supervisor mar: good afternoon, everyone. the meeting will come to order. i am the chair of the committee. please give us the announcements. >> please turn off all sell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards are to be submitted to the clerk along with any documents. supervisor mar: thank you. i would like to thank the staff

from sfgtv for televising us today. there are quite a few items today. can you please call item no. 1? >> item #one. ordinance amending planning code section 415.5 to provide for a new land dedication alternative in the market and octavia plan area in lieu of payment of the affordable housing fee; and adding section 415.10 to provide for the requirements of such land dedication; making findings including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies and the general plan. supervisor wiener: last year my predecessor introduced the first version of this legislation. before of what housing legislation is designed to provide a new alternative to fee payments for projects that decide not to build affordable units on site right now. that is a very extreme decision

in that these fees could be used to build affordable housing anywhere in the city. dedicating parcels of land within the market octavia plant area so that we can continue to create affordable housing within the market octavia's own. i would like to thank the supervisor for introducing the legislation. there has been a lot of conversation about how to improve the legislation and fine-tune it. including a process at the planning commission and i would like to invite mr. rogers to come talk about the legislation as well as proposed amendments, which i will be loading at the end and require continuance. >> thank you. as the supervisor said, this would create a new alternative

in alternative housing fees. in the eastern neighborhoods this would be the first effort to extend beyond what was originally enacted. since this ordinance was originally introduced, a working group has been convened and that includes community members, affordable housing advocates, and city staff. the planning commission recommended the offer agree with them, that the supervisor on behalf of the planning commission should thank for including the following amendments. the first is to clarify the difference between mayor as housing so that there is not a

duplication. second, the plan should be within a prescribed distance from the principal project so that our commission may offer exemptions within three-quarters of a mile. no. 3, the principal project should require 40% of the total developable area. only two -- only qualifying households and dedicated sites have the capacity for 40% of the units that would have been developed. hopefully that is clear. providing an opportunity for multiple project sponsors to participate in the rededication of land, getting together to go after a larger property.

lastly, clarifying the process to determine whether the proposal meets the requirements. second, they would like a list of required components for the land dedication agreements. the planning commission would make the final rule on the agreement. they would also require the project sponsor to be responsible for all city staff costs. including city staff, planning staff, and attorney time that would be required. leslie, clarifying that the agreement must be approved before the first construction permit is issued. to ensure that the agreement is in place before we go forward and authorize work on the principal projects.

those are the recommendations recommended in this concludes my presentation. supervisor mar: let's open it up for public comment. there are no questions from my colleagues. please come forward if you would like to speak. i see no speaker cards. peter cohen? >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am here representing the market octavio cac. in the chair of that committee. i am very active in the upper market. i should know a bit about affordable housing.

i have a couple of technical questions, our first priority is on site below market rate units. in the market batavia area there has been no formal housing of any kind. with the exception of octavia boulevard, there has been no affordable housing of any kind built in the market octavia, simultaneously built in the last quarterly pipeline report there are 270 units of housing

proposed in that area. there is a critical need for unit production. the economics of production is one that feeds out every time. this is an alternative to allow for the increase of obligation to hold future developments. it is a second best in this important that we do not walk away. the technical questions that i have, out of the planning commission there was questioning about the formula. i might ask if you could ask the mayor's office of housing to clarify. the equivalency of doing this option verses anything else was sorted out in a 40/40 formula. i think that it is important that we hold -- hold that formula.

i think it is important not to end up over-favoring one option or the other by abandoning that. beyond that, we were supportive but are curious to know what the specific amendments are. supervisor mar: are there any others in the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. >> on site is preferable, but given the world that we live in, i agree with mr. cohen. having the middle ground is appropriate. having the whole foods development market indicates what they are not going to do on site but they do want to do a land dedication. i agree that we all need to work

towards more on site affordable housing. with that i move the amendments and i will move to continue this one week. supervisor mar: on the amendment without objection. continuing this item until the next meeting to the call of the chair. we may be meeting on monday. i am not sure. supervisor wiener: if there is no meeting on monday, when will the next meeting be? >> the second week of september for. but i will continue this to the call of the chair. please call item no. 2. >> item #two. hearing to follow-up with the san francisco municipal transportation agency (sfmta) regarding efficiency improvements to j-church light rail vehicle line service, and discussion with sfmta and the recreation and park department regarding the muni right-of-way

in dolores park. supervisor wiener: very shortly after i took office, it may have been the first hearing that i called for, it was a hearing of what could be done to improve the reliability of the line. church runs through a significant portion of my district. a lot of people rely on it. certainly it is not the only with challenges, but there are many challenges that are unique. a presentation was made several months ago and there were many ideas about how to improve the line. the first idea was for the mta to present a brief update on what had happened over the last few months in terms of moving in that direction. second, to talk specifically about the right of way through the morris park.

there is a section of land that is more or less controlled by the mta. we have had some challenges in the past in terms of coordination and communication between the mta and reckin park. i have a photograph for the overhead that will hopefully show the graffiti on the right of way. would it be possible to show the overhead? supervisor mar: we have been asked to speak directly into the microphone so that we can be heard more clearly. especially on this item. supervisor wiener: thank you. you can see that we have, for example, a graffiti problem there. i think that it is critically important that the park and mta

work together and are coordinated in dealing with the j church right of way through dolores park. we have a great opportunity as we are already in the middle of renovations and it is a great opportunity to address the park as a whole and take steps to improve the right of way. after we received a brief update on the progress of j church, we also have reckin park here. i look forward to both presentations. thank you. >> thank-you, supervisor. mr. chairman, supervisor of, in the interest of following the introduction, if you would go to page 5 on the screen, as the

supervisor said, we had a discussion back in march to talk about actions that we could take. today we will bring you up-to- date on where we are moving on these actions. first of all, page 5. one that we are moving forward on is the rationalization of the route schedule. it has been greatly improved, from our perspective. what will happen in august when there is new ticketing is the head way or spacing between trains. it will be even at 9 minutes rather than a range of five to 13 minutes, which confuses the rider's right now. something we will implement with the next schedule change. not just making it easier in terms of the understanding of when the train is coming, but it will balance the load on the train.

second, we ask you to look at enforcement in particular for double parking. enforcement and inspectors, over the last few months -- parking has not been a big issue that has impacted the performance of the line, but we will continue to monitor and expect it to come back. on the 15th of the month that might change a little bit. we will continue to watch that as well. supervisor mar: this is close to mission high school and everett middle school? >> sorry, sir? supervisor mar: you talked about school. i was making a note that it was mission high-school and everett middle school that were about a block and a block and a half away. >> thank you. the other thing that we talked about was potential for stock consolidation. we have suggested locations

where we are looking for input from a variety of people on that. next, we have some candidates that we would consider as potential areas for optimization. it is our plan to discuss those with the citizens advisory council and then come back to you and move forward with some recommendations at that point. last time we also talked about engineering changes that would help to speed up the line. we looked at a number of locations for a second priority stop sign trash but -- traffic measures. a couple of general points on this. in some cases we have identified 16th and church, where there is clearly a benefit in installing the left turn

aisle. we believe that it is worthwhile to pursue. our issue there was simply following the sometimes lengthy an awfully frustrating city process to do it correctly. what we will continue to do is work within the agency to look at intersections up and down the line, continuing to advance traffic engineering measures that will help us to improve the service. in terms of the performance of the line, on-time performance remains, in the last corner of the mid-70's, impacting on-time performance in general. particularly on the jane line. this chart shows that after one year of these 200 the latest, nearly 100 were caused by in

service vehicle failures. right now across the system we have 15 failures per day. we lose an average of eight trains per day. something we have got to continue to come back with some specific and urgent, i would say, programs to work on the components that are failing. particularly the doors and the stops. that is a major problem for writers, delaying the system. frankly, it is a morale problem for employees who are frequently asked to have passengers getting on and off the strains. we have equipment that is getting to its passage -- past use for life without midlife overhaul. we have to step up the overhaul program.

v. other options and that we talked about for improving service reliability, one of the things we have heard repeatedly from all of you and writers on the jade line is the concern about the f and m line trains pulling out in front of the j line and blocking it. i am doing an analysis right now about the cost in removing the historic fleet, the older cars where we have very few of our mechanics who are older. but, at any rate, we will have the f line analysis done to see if we can move it over off of third street. what that would do would be to allow us to get it off of j line.

in addition, as we look as sending more pullouts, which also use the j line to go to ocean beach, to try to move those as well, both of those are something that will make a difference in performance. finally, in that area we have been doing a lot of worked in the park, where all three lines pull out of, over the last several months, as the work has been completed, there has been an impact on service that should be mitigated. at the bottom are the issues that i spoke of in terms of stepping up maintenance and response to delays. the other thing that i wanted to mention that we did not talk

about, or talked about briefly last time, we have a limited number of shelters that would be helpful for predicting when trains would be coming. we are going to look at that and come back to you with candidates that stand next to the shelter. we continue to look for opportunities to upgrade when we inform passengers of the latest. what we have recently done is we are in the process of restoring a system that was dormant, for reasons that are not clear to be, that will allow us to support the operators in making on board a train announcements when there is a delay in service.

finally, in addition, i wanted to mention other things we had spoken about, generally, in approving the service across the system. in march we talked about the potential for going to a pilot when it came to using the j line. our board has asked us to prepare a proposal that will do boarding across the system. undergoing staff review, it is scheduled to be presented to them in march -- excuse me, august. i would mention that the single biggest delay in moving service along is that fair train action. it would dramatically speed up, taking a look at that. also, along with some of the other sort points, if you will,

along this particular line in san jose and randall, we would take a look at the shared left turn lane to speed that up, as well as water traffic measures. finally, the last thing, and i do not know if you want me to take questions on the first part, it is an overview of the morris park. -- of dolores park. supervisor wiener: first of all, i agree that there are a number of systemwide improvements that will help. double parking along church st. is a significant problem in terms of slowing down. many people treat church as if

it is more lanes of traffic than it actually is. it causes a lot of confusion. the transitional on 30th street from san jose, also the entrance into the portal, in my experience it is a significant hinge point in the line. it causes a lot of the lay and slow down. getting in and out of the tunnel is painfully slow when it comes to making the transition along 30th street. i know that we have spoken about this before. i know that of these can be resolved, it will improve the line significantly. i appreciate your looking at those. i know that you talked about signal priority and