process. it's a hybrid of our rules and roberts rules, with the implication of california conflicts law that may see the sequestration of members of this board. i think it probably would be a bad idea to nominate a member of the board of supervisors right now. but i think it might be a good idea to try the mechanism out and see fit works. if you're going to buy a car, you take a test drive, you run it around the block and you see how it drives before you buy it. i think this process may be kind of like that. it might be worthwhile to take a test drive today. i am prepared to make a nomination, and obviously it wasn't the first person on my list, which i crossed off and moved down the list. and then the top five on my list are three members of this

board of supervisors. so i don't think that i'm prepared to nominate one of you, my colleagues, today. but i do have someone in mind that i would like to nominate and see some votes and probably there's not six here today. or at least i don't really know whether there's six, but i think we should give it a try and see how it works. >> colleagues, any additional discussion? ok. at this time why don't we do supervisor campos. >> thank -- supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i think we need to be as transparent and as open as we can. and for the reasons that i think supervisor avalos so eloquently outlined before, we do have a very tough budget year that we will be facing, and we have many challenges

ahead of us. because of that i do think that if it is possible for us to come to a consensus, that it would be better for whoever the individual is, for us to act sooner, rather than later. so that still guides how i approach this. that said, i don't have a problem with continuing this ate elm for another week, though i have to say that i think that not acting, or at least beginning this process at the next board meeting in my view would be a mistake, in light of the fact that we have a number of challenges that we'll be facing the the interim mayor, whoever he or she may be. president chiu: supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i wanted to acknowledge a number of speakers that have acknowledged that there's a value-based platform that a number of labor

and community-based organizations have started to work on. i believe that there are some follow-up meetings that will be happening as they build an alliance to create values and criteria for us as supervisors. so i think i'm going to be supportive of delaying this for one week as the labor groups communicate to us what their values are, so that we can move forward as not only supervisors, but also with social movement and organizations that are also united with us as well. we find the strongest possible mayor for our cities, so i'm going to be supportive of the motion to delay this until next week. president chiu: any additional discussion, colleagues? if we could fake a roll call vote on the motion to continue these items for one week, till

tuesday, december 14. [roll call taken] >> there are nine ayes and two no's. president chiu: the motion to continue passes. colleagues, if we can now move to our other 3:00 special order regarding the transbay. regarding the transbay. madam clerk, if you could please call items 28 through 40. >> items 28 through 40 comprise the special order at 3:00 p.m. the board of supervisors sitting as a committee as a whole for a public hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the following 12

proposed resolutions of necessity authorizing the acquisition of various real property by eminent domain for the purpose of constructing the transbay transit property. each resolution is an individual file and i will read each block and lot number, beginning with 85 natoma street number one. block number 3721, lot number 109. 85 natoma street number 2, block number 3721, lot number 110. 85 natoma street number 3, block number 3721, lot number 111. 85 natoma street number 4, block number 3721. lot number 112. 85 natoma street number 5, block number 3721, lot number 113. 85 natoma street number 7, block number 3721, lot number 115. 85 natoma street number 9, block number 3721, lot number 117.

85 natoma street c-1, block number 3721, lot number 118. 60 tehama street block 1736, lot number 088. 564 howard street, block number 3721, lot number 019. 568 howard street, block number 3721, lot number 020. and 13 parking easements, interests across and through 85 natoma street block number 3721, lot numbers 095 through 105. block 3721, lot numbers 109 through 118. adopting environmental findings and guidelines under the california environmental quality act, administrative code chapter 31 and adopting findings of consistency with the general plan and city planning code sections 101.1. president chiu: col relation, at this time we are going to sit as a committee as a whole to conduct the public hearings

on the proposed resolutions of necessity to acquire certain property interests by eminent domain and then vote on the resolutions themselves. specifically, well consider the acquisition of real property commonly known as 85 natoma street number one, number two, three, four, five, seven, nine, number c-1, to 60 tehama street, 564 howard, 568 howard, and 13 parking easement interests across and through 85 natoma by eminent domain for the public purpose constructing the transbay transit center program in. this hearing the board of supervisors will consider the following -- first, whether the public interest and necessity require the transbay transit center program. secondly, whether the transbay transit center program is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. thirdly, whether the easements and the fee-simple interest sought to be acquired in the subject properties are necessary for this program, and

lastly, whether the city has made the necessary offers to purchase these easements and the the fee-simple interest from the property owners for just compensation, as required under state law. if we adopt the proposed resolutions, we will also be making ceqa and general plan consistency findings in connection with these acquisitions. the values of the properties, which are the subject of the hearings today, are not at issue today. property value will be determined by a court in a jury trial or through further negotiations with the property owners. as a result, the board need not consider the value of each property in deciding how to vote on the resolutions of necessity. under state law the board must pass this resolution by at least a 2/3 vote or eight votes. colleagues, unless there is an objection, we will consider all 12 resolutions of necessity together. the order of the hearing shall be as follows -- first, the tjpa will have up to 10 minutes for presentation in support of

the resolutions and the acquisition of the easements and the fee interests by eminent domain. then members of the public that wish to support any or all of the resolutions shall have up to two minutes to speak. each or any of the property owners will have up to five minutes for presentation or opposition for resolutions pertaining to their property. any owner of multiple properties will have up to 10 minutes to address all their properties in total. then members of the public opposing any or all of the resolutions shall have up to two minutes each to speak, and then the tjpa shall have up to two minutes to rebut. the board will then vote on each of these 12 resolutions separately. let me first ask if there are any questions about the process. seeing none, let me ask the district supervisors, supervisor daly, from district six, if he has any initial comments. supervisor daly: i'll take one minute. maybe the staff can yield one of their minutes to me. colleagues, we're here today -- i know that there are 12

resolutions of necessity in front of us. this really represents four outstanding buildings that are in the critical path to deliver phase one of the transbay transit center, one of the most significant public works projects in the region that has almost unanimous support across our city. and i think that we won't likely hear from any of the folks associated with these four buildings that they oppose the project or are trying to hold it up. it really is a case of not being able to get to a settlement or a negotiated settlement with these particular property owners. please keep in mind that the tjpa has successfully reached negotiated settlements with 13 other properties. so a majority of the acquisition that is have been necessary and make the way for

this most important public works project have been completed by negotiated settlement. these are what's outstanding. and we do need to act in order not to delay the construction schedule. i think that what we did from the tjpa side is we attempted to reach settlement. took it as far as we could in terms of the timeline, but then decided to come here for the resolution of necessity and ultimately for eminent domain proceedings. in order to not get behind schedule and have escalation on construction costs in terms of the project delivery. so thank you colleagues for hearing these items today. president chiu: thank you, supervisor daly. if you could now ask the tjpa to make antiprosecutetation. you have up to 10 minutes, you don't have to use the entire time. >> i'll attempt to be brief. i'm emelio cruz i'm the program

manager of the consulting for the transbay authority project. also with me is andrew, who is counsel to the tjpa, who will be able to answer any questions in addition to obviously your own deputy city attorney staff. i have a presentation here to go through the project itself. it is an integrated transportation and urban revitalization project. the transbay terminal was originally opened in 1939 to accommodate both rail and auto and bus service and at its peak at 26 million passengers, it is, since 1958, it's been a bus-only terminal. the terminal itself has fallen into minimal use. and in 1999 proposition h was overwhelmingly adopted by san francisco voters to extends caltran to a new or rebuilt regional station on the site of the transbay terminal. the demand and the capacity for the new terminal is shown here

with the new terminal. we have the capacity to provide significantly more, up to 50 million passengers per year, using regional and statewide transportation systems. the transbay program on the whole is made up of three primary components -- the new intermodal station, which is a one million square-foot facility, the extension of caltrain, a 1.3-mile tunnel extension, and the new neighborhood that is going to be built over the 40-acre redevelopment zone, bringing in 2,600 units. the transbay authority is the agency charged with the design, construction and oltings of the new transit facility and its member agency are five members, three representing the city and san francisco, one from alameda, and one from the peninsula joint powers board. graphically this is our project area. some of the benefits of the highlight, it alleviates congest shons and strengthens

our economy and generating 45,000 jobs. it creates housing, 35% of which is affordable and it provides a safe and essential facility for the neighborhood. we're coordinating with a number of regional entities, as shown sheer. moving forward, some of the renderings of the program as it's going to move forward and as designed by the architect, the facility will will be a five-level facility, two underground, two above grounds with a five-acre park at the top of the facility. the rendering here shows the outline of the schematic. additionally we've included some graphics. rail extension is the second phase of the program. the rail extension will include caltrain and high-speed rail. some of the benefits are the reduction of 42,000 tons of emission as a result of reduction in traffic and a savings of 3.7 million gallons of oil annually.

additional, high-speed rail will eliminate 12 billion pounds of carbon dioxide and reduce five million gallons of oil use on an annual basis. the tjpa has acquired 13 parcels through negotiated agreements. there are 12 properties remaining to be acquired. these 12 properties exist in four buildings, as was outlined by supervisor daly. 568 howard, and eight residential units and one dedicated parking area as part of 85 natoma. this shows these s in red. this shows the impact on howard and now, -- and natoma. is passes through for the

parcels before entering into the new facilities. the bus ramps are wider because they are going from one way traffic to two-way traffic. eventually, they are going to be a more substantial design. now the foundation requires we demolish in order to construct ramps in a safe manner. this concludes my presentation. >> any questions? with that let me ask if there are any members of the publish who wish to speak -- public who wish to speak. let me ask if there are property owners who wish to speak in opposition. if there are, please the of to the microphone. each property owner shall have five minutes.

>> may it please the hon. board, my name is fitzgerald. a garage owner. we have filed an objection letter dated november 23 in. additionally, after i am through, he will address you as to the fax. in addition to the item we filed, one item became apparent which should be brought to your attention.

that is referred to as immediate possession. the city is now going to ask for the possession of property in 90 days, rather than wait until the end of the proceeding. we do not believe they have the authority to do that under the law. it is our opinion that they cannot take the property for an immediate possession, and that is based on the property itself and what is being done there. the property owner has been led to believe there will only be a partial property, not the entire property.

the employed architects and engineers expanded $150,000, work with the city planning staff, and submitted a number of different plans and schematics. the planner assigned to this property two or three years before it was being replaced, they canceled july 1 and submitted a number of priority requirements.

we do not believe the city is dealing with this. they're increasingly adopting this resolution. we would ask you to reject the resolution. thank you for your time. thank you. >> thank you. are you representing the same property? >> i own the property. >> i understand that is one property, sir you get the balance of his time.

>> i had six minutes of commons. we have been in the building since 1975. i am an urban economist, and in 1975, they said this was one of the most vibrant parts of downtown. i testified in 2005, in which case i found out briefly that the redevelopment agency says it could be avoided with the tax increments they are donating. that is impossible. i turned out to be right about that. they expanded the building, and they increase. what i am asking here is that

you only use the property if you need it. today's presentation was the first day i thought there or going to feed to ramps -- to be two rams. i ask that this not be a program where we take up extra land for private development. thank you, and i would like to leave these documents. i thank you very much. >> thank you. next. >> could afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to let me express my opinion. my family has owned and operated since 1992. first, we are aware of the

objections, and we join in the objections. the initial year when we owned the property was difficult your your it was not until 1999 that it was threatened by software companies. they started spreading rumors the properties were going to be condemned. they were continually changing. an agency began performing various tasks that did not match information.

this is the first time we heard of fat. from that time forward it became extremely difficult. we knew this was almost impossible. in our neighborhood, it is rejected for no apparent reason. they hired a law firm and a contractor with misleading information to visit our attendance on our regular basis, to coach them on how to reach project spirit of we have spent tens of thousands of dollars to fight several cases in san francisco.

from day one, they were never ready to pay a fairly. we will discuss how we can work together to achieve of mutually- agreed proposal. we understand the issue has already been made. before i allow the next speaker to voice their opinions, we have to remind you. imagine if you were in our position, please the us how we should do this. we always want the neighborhood to move forward on behalf of the city is curator -- of this city.

they are not treating us fairly in this case. >> thank you. identify yourself. >> good afternoon. i am an attorney who represents my brother, standing next to me. i have several points to make your your first, i have a handout for each -- i have several points to make. i have a handout for each. i have declarations from myself and my brother and further objections to this resolution. we also adopt resolutions from other parties, especially in the 90-days the city may years to

obtain possession of the property. we support the project in general, but we are committed to keeping the property as long as possible. i have several points to make. we believe they have not acted in good-faith with regard to negotiations. we have us for documents showing any infringement or encroachment on property over the last four years. what we received were misrepresentations of the project that were false. i have attached to my declaration exhibit 3 and exhibit 5, which are contained on pages 23, 93, and 24-17 of the official record. when we asked whether brown was

going to be, they gave us a copy of the diagram, which had already been scrapped common and they argue there will be an overlay of this round on our property pursuant to what is contained therein. after numerous hours of looking at the documents, which are a bunch of telephone books to go through at considerable time and expense, we considered the maps they gave us were very overruled. they basically change the direction of the round and also changed it from one story to two stories. of what we have been asking is to show us a diagram. today they put out a diagram that is not for a detailed.

-- not very detailed. please remember there are asking for a resolution of necessity. what they have is alternatives. i have asked for dozens of alternatives. i read the letter that indicates we're down to two alternatives. you would have a survey showing that encouragement on our property.