4to1 raich yo. And creates this uncertainty that is going to lead to, you know, each of these projects being debated again at the planning commission, which doesnt seem very helpful to us. I would urge you to just eliminate the exemption for Affordable Housing and clear up this process for all of us and save us all a lot of time. Thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor breed. I really appreciate your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Supervisors andy thornly, speaking for myself. Thank you, president breed, for bringing this. Thank you, supervisor peskin and kim for cosponsoring. I wanted to voice my support for the interim controls. I do want to echo what tom and jeremy and others have said. I really do think it is important to not bring the loophole for onsite inclusionary forward. Onsite inclusionary, very important. I would not argue against that. More b. M. R. , absolutely. To the extend that the city has existing policy and is found a junction between b. M. R. And parking, it is that we with Incentivize Developers by allowing them to provide less parking. Last year we had a triumph at the board, unanimous approval of home s. F. And under that program, the local density bonus program, a developer is incentivized to add below market rate by getting some exceptions. And one of the key exceptions is that the developer can provide less parking as an incentive. Down to a quarter of the minutes my permitted parking and down to 0 parking at 100 affordable. To the extent that this city and board of supervisors have adopted a finding that associates below market rate with incentives for parking, its to provide less parking, not more parking. So, i urge you to support this interim control. But i urge you to drop the loophole for the onsite inclusionary. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im gail bau. Along with the apellant and the develop, we helped negotiate a settlement to get the ceqa appeal dropped. The conversation and the negotiations never included b. M. R. S on site. It was only about the interim controls on parking. We have four sites in hayes valley that will be zero parking and 100 affordable. I dont quite understand the relationship to attaching b. M. R. I see them as completely separate. Thank you to supervisor breed for bringing this forward. The interim controls are very important for all the reasons she mentioned both now and in the past. Thank you for cosponsoring this legislation. I do believe the amendment is relevant to the issue here, which is the cumulative effect of parking. But in terms of this ceqa appeal, there was no discussion about b. M. R. S on site as a connection to it a allowing a developer to have additional parking. Thank you. Thank you. Next eke spaoer. Good afternoon. My name is robin leavitt. For over 25 years, ive been livinging three blocks from the intersection of market and octavia. So im very concerned about additional parking in the area. As has been thoroughly discussed, parking brings congestion and delays muni service and has very negative health effects. Safety effects and so forth. So, im i applaud the effort to put in these interim controls on future developments in the hub area. However, as much as i support Affordable Housing and law, the effort to add Affordable Housing to these protons, to compromise the environment and allow parking in exchange of that and all the congestion it would brung, i cannot support the amendment to this legislation. And so i urge you to pass the interim controls without the proposed amendment. There are already incentives in place, sensitive bonuses, height, increases to incentivize Affordable Housing in this area. We dont need to add parking as an incorrective to build more Affordable Housing. We should find more ways, other ways to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. And if i if i may just to the last speaker who ive known for many years, i think the amendment actually addresses not all of the concern but the exemption is in the existing legislation. If we pass it asis, the exemption for Affordable Housing is in the existing legislation. The amendment that im offering on behalf of supervisor kim can, further narrows the applicability of that exception. And i appreciate that. But i would eliminate the exemption all together from the legislation. Ah. Ok. I would want to youve had your two minutes. You can send whatever. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. And chair. Karen babbit just speaking for myself today. I came here prepared to ask that you eliminate the exemption for the onsite Affordable Housing. Im intrigued by what was said today. However, in the time weve been talking, supervisor peskin proposed to do one plan and jeremy mentioned a second project. So, i would ask, this is my easy ask, we not send this to the full board today until we can look at how this proposed amendment today amendment actually applis to whats in the pipeline. Just because i dont feel confident asking or saying this is great or not great until we can see whats actually planned. Im going to repeat jeremys request. Can we hear from the Planning Department, some kind of report. As much as i love this spread sheet, it would be nice to have something official. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. And thank you, supervisor breed, for sponsoring this legislation. As we look at the possibly of as many as 9,000 units going into a few block area here, we dont want to create any incentives to increase parking over the allowed amount for each lot. I dont know why supervisor kim has proposed this amendment. I agree that when i read the legislation or the digest, i thought it exempted 100 affordable. So, im confused at this point. Ok. Thank you very much. Im jim with the neighborhood Valley Association and once again id like to thank supervisor breed, peskin and kim for this excellent effort to improve our city. If as all the speakers before have said, our concern is with any exemption. It only creates confusion and we believe it is a much stronger document without it as gail bau mentioned, this was never part of the initial negotiation with one oak. And furthermore if you read, as im sure you all have, the market octavia c. A. C. Document to you with more where as in two minute, they also detail why there should be no loopholes or provisions for having the c. U. During this 18month period for any of the nonapproved projects. We strongly recommend that we not move forward with the exemption in any shape or form. Souled you for any reason decide to do that, supervisors peskins comments are certainly very to the point of improving the originally submitted loophole. But i would even be much more strong in reiterating the necessariability or the necessity and desirability must be clearly demonstrated as an absolute provision of any c. U. That is the piece that we seem to always lose with planning and including that should you not decide to ban it out right and eliminate the exemption would be some protection. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comments now closed. I do understand, though, this amendment would be precedent. Well have to hear if there is anything else in the pipeline that would be affected negatively or otherwise on this. Perhaps we can get a Planning Department next week to come as we rehear this back in committee. Other than that, though, id be very supportive of it. Supervisor . I was actually just going to say that Legal Counsel has advised us that this will require a continuance and depending on what happens in the intervening week, we, i think, out of an abundance of caution trying to get this done, sooner wrather than later would schedule it as a Committee Report for the 12th if it is the committees will to ford it out subject to hearing mo from the public. I do want to say that as supervisors kim and i were working with president breed in and around the one oak matter, that i was able to do a little bit of shuttle diplomacy from between the apellant, mr. Henderson, and the project sponsor and president breed because its in her district, and i do want to say that mr. Henderson, i think, is supportive. I dont want to put words in his mouth and he has another week to weigh in with all of us. But is supportive of the item with the amendment that i introduced on supervisor kims behalf. And he said i can say that. So i did. Ok. With that, we have a motion to supervisor breed, sorry. Thank you. I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and also many of the folks who we work with on the issues around the appeal for one oak, members of the hayes Valley Association, including the president gail bau and i know Jason Henderson wasnt able to make it today. But i just wanted to express exactly my understanding of and feeling of exactly why i i know the community is against parking. I know. People think, well, why why is parking such a big deal . And why are we putting parking above housing and thats not the case. I think the bigger issue here is we have an area that clearly is going to have thousands of additional units, an area that is already congested and the point of putting some controls on this is to just eliminate the ability for developers to get additional parking for their projects. And i appreciate supervisor kims concern about, you know larger projects that are in the pipeline and desire to have those projects build on site and not use the ability not to have the option of a c. U. For additional parking as an excuse to maybe fee out. Its a complicated issue. Its not as if by adding this particular amendment were suggesting in any way that someones just going to automatically be able to get additional parking space. There is still a c. U. Process. It still could be appealed. And potentially to the board and i just want to i get the desire of the community to say, look, you know this is our volunteer time. Were volunteering our time to come to the board of supervisors for legislation like this. Were volunteering our time to apale things like this. Were volunteering our time because we care about the community and we dont want to further see we dont want to see additional congestion as a result of development and additional parking and the number of other things. I totally get that and i understand that. As a way to work with my colleagues and come up with a solution, this particular amendment was proposed. Im definitely open to hearing from members of the public in terms of their feedback on their concerns about this. But i do think theres still a layered process that will still make this a difficult thing to do moving forward. Whether they choose to do onsite Affordable Housing or not. It would be interesting to know what specific projects in the pipeline are being proposed that have maybe an interest in doing this and whether or not those are projects that we would anticipate a larger percentage of Affordable Housing as a result of their desire to want desire to want additional parking. So, i think theres definitely more of a discussion to be had here. And since this item is going to sit for a week be reviewed by my colleagues next week, im sure that will give everyone additional time to of course submit emails to us and then also come back to provide Public Comment at the Land Use Committee next week. So, again, thank you all for being here and i appreciate my colleagues support on the amendment that i proposed. Ok. Thank you. So, again, supervisor peskin has made the motion to accept supervisor breeds and then the followon amendment from supervisor kim and then supervisor peskin can continue to add on this item for one week to next weeks Land Use Committee meeting. Supervisor peskin has made that motion. We can make it without objection. Thank you. Madame clerk, call item number four. An ordinance to change the term car share vehicle to share vehicle and park in designated spaces and making appropriate findings. Welcome back. Thank you. Andy thornly back from lunch. [laughter] sustainable streets, s. F. Municipal transportation agency. Committee members, were asking for the board of supervisors assistance, a very minor language change. Even more minor than the share moped we just brought. But the matter before you is to amends section 7. 2552, the transportation code which is the infraction for parking in nonpermitted vehicle in a designated car share parking space. The change that were asking for is to strike the word car and put a d after the wor share. Were beginning to move to talk about shared vehicles rather than car share and in changing the nomenclature, we realized we were bumping up to this infraction. The full essence is only that one word and one letter. Again, id be happy to give you as much background as youd like. Supervisor pes kin . Thank you, chair. And i think this is really relevant to the amendment thats being requested today but gets to one of the underlying issues about the pilot program. In the m. T. A. s letter of august 28 with regard to this matter, it says on the first page, based on the pilot experience, the sfmta found that only shared managed fleet vehicles produced enough Public Benefit to justify use of the public rightofway. Where does that standard come from and is it applied to other transportationrelated uses in the public rightofway . Thank you, supervisor. What that is speaking to is, and i think district three is painfully aware of this that we had three ridesharing organizations qualify to participate. Get around is a different sort of car share operator, peertopeer. I often say it is like the airbnb of car share, which you can take in a couple of different ways. I tough they were aptly named because they were getting around the law. But go ahead. Right. [please stand by] no interest in having a car idle or space because they dont own cars and dont have incentive to make sure that that space is being maximize for utility, theyre interested in the line of the mtas as closely as zip car or city car share, as are we getting good use out of that 20 feet of cushion russian hill or wherever. Both from the underutilization of the 20 feet and because theyre putting private citizens cars on the street, its a random supply. One week, there would be a monster truck. Next week, a mini. Neighbors need to rely on, there will be a 4door sedan there and i can count on that it will be clean and getaround was not able to i appreciate your analysis of the different business models, but im asking, is there an objective numerical standard for establishing what is enough to substantiate the rightofway. Where im going, the recently announced plan to designate curb space as loading zones. And do you believe that uber and lyft produces enough benefit for the curb space as it relates to the mayors recentlyannounced proposal. Got it. Numerical standard and triggers benefit and do you think uber and lyft in this scheme meet that criteria. I will take the first one, which is more in my responsibility area, that the pilot we ran for a couple of years was looking at some fixed measures for a given space, how many unique users each month, how many reservations each day . How far did it go . On that basis, zip car knocked it out of the park. They had cars that were being used by 50 and 60 different people in a month. So we didnt come in with an absolute metric in a month, but you could see from the field of participants, that if zip car could get 60 people using a car, other folks better match that. We dont yet have an absolute threshold for that, but well develop them for this program. Its an important point. Depending on the neighborhood. If you are further out, it may be a lower threshold than if you are on russian hill. Short answer to the first, yes, we have general, hard numbers on that. Well put more hard numbers on this on streetshared vehicle program. Your second question is tougher for me to answer and i cannot say yes or no that i dont have access to that. I will speculate, however ir responsibly, that at this point, no, the mta does not have a metric to evaluate whether a given piece of loading curb is at, below, above some standard for utility and Public Benefit. The mayors pilot as i read about it in the newspaper is reaching at that, but its not starting with, heres what success looks like as much as, is there a way to address this and make sense out of it . My understanding is, its a reach to say, can we do something to make it less bad, rather than saying, heres what good looks like and can we hit that point . I appreciate that candid answer and i suggest that in so far as the pilot you were in charge of that were discussing today, has given some data and shown what the Gold Standard looks like and what the getaround standard looks like when its not working optimally, perhaps there can be some communication between you and your staff and the folks who are reaching or overreaching in the uberlyft manner. Yes, absolutely. I will not just take that back. I will guarantee again, this is speculative, but i dont think its possible that the mta will participate in a pilot such as the one were talking about without setting some evaluation planning and driving some data and i know that you and other folks will want to know, what did you learn . Where did the meter go . It wont just be, lets put out curb and hope it works. I wouldnt want that. I will work from my side to make sure that doesnt happen. Thank you, mr. Thornly. Any further questions . Anyone wishing to comment on item 4 . Seeing none. Item is closed. Colleagues, questions or comments or motion to move the item forward . Ill move it. Motion by supervisor peskin. We can take that motion without objection. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Thornly. All right. Were on to item number 5. Surprise, surprise. Madam clerk, would you call number 5 . A hearing to examine the last 10 years of production and preservation of work force in middle class housing and development and preservation for the next 10 years, focusing on housing between 55 to 175 area Median Income. Thank you. Colleagues, this was sponsored by supervisor. I will turn it over to you. On october 3 of this year before we get to the presentation by departmental staff i called for this hearing to talk about work force and middle class housing in our city. And the reason why i wanted to talk about that in particular