An ordinance amending the planning code to correct the errors part of ordinance. Okay. Update the code and making the language supervisions for the clarify tax. Thank you very much i believe were going to hear from aaron star from the Planning Department will be present on this item welcome. Thank you very much supervisors aaron star supervisor for legislative affairs this is an ordinance to impact the ordnance repealed in part of article 2 to update the code language and make nonsubstantial language it clarify the text the Planning Commission heard this and voted unanimously to approve that and recommend were added to the ordinance before today it is a straightforward piece of legislation so my presentation is short ill be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you colleagues i dont know if there is any discussion if not open up for Public Comment at this time Public Comment an open. Thank you, maam planning i want to also a true relationship our treasure awhile we look at weighing noblz and the weekly buzz actually to any girlfriend for the noble prices against hock destiny and self missionary parkway based on what was on lucky boat as things matters all the way being in danger everyone should have reasonable success and later in life of intelecommunication of falsehood well support for having a moon and sun go our planet of force to remove of education to gentlemen of statement for revises and having a way of speech and this banging being a proper measure a complete upon contributing high levels of back to one is holy and extend to a border of universal whole that part of december new for true selfnature and physical nature for the showing of true forces to complete oneness. Is there any additional Public Comment only item one seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you very much colleagues may i have a motion on that item. Thank you there was a motion open up for Public Comment by supervisor kim well take that without objection. That motion passes nauchl mr. Clerk item 2. Item 2 a resolution oppose the sdrrmz in the zoning planning area that is boundary by Market Street on the north and fulsome on the south and stuttering on the east and between montgomery and third street on the west and the area boundaries by harrison and Second Street excluding the rooftop broadwaysansome apartments between mission and other portions in zone one of the Transbay Development plan. New supervisor kim is the author of this shell offer remarks. Were still in negotiation with the stakeholders in this interim control id like to make a request to continue for two weeks. The motion was made to continue to two weeks until october 19th and well take that without objection. That item passes thank you. Oh, lets take Public Comment lets go back to item two all right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed thank you there was a motion by supervisor kim to continue this item until october 19th and that motion passes unanimously all right. Thank you mr. Clerk, call item number 3. Item number 3 the ordinance amending the Planning Commission by the Transportation Sustainability fee and spunt proclamations of the transit impact fee with the sustainability fee remains operative. Thank you very much colleagues a continuation of the previous hearing and discussion i think so we have staff from the planning from planning from mta and who are here to answer questions and mr. Victoria wise times to make an announcement why not have victoria with the mta okay. Let the director speak and come back to you thank you. Thank you, madam chair and members the committee thank you for your time in considering this item i want to reinforce a few things the measure that was introduced by the mayor along with the Planning Department and the mta was the result of a considerable amount of work literally over the course of many years it was analysis both the techniques and the Feasibility Study but even more so lots of discussions with lots of different stakeholders and trying to incorporate feedback and trying to run numbers and find as someone said a sweet spot of the right level to set those fees and the right way to assess them and the rate uses upon which to assess them we at the Municipal Transportation Agency have a invested interest and generating revenue but we want to make sure in the context of the other fees the city assess in the cost of doing business were going about this in the most thoughtful and deliberate way the work that was done i believe got to what was a strong proposal there were certainly people on different sides thought that which is too much or too much grandfathering or two little we took that feedback and came up with the final feedback i said there are legitimate questions about some of those dimensions what is covered whether the fees are at the right level and the grairt adams or subtracted i know you had a number of questions at the Land Use Commission and the Planning Department staff has worked hard to get you the answers theyre here with the staff and the Transportation Authority ready to answer any other questions and provide any other information and if there are some things that need to adjust a little bit one way or another certainly an arena for the board of supervisors to weigh in i want to reinforce there was a lot of work at analytical and are stakeholder work we brought together by our staff over the course to get to the comprehensive product im hopeful without too much unbeknownst doing of those years of work we can get to consensus on city hall and move forward so i want to hour and reflect all the many years of hard work that was done to try to get the best possible painstaking understanding people have different ideas the staff are here to provide information and thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for your hard work. Ms. Wise you want to introduce the line up. Members of the Board Director reiskin recovered much of it i want to add in addition to sfmta we have staff from the district 2 and the consultants for the feasible analysis were ready to answer any questions or provide clarification for the materials we sent to you covering the grandfathering like post secondary hospital exemption and questions around feasibility particularly around the eliminations of the credit and the increase of the fees for different criteria so thank you. Thank you so i have a few opening remarks. Jump into i will notoriety all of my comments from the last meeting i have of the opportunity to communicate and talk to many of the stakeholders as well city staff about this legislation i do want to acknowledge the hard work the Mayors Office put together a piece of legislation the harrods on this matter is in no way in a gated only fair to weigh in to the piece of legislation and so as i previously mentioned San Francisco is growing at critically rapid rate and much of this growth is occurring in the southeast neighborhood and devil the housing it critically important when there is a housing crisis, however, the infrastructure that supports 24 growth is critical to the liveability and health of the neighborhood this Committee Heard false imprisonment articulated the challenges we have with the developing infrastructure in the eastern neighborhoods to serve this new growth we need to really get this right and i belive we can thoughtfully increase the impact fees without discouraging much of the needed development now colleagues, i have circulated a few amendments for your considers the first removal of the planned area credit which is only page 8 beginning on line 3 this will modesty increase the fees and keep the dollars in the neighborhood and releaving the strain 1 please turn off all electronic devices. Plus Million Dollars a year remove the credit developers will not pursue the projects in those areas i roll call disagree the removal of the credit results in a rultsd in an increase an 0. 97 and those are the areas that have all accepted most of the citys development in the most dire need of Infrastructure Improvements the Second Amendment ive proposed to increase side threshold for pdrs exemption from 8 hundred ground square feet to 15 hundred ground square feet this is a priority and will generate only a negotiable amateur of money consistent with the pdr policies weve taken the third amendment im proceeding i said last week the hospitals should prepare to pay fees we appreciate the charity care they generates a significant number of trips and has a Significant Impact ive asked the hospital to work with us on a standard that reflects unique situation, however, a theyve not been 80 able to come forward this will remove the exemption for hospitals those large trip janitors should pay fair share and open to an alternative proposal in the absence of the feedback from the hospital we need to make a statement those entities pay their fair share so i will supervisor kims name on the okay look to supervisor wiener if you have any comments to share. Sure thank you very much madam chair, i want to not go into the same level the subscription but im excited about this legislation Going Forward we be wouldnt quibble about this and that detail but not to miss the force for efforts for the trees the fit in the history of San Francisco transit impact fees will apply to residential promotions and this precarious transit fee tsif han has been on the books for 35 years and not employed to residential that was an adoption but the fact we have an in terms amount of remain development in San Francisco ive supported we need more housing 90 in San Francisco we know when we have more Residential Development in the city it is important but it has impacts and is as a result we have impact fees we impose on residential impacts around the Affordable Housing and around various other needs is an o suspicion that Residential Development does not pay impact fees were bringing people into an area there are impacts on Transportation System including auto trips and crowding or increased ripen on Public Transportation and important to develop to help pay for those needs not to pay on their own and the lions share of our Transit System is funded by this taxpayers this is an important step forward ill note we went through this process in a more limited form 3 years i offered renewal of tsif we had fixtures around hospitals should be exemption from the transit impact fee i took the position and figure out to remove the exemption for the impact fees in 2012 i figure out the good fight and a lot of the balanced a 9 to 2 vote the only members e member of the board of supervisors that voted with me to remove the comments was former carmen chu i want to thank her for standing with us although we sufrdz when we moved that the t s pi keep in mind that message that the board of supervisors sent loud and clear that people voted not to keep the hospital exemption k exemption as a result we worked to keep the exemption to the seismic retrofit and we agreed with the hospital on that expended exemption i was then surprised to learn i had a number of colleagues that voted to keep the hospital exemption three years ago and now advocating to remove the exception thats fine everybody is entitled to their viewpoint i wish that we all had been together to remove the exemption three years ago thats life ill stand by the agreement he reached with the hospitals before we introduced this legislation to extend their exemption from through the seismic deadline ill not be supporting the exemption of the hospital today although i maybe in the minority there are other amendments ill describe and top after opinion the First Student housing not built by nonprofit universities should be subject to transit impact fees we have a dramatic shortage of Student Housing in San Francisco it is very negative impact for students that cant find a place to live in their cars or just to go to college long commutes i offered Student Housing legislation to try to remove some of the obstacles and make that cheaper and easier for universities to build their own hours instead of tossing their students into the universal pool Student Housing before any of us on the board this is at previous board of supervisors exempted Student Housing entirely from the inclusionary housing no Affordable Housing fees to make it as inner expensive as possible to build housing we shouldnt be have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the impact fees to Student Housing to the universities so ill be offering an amendment, in fact, ill also be offering an amendment onehalf had a lot of minor amendment around requirement to perform economic Feasibility Study every 5 years and this amendment will change it to 3 years and im want to hear what the proposals are in terms of i know there will be proposals to increase the Square Footage of transit impact fee assess and perhaps around grairthd so once those are proposed ill have thought i have ideas how to approach that to accomplish a lot of the goals while also respectfully the needs of feasible projects and finally i just want to note i mentioned this briefly last week that transit impact fees as important as they are a tiny tiny piece of the proposal for the plans the total amount well get palace in comparison to the needs we have and those are largo coming from taxpayers so from various ballot measures that will moved whatever we do lets keep in mind the big picture the people that are cheer leading this their equally or more passion when it comes to airbnb public decisions to invest in our Transportation System because that is what is going to decide the Transit System that meets the needs of the people in San Francisco thank you. Supervisor kim. Commissioner avalos. Go ahead. Thank you chair cowen first of all, i was here last week and want to residency my comments first of all, thank the mta and planning and Mayors Office and the Development Community for coming together on the tsif a lot of work that was done and crafting the legislation that is bring your attention today, i think this is significant especially setting the precedent how to collect fees on development and how development can help to cover transportation costs in San Francisco last week, we offered a number of ideas ive been calculating for amendments some of them have been talked about today, i know weve heard clearly from ed reiskin from the mta about all the work in establishing the fee as is and i understand also that within city hall and city departments there had been a lot of discussion the right way to calibrate those fees i see that the decision has come together and the deal that was made in the Mayors Office with the Development Community and the mayor was a deal that was maids now what is in the legislative process to discuss what is the proper way to calibrate those fees and now in our hands i want to make sure wear hearing clearly from the people that worked on establishing the fees or the rational and what was feasible to the developments of different size to school bus a new fee and have that guide us while were setting the fees at city hall and the Board Chamber so here are the different ideas i have in place for amendments that i maybe sitting in for supervisor kim and who has to leave later in the meeting today before we finish so i might be adding those actual amendments i agree with the elimination of the area plan exemption i agree with eliminating the hospital exemptions as well and looking at an overall tier structure for the tsif that will based on residential and the nonresidential for the size of the projects in the residential and nonresidential and kathy is here for details with that after Public Comment and i also want to look at how to grandfathering the residential and nonresidential based on july 1st of 2014 and also the introduction day for the new tsf that was july 21st of this year so that will be looking at grairt for residential and nonresidential i also have a concern about how watching from the prospective of district 11 in the southern part of San Francisco weve havent seen a very equitable way of shairts sharing the resources in that part of San Francisco how to looked forward to the study between the Planning Department and the Controllers Office and how to make feas