Housing but impacting transportation as well so before we get this on this high horse of how we always done with what we are supposed to in transportation funds to some step up to the plate we have except when it impacts our friends in the development what we say at the end of the day is what matters well see that today. Commissioner avalos. Just to call the vote on the amendment we have a series of amendments so my name is on the stake for the nexcke for t amendment. Commissioner avalos is a substantive amendment it if this passes it goes back to Committee Madam clerk. To that end i know there was a discussion whether to continue this item i dont were under a major time constraint with the grairthd closet that comes latter not giving anyone a surprisingly surprises to the feasibility fee. I have no problem with that item going back to commissioner lee madam clerk call the roll. On the First Amendment supervisor yee commissioner avalos supervisor breed. No supervisor campos supervisor christensen no supervisor cowen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no there are 5 is and 6 months with supervisor breed supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell and supervisor tang in the decendents. Okay. The amendment fails supervisor campos our next amendment. What i have is number 2 to a tiered grandfathering for residential residential for projects between july 1st, 2014, and july dwight 2015 will pay 75 percent of tsf currently on paying 50 percent of the tsf but while those projects we are working on the tsf and expecting to pay the full amount but giving them a discount and for doing a tiered grandfathering for nonResidential Projects submitted before jill first 2014 would pay 50 percent, between the difference between the tdif between july 2015 pay 50 percent between the tsf and tdif projects after that pay the full tsf so that would be my motion. Okay commissioner avalos has made a motion is that there a second are seconded by supervisor campos any discusses specifically on the amendment supervisor wiener is your comments on the amendment. Yes. Thank you mayor pro tem we had a lengthy discussions of grandfather provisions in committee there was always when you change the rules on anything in particular about costs and fees that are associated with some things that is always a little bit tricky when you make that retroactive we know that depending on the size of the project those fees what about quite large which is frankly a good thing and when projects try to pencil out for the financing and so forth they assume certain things the tsf is a discussion on and off a a long time given the history of that board and should some of the votes in 2012 none can take anything for grant out of the legislative process and the amendments in committee that increased the fee and the attempts to increase the fee today is reasonable not to assume everyone knew that was going to happen the grandfathering does not wave the selfie but reduces the fee for promotions in the pipeline and for older projects they dont say have to pay is that make sense before this legislation was drafted when i authored the water recycling legislation earlier this year to require water recycle in large new developments we made a prospective for projects that are that going to be entitled after a certain period of time we thought that was important because again those promotions when youre putting it together and determining what youll pay for Affordable Housing or impact fees you make south american assumption on the lay of the lands and changing the rules you have to be very, very careful that strikes a balance didnt need to be amend. Thank you, supervisor kim on the amendment. Thank you. I just wanted to share my comments inform support of to amendment i actually think there has been incredible Public Knowledge about our plans to raise the transit impact fees this was actually heard at the board of supervisors over two years ago and so i think Many Developers and projects were aware we remember considering the increase i think we should be imposing a percentage the fees on projects in the pipeline as an example we had one project that was submitted before july 1st of 2015 and ive negotiated with the project in the south of market that they will be pca paying a portion of transportation fee i felt that was important for Residential Projects to be paying those fees it is something that is feasible for the developers regardless how this move forward but be consistent amongst the development but in particular if you submitted our proposal after july 21st after the introduction of this ordinance i think you should absolutely be paying 100 percent of the transit fees i think that you know overwhelmingly increasing particularly in the districts i represent im hearing more and more if neighbors if others districts the congestion is becoming unbearable and we need to make sure that we are catching with existing needs to make sure we are approving Public Transit and improving the traffic flow on the roads there is a direct corelation between the new Residential Development with the congestion weve experiencing in the city ill be supporting this amendment. Thank you, supervisor kim seeing no other names on the rosters madam clerk on the amendment which again commissioner avalos could be a substantive amendment go back to Committee Madam clerk madam clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor yee. No commissioner avalos supervisor breed no supervisor campos supervisor christensen no supervisor cowen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no there are 4 is and 7 notices with supervisor yee supervisor breed supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor tang supervisor wiener 1, 2, 3, 4 the december sent per the amendment fails commissioner avalos. Thank you. I have to more amendments the next one for motion on the amendments next one for number 3 on any sheet ive handed out to extend the full tsf fee to projects in the possum submitted by july 21st, of this year, the last part of my motion. Are you is that your motion. For nonresidential yes. My last bullet in number 1924 to grater in projects submitted after july 21st, 2015, to pay the full tsf and supervisor kim spoke is that as an important part. Got it youre asking for an amendment for the last bullet point specifically. Yes. That will be for nonresidentials. Okay commissioner avalos has made a motion is there a second. Seconded by supervisor campos supervisor wiener. Thank you just a point of clarification i think we dont very specific language that is an outline in committee i offered an amendment the committee adapted to say no grandfathering for any project that was submitted to the Planning Department starting after jill 21st of this year which is the introduction date of the legislation and so im unclear about what the amendment is weve made as you recall we made that amendment in committee that full tsf applies to any projects submitted after july 21st the introduction date of this year if i again, i dont have the specific language. Lets confirm with the City Attorney is that mr. Gibner. John gibner, deputy City Attorney so the amendment made in committee applied specifically to residential the nonresidential under the amendment that came out of committee is nonresidential still pays of tdif and commissioner avalos amendment has nonresidential paying the full tsif. Now i recall commercial has paid tdif all along that kept that in place until the effective dale date of the legislation and it was the grairtd is really about nonresidential because it is no need to grater no reason to grandfather commercial theyre already paying it. Thank you. Okay. I just need clarity from my understanding where talking about nonresidential from this year 7, 21, 15 thai pay 100 percent of fee and supervisor wiener is saying their included could you explain to me where we are and if this amendment is necessary. As far as explained by the john gibner, deputy City Attorney is needed because we only had made the amendment in committee that effected the residential but not residential has not been effected it is a new program with the tsf compared to the tdif. Youre asking this specifically for commercial. Commercial for nonresidential. Okay. All right. Seeing none, no other names on the roster supervisor wiener i think on that particular one so really what the difference it is a few dollars for i dont know how and tdif. Im assume did he we know mr. Ram what the number is of commercial that is the first time ive heard this issue everything was raise in committee how many projects between july 21st and today. I do have that in front of me that actually submitted applications on july after july 21st. Yeah. Im sorry i dont have that list off the top of my head but i assume a small amount of projects. As you recall i dont recall dealing with that specific issue raised in committee i believe will this amendment require the being sent back to committee a mr. Gibner is nodding his head i would if commissioner avalos would like to split this off and send that back for further consideration ill be willing to do that this is the first time this was raised im not comfortable on voting on that today. Supervisor cowen. Thank you very much i just wanted to also ask if i can have an opportunity to see it i love to see it in the land use. It will go to land use we can its actually straightforward what were trying to do nonResidential Projects that were in the pipeline and submitted by july 21st, 2015, of this year will be subject to paying a difference between the tdif and the new tsif the total amount thats all it is we can vote on it, it is did same thing in committee and if you vote on it now well have the opportunity actual vote getting down i hope to accomplish today. Councilmember cole is that your comments. I want to say i imagine well vote on the motion to commissioner avalos said i want to come back to me to talk about the other portions of the hospital. Supervisor kim. I was going to make a suggestion i know there will be a motion to duplicate the file others trailing amendments will move through the Planning Commission and land use i suggest it triggers a rereferral to committee to the Planning Commission. No. It was discussed. Is that perhaps we duplicate the file and put this amendment in the duplicated file to come come to the Land Use Committee i support this is a minor change not impacting many projects i think that is important i dont understand the rational between distinguishing within residential and commercial projects and why Residential Projects are submitted and i after july 21st will pay the full tdif but not the full it makes sense that all projects pay the full tsf if they submitted open july 21st moving before the board i would like to support that day but if duplicating the file allows the members to have more time to consider it it make sense i think that is a minor amendment is not moved forward by the way, they pay some fees i think we should be consistent paying 100 percent. Supervisor john alavos. It was an oversight we didnt end the nonresidential to july 21st, 2015, i believe an oversight im fine with duplicating the file and having a vote on the new language im proposing in any amendment and have that duplicate sent back to committee and vote on one item moving forward is to me what i was accepting. Supervisor wiener can you explain why you prefer to duplicate the file rather than basically allow this amendment were to pass allow it in its cyber it to go back to land use. I did not want to send the desire legislation back to land use this is going on for years different forms the legislation it is time to move forward and if someone want to propose something new lets consider that separately but in terms of this issue and commissioner avalos thank you for acknowledging this was national raised in committee i made the motion or i raised the issue in committee of making sure that there was no grandfathering for any project submitted after july 21st of 2015 so despite supervisor campos assertion were fighting hard to make sure the developers cant rush their projects in on july 22nd or august 5th or whatever to gain the system and avoid paying the transit impact fees the developer should not been able to do that that is exactly where why we but put in the cut off that applies to residential before this legislation, of course, paid zero and so they could completely skirt commercial has always paid impact fees for 35 years it was not necessary for the cut off to try to avoid the gaming of the system it is a fair argument whether tdif or tsf should apply to the post july 26th period happy to have that discussion but given that was raised for is first time and cause a delay in the legislation my take to sever it off and send it back to committee and have a discussion in committee. Thank you supervisor kim. I was going to reiterate that duplicating the file allows us to pass the tsf today that is exactly what you said but allow the proposed amendment to be considered later on. Commissioner avalos you want to make the request to duplicate the file. Yes. Duplicate the file and all the time the duplicated file. All the time amend the duplicated file. To include nonResidential Projects submitted by july 21st, 2015, to pay the full amount thought it was the diverse between the tdif and is tsf not only will be commercial and pdr to be clear. So commissioner avalos has made a motion to his duplicated file. Simple privilege of the supervisor. To duplicate the file yes, but made a file to amend the duplicated file well be voting on the duplicated file correction correct. On the motion to amend the duplicate. Do we have a second seconded by supervisor campos and are the names on the roster in regards to the amendment. Yes. Supervisor cohen. Thank you. I just wanted to bring to your attention ill make a motion to duplicate the file so if if is something people are interested in dissolution well take it on to my amendment but one vote taken for the duplication of the file instead of two. Got it. The clarification when we duplicate the file what im suggesting will not require us to go back to the Planning Commission but go back to land use. Okay. So point of order. Supervisor wiener. Just a point of order im saying once the file is duplicated and commissioner avalos to the amendment to the duplicated file and supervisor cowens can make an additional amendment to duplicate the file it doesnt need to be made thank you for a clarity madam clerk on the amendment to the duplicated file can you madam clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor yee commissioner avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener there are 11 is the amendment to the duplicated file passes unanimously commissioner avalos any additional amendment. Yes. Colleagues just a question for the City Attorney john gibner, deputy City Attorney i have another amendment i want to do about calling for a study with the geographic study for the quantity of sf if that passes does that go back to the committee or forwarded today to our next vote for next time. Make that amendment to the ordinance that the board will pass today but not required make it on the original. Ill hold off until i hear schoelg and hopefully shell make that on the duplicated file and commissioner avalos for clarity you want to make that amendment here to both files. It will be only on the original file but make that after we vote on supervisor cowens motion on amendments. Okay. Thank you. Supervisor cowen. Thank you thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, needless to say it is a complicated piece of policy im glad were taking this on thoughtful fully in a diligently way and want to recognize ive had conversation with many stakeholders and pleased to report weve wraechd an agreement with the nonprofit hospitals that will be contributing to the Transportation System the hospitals were 100 percent exempt of paying the fee on medical facilities and today colleagues, i have plans i want your support asking you to duplicate that ordinance and amend the hospital provisions to include the following a 18 fee on new hospital beds Effective Immediately not after the sxoo schematic mandate, a new 11 fee on medical services over 12 thousand square feet and additional signages on conforming changes i want to also take a moment and recognize the flexibility of director ram and director ed reiskin and my staff have afford myself and my staff and the Hospital Association david in particular its been under a particular amount of stress to wrestling the members and bringing them to the table glad for his willingness to work with us i think that is important to acknowledge by calculating the hospitalization fee by the net new beds were acknowledging that hospitals that have not yet under gotten the schematic upgrades are increasing their Square Footage to meet state guidelines for new equipment, technology, and hospital rooms but not necessarily increasing the number of beds i know that is a mouthful an important point it is important to note that new agreement impose a fee on which will have otherwise been exempt medical Services Like large clinics and outpatient stability over a 12 thousand square feet and we know from talking about with the household we know the expansion of medical services is actually the direction that many of them are pursuing rather than increasing the number of hospital beds so both new hospital beds and medical office and Service Buildings have transportation impacts in our neighborhoods and it is essential and fair they contribute something to our Transportation System so for example, when we are dealing with camtc has several impacts with the 49 admission and geary and 19 polk mitigate by the payment to the project without the candidates the city wouldnt have been able to pick up the costs of improvements