i just am asking that that be considered another avenue for you to consider when you take up this very most important issue. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this motion? seeing none at this time, public comment is closed. [gavel pounds] colleagues, discussion on these items. supervisor maxwell. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, i move that we continue this item until december 14. president chiu: supervisor maxwell has made a motion to continue this item to december 14. seconded by supervisor dufty. i believe that would mean you're amending this item to change the date from december 7 to the 14th? supervisor maxwell: yes. president chiu: and let me just ask madam clerk, does that mean we're also continuing item 26 and 27 until next week? >> pursuant to the action of

the board, yes, mr. president. president chiu: ok. that motion was seconded by supervisor dufty. supervisor daly. supervisor daly: thank you, mr. president. let me speak against the motion . while it may be the case that this board of supervisors is not prepared today to appoint someone as successor mayor of san francisco, i think that we shouldn't truncate the conversation. even though we spent the better part of last month talking about the process and finally agreed upon a process. i think i may be the only member of the board of supervisors who's expressed publicly some of the attributes, values or characteristics of -- that i would value or that i'm looking for in terms of the process of

selecting the next mayor of san francisco. i also think that if we don't get into a situation or a habit of discussing this, if we're going to put it off without advancing the ball down the field, that i think that we're really doing ourselves an injustice in terms of getting -- giving ourselves an opportunity to make the best possible decision. and then i want to add on to this the fact that we now are borrowing time against the next administration in san francisco . if you followed regional politics like i do, last week oakland's mayor elect, jean kwan, named her 24-member transition committee, heading that transition committee i think a friend to some of news this room, one of the most

competent and capable managers in the region, henry gardner, the former executive director of abag is heading that transition. mr. gardner is already having transition meetings, meetings of his committee. they're doing work in oakland, california, to get ready for mayor kwan's administration. now, i've heard on a number of occasions here in san francisco that maybe the board shouldn't act because there's not a vacancy in office yet. but the fact that there's not a vacancy in the office of oakland mayor, as the mayor there still occupies that seat, is not deterring jean kwan, henry gardner and many others from doing the work to prepare to run the city of oakland. now, here in san francisco, with our process for electing

mayors, typically a mayor would have had, you know, about a month to put together a transition team, a chair to transition that team, if that's the structure that they would want to use to start talking to, you know, existing city staff, potential recruits or new hires to deal with budget issues. i know that our governor elect is also doing this type of work, as i think many of us have been invited to a budget briefing up in sacramento that the governor elect is hosting tomorrow. but there are real issues that folks who are coming in to office need to deal with. and to the extent that we keep putting off this discussion and

to the extent that we're not even advancing the ball at all down the field, i think that we're doing a disservice to whoever it is who becomes the next mayor of san francisco, because the thing that's similar about san francisco, to oakland or to the governor's office in sacramento is while there's not a vacancy at the moment, we know that vacancy is coming and that vacancy needs to be filled. and it will be filled by somebody. i know when i talked previously about some of the attributes or qualifications that i was looking for and i mentioned, you know, experience and capacity to do the job, compassion and then the real politic of finding six votes here on the board of supervisors, you know, i probably left off the fourth point, which is willingness to serve in terms of assembly meb

armiano who may have the first of these three points covered. it's a no-go on the fourth with allegeness to serve. i think the good news is that there are many san francisco cans who have checkmarks next to all four of these points for me, and i probably have a list of 10 individuals that i think have the experience necessary to do the job, the compassion, and the willingness to serve. and they may or may not be able to get six votes here. and so i think that that's kind of the math problem that we need to start figuring out. in terms of the process that we have, this is a one-of-a-kind 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.