection thank you. I appreciate it everyone. Deputy City Attorney Pacific Islander pal. Mr. Clerk, call item 3. Transportation demand Management Program. And methodology and justification documents. Okay. Thank you very much so were on item 3 well go back really quick we have to make a set of amendments to supervisor kim can i have a motion to rescind the vote. On item one. Motion by supervisor kim and seconded by supervisor peskin if i can talk without objection and supervisor kim. My apologies for missing this we thought we contributed this in the subsequent legislation that came in a little bit later i mends in a foul fellow up that the Property Owner project sponsor had been illegally using the private space over the last 3 months worked on a gift to address and remedy the violations that they had been making i had stated that this gift was returned up to 300,000 to the San Francisco Parks Alliance to be used for activation and at the victoria manolo draves park i had submitted those amendments now to the clerk and members of the land use and Transportation Committee to provide an additional amendment we have acceptance of Additional Fund for the victoria manolo draves park or other existing underutilized parks in district 6 at the 300,000 and so that language is now before the land use and Transportation Committee and looking for the City Attorney to see if this is adequate and efficient. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. Yes. The amendment reflected the one hundred thousand dollars for popos maintenance as well and the details are in the copy for the department. Thank you mr. Gibner and so id like to make a motion to amend item number one, to rehabilitate the summary that i have just articulated. Supervisor kim through the chair not to be a process queen to items in a row if you can hand me a copy of that that would be great before i second. Well pause for supervisor peskin. I want to appreciate the members of the board are looking at this before they amend it. Just to be clear supervisors i got these before committees as we raise the committee about who to adopt it. My apologies i was not aware of that the amendment were not distributed to the Community Members well remedy this next time. Not a problem heres in page 3 sub 3 there is two changes one is the board authors a payment in the fee of 2 housing unit 6 million instead of 2. 5 million and at the end of the sentence one thousand dollars for the Maintenance Cost that typically a copy is popos this is the responsibility of the private owner this is an explanation for the 2. 5 to 2. 6 and then the three hundred thousand is the gift acceptance so for pages four or five. I didnt state that when the item was up we worked with the rec and park in coming up with the one hundred thousand to be added to the inlieu fee payment and rec and park stated that 2,600 is the cost for the maintenance of once we installed it we estimated that 31 years is the period of time that popo will be in use poor so the total Maintenance Cost for 35 years is 2 is 91 thousand we rounded that up to one thousand for the inlieu fee payment so the 2. 5 authorizes is the capital plan and the additional 1,000 is maintaining the light as our pd has summarized. And there are to copies so just so you have a copy of the amendments i have read them and can second the amendments. We have a motion to approve number one, by supervisor kim and seconded by supervisor peskin without objection and as amended supervisor kim and seconded by supervisor peskin and we without objection that passes. Thank you were back to item 3 colleagues this item was sponsored by supervisor yee, supervisor fewer and supervisor cohen i see supervisor fewer and supervisor cohen in Committee Welcome to the land use and Transportation Committee and im going to turn it over to supervisor yee well turn it over to you first. Okay. Thanks chair farrell and other Committee Members and i want to thank supervisor fewer and supervisor cohen for cosponsor this i called this hearing today to get a deeper understanding of behind the methodologies of the planning of the city Transportation Demand Management Program which the board of supervisors approved earlier this year i think we can finally agree that the city should doing everything we can to encourage the vehicles miles traveled traveled in cars the at least not the best the best and the least that is the ultimate of Transportation Demand Management Program. I understand the program is ever eventually to choose from the needs Transportation Demand management goal is a living document that is why i wanted to bring the Planning Team to this committee to talk through some of the thinking that allows us the ability to engagement in the process as it develops in my own district we are using Transportation Demand management to discuss the transportation and parking the potential balboa park housing site which is used by the city college as a parking lot want to when the Planning Department brought this proposal to me i thought the study will stud anothers existing impacts and help to suggest Short Term Solutions to the traffic as it exists today of course, i was assured it was part of Transportation Demand Management Study not only the aspect will go future planning and deferring people if driving in the first place so the bathroom, came before i was in the agreement i had many questions about the point system and how the formula works it is is on ongoing process for the community and myself i know that the team at planning and sfmta has studied the data steven i want to provide on overall the that the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind and talk about the methodologies and want to thank the staff for allowing us the opportunity to deplete into this and ask for questions before i bring up the staff i think supervisor fewer want opening remarks. Thank you supervisor yee im new to the board ive not been here for previously discussions but i had a question around the options and the thinking behind that im in support of Transportation Demand Management Program i think that it is really forward thinking to do that and i have concerns about the overall city goals and whether or not were looking at other measures besides the vehicles miles traveled and options thinking they can compliment other city goals we have collectively decided on as a board and city so thats why im here today and i hope to learn a lot but again, im concerned about the options and able to perhaps double down on the citywide goals in muni versus with the levers to lose move this initiative were reducing the vehicles miles traveled thanks. Okay so why not get started i have here wade. So im carli if sfmta ill kickoff and wade will from planning will go through the second part. Its all yours carla thank you for having us. Were delighted to be here with supervisor peskin with the Transportation Demand Management Program. With you as you may know we care deeply about and proud of as those of you, we can talk about it for quite a while we appreciate the invitation to talk that it more with you as you mentioned the Transportation Demand Management Program. Was adopted by the board of supervisors about a moa month and a half go went into affect the Transportation Demand management ordnance is the third component of the Transportation Sustainability program and oh, im sorry please it went up thank you all right. Were be looking at the lines so the Transportation Demand management or the shift component establishes reminders for plan use projects to integrate onsite amenities or services into their projects to support site users in making the trips they need to make by sustainable modes modes other than cycling and it links the other to consultant of Transportation Sustainability program by encouraging and 7eleven using transit and walking and biking with the will component invests in and reducing the vehicles miles traveled this is the focus of the lined components and murray measuring a more robust Environmental Review to the board of supervisors adopted the policy framework in approving the Transportation Demand management ordinance the Planning Commission adopted the regulations and various specific detailed of how the program will be implemented in their action to approve the program the regulations are brought dough in a document called the tdm weve been asked to share the details of today an overall of the presentation overall were here to explain the technical aspects of the tdm and the purpose of tdm program and how we define the measure for the purposes of this program to go over the tdm venue including generally in the memo and specifically how points of allocated for measures and let the progress to update the tdm process over time and including two examples of projects how the tdm program applies to those projects and how they will work in light of the details were walk you through so first, the purpose of program the purpose of the whole Transportation Sustainability program to keep the city mo magic as it grows the tdm reduces the vehicles miles traveled that is a core focus of this program so when we talk about reducing the vehicles miles traveled in a Development Project were talking about reducing vehicles miles traveled for that project compared to what would otherwise happy for that Development Project in that location the vehicles miles traveled or v m t measures the amount and distance that people would drive to in using and assessing a site and vehicles miles traveled is a function of diversity of land uses and options for nondriving and driving transportation area those are elements of vehicles miles traveled but an individual project cant affect the things that a project can effect are the kinds of amenities offered and how much other things we care about the vehicles miles traveled in San Francisco is you know from the transportation perspective for the reducing the vehicles miles traveled is critical to reducing the congestion and demand on the roadways that is a limited reservoirs in San Francisco and not expanding vehicles miles traveled reduction also has a benefit of environmental benefit of reducing noise and Energy Consumption and air pollution for local pollutants and Green House Gas emissions and vehicles miles traveled reduction also is closely aligned with the vision zero reducing the motorist trips and distances is critical to reducing the x pours to vehicle crashes and injuries and to get into that a little bit more that might not be an intuitive concept to but well show you a couple of studies that are referred reveal a fundamental relationship between vehicles miles traveled and safety multiple traffic and safety studies show a correlation between higher b m t and crashes but of causality between total miles traveled and crashes so more b m t more crashes and more serious and fatalities in San Francisco were serious about in fact, the vision zero representatives came and testified in front of the board of supervisors saying that the tdm is an important tool in the tool in the tool box so to remind you the way the Program Works every project has to select from a memo of options in order to accrue enough points to achieve its required points the target so we identifying would measures should be in this memo of options first, we had to define whether or not the tdm measure for this purpose of this program clearly the project programming is reducing the tdm so the measures have to be measures that effectively reduces the vehicles miles traveled they have to effect the trips of sited users retained and workers that are visitors to cite and under the control of Property Owner because this is something were asking the developer and the future Property Owners to be responsible for so the rules we identified the measures to evaluate for inclusion in the memo was during a litter review of what tdm measures have out there that are demonstrated to be effective looking at the planning code for what were already requiring and how to build off the existing requirements and looked at it other injured across the country in best practices in terms of requirements and Transportation Demand management measures implemented voluntarily that could be are great tdm measures that will be challenging to assure and monitor for compliance as you may recall in insuring the projects are delivering the measures that theyve committed to a core component we want to make sure that every measure in the memo that was something we can describe how you can be compliant and we the city will make sure your complying im going to turn it over to wade from the Planning Department to get into the details of the memo and how the points are allocated well both be available for questions. Thank you carli and good afternoon, supervisors im wade senior planning Planning Department great to be back here again to talk about the tdm hopefully on acronym we all know and im going to pick up where carli left off in that once we choose the measures that met the tdm measure put them into a category as shown here those 8 categories car share and delivery and familyfriendly, highoccupancy vehicle and information to communication, land use and Parking Management those 8 categories contain 26 tdm measures some of the measures have additional options what different requirements and this resulted in 6 of options all of the options have been allocated points reflective based on how ritualistic in reducing the vehicles miles traveled this we used a variety of different sources to assign the points for we look at other literature some works was a comprehensive report done by the California Air pollution transfers how effect for reducing the bmt and the Ongoing Research by the California Air Resources Board as part of nfl 375 land use and Transportation Planning requirements and an example of where we look to other jurisdictions and the research they did in washington, d. C. There was some research around how effective bike share in if environment and tried to apply that research to San Francisco and looked at it other Academics Research as well that was on top of what we spent two summers in San Francisco particularly looking at the effect parking space supply had at the vehicles miles traveled at individual Development Sites based on the results of that research that echoed research that we have read statewide and nation wide that more people are driving we looked at two other jurisdictions to see they how they weighed the factors and by looking at the Expert Opinion how effect they were some manufactured like the messengers that carli mentioned around familyfriendly not really literature whether or not they reduced the vehicles miles traveled but banks our professional opinion we felt they can needling we cast the point value for any measure that didnt have the dabbed evidence so the nursuntil we collect fora to see if theyre effective. That resulted in the memo of options with a point allocation that you see here im not going to go over the measures but highlight a few of them based on conversations weve had the first ill mention is improved walking conditions to options here both are allocated one point and then we acknowledge that walking conditions and connectivity have important, however, an spentsz that an individual developer improves the Walking Around the site are limited there are circumstances but get into situations with a Development Agreement where a development can influence those circumstances are rare and this is because most walking conditions improvements were requiring area for quarter wide improvements to really reduce the wlt effectively with that said we district staff to look at those measures a little bit more the walking measures that is and we tint on doing that along with the measures that are on the memo one of the other measures is the shuttle bus measure we heard a number of comments on the process i want to highlight this measure it bans literature proven to be quite effective thus i point value quite effective at reducing the vehicles miles traveled but we dont anticipate this measure will be selected except for rare and unique circumstances and this is because this measure is very costly the frequency requirement of running the shuttle as defined in the measure are quite effect frequent is a large operational cost and unique in that it requires really city staff Vincent Van Gogh and approval of this measure we want to make sure from the developer has suggested this measure that there are no hazards associated with the location zone that measure is not duplicating a Public Transit service that is near the site there would be some vetting associated with this measure and then i want to mention on this memo there are some items that are geography based a unbundled parking and parking supply and health food and underserved areas by chair manipulating based on the geography of the site and characteristics youll get points for those measures pr and we intend on updating in memo over time as we discussed previously and supervisor yee mentioned that the tdm seem like is dynamic we want to be up to date in that dynamic fold we can update those measures this can occur as carli mentioned the board of supervisors adopted the policy and then the Planning Commission adopted the regulation there are certain amendments that what require the Planning Commission approval those are outlined here staff will be conducting research to see how effective the tdm measures are over time whether new ideas that warrant conclusion in the memo or clarify measures to make sure theyre more effective all of these amendments will be data driven in regards to vehicles miles traveled production we intend on reporting those to the Planning Commission and as request do in the board of supervisors after one year and every 4 years we also will be reporting on things like the frequency measures that are selected theyre effectiveness and inside of projects that are subject to this so that concluded the Technical Details i wanted to run through two project examples to illustrate those a little bit further both examples i want to stress are hypothetical but they may reasonably reflect the projects in two different geography locations the example demonstrate the geographic pointed values in some of the measures ive referred so the first project will be located at ocean avenue with 60 units 40 percent booemz and onsite affordable unit and one space per parking space per unit and based on those number of Parking Spaces the target we didnt go into some the presentation but there target is 17 points that is the number of points that project has to achieve to comply with the tdm program ill show 3 slides for this example all the slides have images from a webbased tool it you all member of the Public Developers can use i have a link to the tool on the last slide so for this project the project will get 3 points between the geography based measures on unbundled parking and parking supply and unbundled parking as well as another measure bike parking are planning code requirements so this is something that arbitrary mentioned those planning code requirements are effective at reducing the vehicles miles traveled were giving credit for that and select on this slide car share that is above and beyond what the planning code requires so the Property Owner here will be required to provide more car share spaces and also car share membership for each unit combined on the slide the project is halfway has 8 of the 17 points to get the rest of the points sort of scrolling on the webbased tool need 9 more points ive selected familyfriendly measures and between the combination of those car share and the percentage of two bedrooms on the site the project will get two more points what were demon a tdm package other measures are are signage and the project will get points for the amount of level of fundamental to combined with this project have a number of measures that will become their tdm. And quickly ill go through another example it is similar in sort of character but smaller in size and in a different location here at geary and 6th street this t has 40 percent unit onsite Affordable Housing and 40 Parking Spaces so again the project is one parking space per one unit and given in project has 20 fewer Parking Spaces from the previous a target of fewer points shown on the slide is 50 points so and in example the project will get additional points for the geographic location for unbundled parking and zero points for parking supply and selected some additional bike parking for the project and car share parking again on this slide it gets 7 points and then on the last slide to get the additional 8 points ive selected slightly different the amenities and again familyfriendly amenities and a measure that didnt require space in the building and this is contributions incentive . In this events a subsidy to each unit in the building for a muni pass a transit pass and again the project will get points for onsite affordability and combined the project meets the territory of 18 points so hopefully, this priority a better explanation of the details of the tdm project were happy to discuss further and that concludes my presentation. Thank you thank you wade. Any questions here for any Public Comment seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Chair farrell Public Comment is closed. Just to be clear anyone want to comment on item 3 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And i have some. Can we ask about the shuttle piece that you gave an example for for the ocean avenue well, yeah youre probably bordered that particular site but the shuttle piece for a shuttle that is coming out of the balboa and, of course, the motivation for students to also students get out of their cars if one does a shutter there how does that work what kind of place would you assign to that and one, is that the shuttle is not necessary because of the Public Transportation or whatever can you respond to that before so i heard several questions let me make sure one the question is the balboa came forward and said we want to achieve your points through a shuttle how will we evaluate you may or may not thats would be one of the questions and another question how to design that Shuttle Service you asked how does that work im not sure the other part. How does the point system work. Oh, okay so assuming we said, yes how will the point system work the first one to answer whether we how well evaluate it is you know mta did is working on Guiding Principles for private transportation of all types of and those principles are like reducing congestion and bmt and accessibility and equity and transparent of labor standards and monitoring and impacts on sfmta operations and revenues so we will evaluate the Shuttle Service, however, it was described by the project sponsor they will likely give the routinely and the power and the frequency well evaluate it whatever their proposal based on the principles and criteria that were we will set up now say we said sure there is a gap in transit accessibility or assess there all the your operations are great you have perfect places for loading and unloading and committed to Safety Practices for the operators e in terms of their points there is basically two and the points are you get more points for the higher frequency so 7 points for providing 15 head ways during peak hours and less and 13 for 7 and a half minutes head ways during peak or less during peak hours it is really the frequency of service and if you think about the points reflecting how much of an impact on vehicles miles traveled it will have clearly a shuttle is something twice as frequently it is more likely to be a dependable options than less coming less frequently we see that with the transit thats how the points are elevated and assigned if we say check all the boxes just to be clear for the record im not it does for this site but that conveyer. Just curious that was a real site and not the recommendations for shuttles. Thats a topic a different topic. I know, i know. I wanted to trap you guys in having shuttles. Thank you. laughter . You know can so youre assigned the points and so forth and hoping that the developers will then follow through with their commitments and i guess the question is given how difficult it is to and in development whether that is for we have all the regulations and then but we know that the dbi department of building inspection and so forth sometimes they dont necessarily go back and inspect things and wait for someone to complain how will you enforce those elements ill ask wade ill say this is something that sets this apart from neither here nor there anything else in the planning code correct and so. An earlier item today that was talking about complaint and most of planning code is complaint basis weve built into a proactive monitoring and recording to with the various fees associated with the tdm program a developer will have to fee a portion of those fees staff assigned to do staff audits 0 review annual i should say going on monitoring and reporting reports from the developer so right before and to illustrate before it development a occupied prior to the certificate of occupancy Planning Department staff will parlor that physical measures are in place how many car share shares will you provide and how many are there as well as that there ready to implement any programmatic so the transit measures ive mentioned previously the site is opted out and 18 months that is ongoing monitoring reports will be required by the developer or the Property Owner so theyll have to show documents that those car share spaces are there and providing those subsidies and pay on ongoing fee to planning dedicated Planning Department staff just for this effort. I have a question for in regards to familyfriendly elements and how would the impacts be measured differently in the development has hero children your specifically if i understand how have assigned points to take an average or whatever of the conditions and if the development is familyfriendly would the correct number of units and childcare and Everything Else a family will really look for would the points be different. Yeah. Thats a good question if i can rephrase your question from the project said theyll have 100 percent two bedrooms or three bedrooms will they get more points for the familyfriendly measures that is something we hope to study more in the future those measures were actually things ive mentioned in the presentation we dont have a lot of literature to support how effective they are but we think they work and by given the lack of material we cap it at 2 points at this time we hope there is more literature out there someplace and collect our own data i know that the desire for familyfriendly housing is a real one and i think those measures support that but a lot of the other measures are in are not deemed familyfriendly are supported because it is a different category didnt mean it didnt support familyfriendly like im sorry, go ahead. There is the bonus points if you do the both familyfriendly measures and i think that is category option c for the car share and a certain proposition is that 3 or 2. 40 percent two bedrooms or greater two bedroom unit onsite there say you do all those things a mega package bonus points. Labeled in the two examples that i showed. Thank you supervisor fewer do you yes. Thank you supervisor yee. So thanks for your presentation im narrowly it down my concern is that i get youre with mta and planning and this is around transportation and vehicles miles traveled however, i think that i was thinking about how do we see this memo to further other City Initiatives that are equally as important as reducing the amount of vehicles on the road so when i look at those options the option kickoff in the sister low and this is one of my sequesters also that we are planning in a silo were not planning aligned with some of the other goals as Affordable Housing or goals of reduction of vehicles so im also looking at some of the transportation Marketing Services what do you mean and looking at when you say Federal Reserve ill thinking of the implementation of transportation im not seeing more large projects the option to fund a new transit stop and pay into muni to actually have services i dont see any of those options what im thinking we talked about the familyfriendly for low income families dont have cars so i dont see an option of actually having a resale basis within the project for a Grocery Store for example, or a laundromat or those kinds of amenities for families theyll actually need a vehicle to or take a car or use a vehicle in order to do that so im i guess my thing about this my main concern and maybe not so much an objection but a critical thing is that it seems we can, e be using the levers to advance to the citywide measures not in acy low around the vehicles miles traveled how many vehicles miles traveled i think we need to look at this with an eye to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road that reducing the amount of private vehicles on the road or by corporations or run by corporations that are unregulated in the community such a uber and lyft im looking at levers looking at this as there could be other mothers that help us with not just this goal but through a new memorial system were all working together thats my main complained im learning about it honest i i dont know a lot about it but were thinking about it in a low we heard a presentation on the fascinate housing here which actually could be a way to push that forward also you know the value over Something Like bike share membership or showers or lockers like the points system could reflect this is sort of a greater need we give the developers more points for doing it possibly a society it means more so that is my push back on it i know youve that worked a long time and a lot of planning around this i know im coming in late to this so i just want to say i appreciate thank you for all your hard work my push back it a rereluctance to and then the planning around other City Initiative that are also trying it was with little resources this is one of the reasons we used to promote some of the things citywide that it didnt just about vehicles miles traveled that is liveability and will remaining the exit and ruining the families and low wage workforce that serves us in San Francisco when i look at those things im looking at it really is one lens of this measurement and youre just trying to accomplish one thing but id like to rethink this actually, we might be able to accomplish many things thats my comments thanks so much thank you supervisor fewer you trigger another thing i forgot to ask i think there some assumptions here and i cant argue with it one way or another but speculate just something that been in my thoughts and other peoples thought for quite a while a generation of people that are using or owning vehicles less than a generation before at the same time when we talked to not generation of people many of them even though they unite not own a car depends on vehicles not necessary Public Transportation all the time meaning their constantly taking uber or Something Like that this is the taxis thats what is happening and i dont think we do enough Research Arena when what is 40 thousand cars are running around San Francisco driving constantly trying to pick up somebody so and he kind of wondered it is like somebody said well, you dont need a parking space but 40 thousand vehicles running around operating all day long and at least one that drives like sometimes myself from my house to here im parked and im not driving my vehicle around and around and around causing more pollution so this is a tough one i think we need to these indicators whatever you call them seriously we have to look at that aspect because your assumption is that oh, they dont have a vehicle wow. We publics driving less and if someone is telling you in the survey oh, half the time im taking lyft to work it sort of there is no your assumptions out the door basically what is better to have you know 80 vehicles driving around our home running for you if you ask them to drive them or someone to drive and if we can reduce the vehicle usage ever people that live in San Francisco and those that are coming from all over the place to pick up the slack for those not ownership a car that would be great i dont know if that is happening any responses to that supervisor yee. Great observation and the prevalence of for hire Transportation Network companies e has increased obviously in the city over the last foe years were doing the city is doing a number of efforts to understand the began as part of transportation for the California Environmental quality act were curbing undergoing Data Collection at sites to see see prevalence of people using those types of services and you referred to asking people how much theyre using them and theres i think that is also the real benefit of this program right now this program is built absolutely on the fact like you said more parking people more driving as well as the number of other things built into the program but we can update this program over time to rehabilitate the last research if we determine it that you know maybe parking supply didnt have the effect as two years ago as two years from now we can refine overseeing measures and the target based on the research and mta has nothing further to add. I want to say further it will be hard to study those vehicles for hire when their gray or brown listing you. Gray balling you. May i. I want to piggyback on it i will not in favor of my policy that promotes the use or even gives an option for use of private transportation to hire i think that we have not studied it weve not regulated it i think it is in constitution with the Public Transportation and if there was an article in the negotiation times about the reduction of use in the over speculation of the vehicles and so if you want to get serious about vision zero say you frustrating to me we need to write in the policy about concession that will adversely to vision zero goal i mean, i am not a social scientists but i like 45 thousand or whatever uber or lyfts on the road for cars will be more accidents in cars or people driving cars yes when i looked at this i was hoping that your not thinking of actively giving points to partner with a private Shuttle Service like this this is simply not acceptable it is different if you have a Shuttle Service that is notforprofit but thinking about offering 7 points for Shuttle Service that is privatized that actually works in xeemgsz with our own Public Transportation system then i have to say im not against that we have to reassure we will have a Public Transportation system that is viable that is assessable, that is remarkably priced and effect for everyone in San Francisco regardless of how rich you or how how many resources you have to hire someone privately i think we had a trouble taxi system but lets remember hes a and not expiation of labor when i read that that was one of the red flags about a Shuttle Service i thought man that is actually promoting the use of a private Shuttle Service im not in favor it is it i look at what is happening in new york and the place again that is taken over not just uber and lyft but other companies that is needs to be regulated very soon before i mean, i think we should have a hearing on the back of our workforce and the impact on transportation, whats the impact on vision zero and good life and our roads and is maintenance of roads and we havent done that yet so im when i looked at this memo of options that is the one thing that freaked me out you im trying to piggyback on supervisor yee is saying this is needs to be studied and actually should be outstanding it very, very carefully we know that soon there will be Automated Vehicles lyft and uber are working towards feel well not put a slow down it to protect the Public Transportation system thank you. Any other comments seeing none, are you public . We already had Public School sorry i want to thank the staff for coming to this hearing and presenting and im pretty convinced you know staff is working on it considers about this issue and how it can improve the lives of san franciscans and im glad to hear that theres some sense of Flexibility Program and you have absolutely corrected it but a start i think that it will be good for us to have you come back in a year to see what has happened so we can weigh in and point out other things to consider at this time, id like to go ahead and close this hearing okay supervisor yee made a motion shall we file the hearing. To the call of the chair. Well ask for a hearing in the future. Motion by supervisor kim and without objection thanks supervisor yee and supervisor fewer mr. Clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body . That completes the agenda for today. Thanks good morning. All right, ladies and gentlemen good morning and welcome to the regular meeting, to my left and tang and yee is excused and our clerk is mr. Victor young and, would i like to thank, who are assisting us with this broadcast at sfgovtv. Mr. Clerk do we have announcements . Please silence all cell phones and Electronic Devices completed cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will apioneer on the april, 4th, 2017, board of supervisors da