like taking a surface parking lot and taking those spaces which are very important for the uses, beloved destinations in the city, authentic, indigenous, retail, small businesses of the city that need parking, it takes a lot of parking to take those ugly, unsightly, above grade service bases and put them below the gray. that is just an example that the full project has to as a whole work for. i do want to just be clear that there have been a lot of things that on the record today that are simply not possible to really explain or address, and respectfully, i have to say there have been factual misrepresentations today, and i do not like having to say something like that, but i do think it is important for that be known, but i do not want you to leave today with a misrepresentation. this is a fine project, and i

think we will have the opportunity to prove the case to you on the right day when this is before the board, so i thank you for your time today, and i think you in advance for keeping an open mind about the project. president chiu: before the next speaker, i want to see if there is any more public comment. if you could line up on that side. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul. i have lived and run businesses in the 8 centenary of for years. i have come to make two points that i do not think have been made adequately today. one is what i consider to be a hundred pound gorilla in all of this a bird in hand.

the only place people at cash to do something with the parking lots that had on the embarcadero. the america's cup has changed everything. the port will be running over with money. they can no longer cry that they are poor. the other point i want to make has to do with parking. i run two businesses, over the past 20 years, in the embarcadero area. there is plenty of parking under the embarcadero center. there is a big parking garage under the maritime center. i believe that the owners of those parking areas will tell you that because of the lack of adequate cities signage, those garages are on those lots, so the argument that we need more parking space i believe is a spurious one. thank you.

>> members of the committee, my name is charles. i am only here to say one thing. this is not a private club. i read in the newspaper about a private club being on that side. i have heard it here. members of the private club, they sit on the board of directors, and they occupy officers positions in the organization. this is a business. this is not a private club. if i had a business, if it had the word club in the title, it would not be a private club. just because this business offers tennis and swimming does not make it a private club. it is not a private club. it is like the hair club for men or any of these clubs that you can join. this is what it is. it is just a simple business, and the services it offers is

open to everyone. the prices are less than the public swimming facilities on a per day basis. that is why it is so attractive, and that is why so many people do not want to lose the advantages of the golden gate bridge tennis club for the average person, because it is available to the average person at a lower price, and it is not a private club. thank you. >> hi, my name is cameron. i am here to read a letter from toby. i am a retired planning commissioner from the 1990's. during that time, i was also a member of the waterfront land use advisory committee. we spent years creating a plan, which was adopted in 1997. subsequently, things have been

established. for several years, i was the chair of the advisory group and am currently a member, so i do not speak for the committee. this seawall lot was designated as a mixed use opportunities site, and eight potential uses were identified, including five that were part of the plan, and this includes residential housing, parking, retail job generators, and recreational enterprises. we are deeply concerned with -- not -- reuniting the city. the current plan removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from the nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature of the plan. according to my personal priorities, i will list the benefits.

pedestrian opening of jackson and pacific to the waterfront once again. affordable housing during a time of diminished resources. funds to repair historic buildings and running -- rotting piers. things for children. and, of course, the construction. as you listen to testimony, they appear to be the driving force in the efforts to terminate the project. in general, the heights and views are not protected in the planning code. this rises above the waterfront with no stepping down to soften the image. this very tall building will be separated by eight washington. in fact, everything will load jackson street is above 85 feet. you will find that the average wage is 37 feet. the eight washington project consists of a team of aesthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with a remarkable

development which will make us all very proud. there also accepted -- since -- acceptable of other things. we expect the same high-quality of washington -- of 8 washington. i am here to give you this binder full of letters, and i would like to read to you this is support -- to read to you the support. the san francisco bicycle coalition, the carpenters local 22, the chamber of commerce, a city car share, the american institute of architects, and there are many more local businesses, merchants, and businesses in these binders, which i will leave with you.

>> mr. chair, mr. president, members of the committee. prior to my years of experience with national issues, this was also as a 25-year member of the planning department and a five- year member of the planning group, so i have had considerable background there, and i currently keep my hand in as a quote interested citizen on the northeast waterfront advisory group, and as such, i have had the opportunity to participate in the planning of east of the embarcadero steady and many presentations and many comments pro and con of this project -- the embarcadero study. one thing i would like to say, i

think that the members in this room are probably very concerned about the testimony they heard about the golden gate towers and how it has been finding ways to avoid paying higher taxes on the property and to get around the city rent control board, and i would hope that the city would find this legislation in this regard. also, having said that, as was indicated, the golden gateway owner is not the developer for this project. the developer for this project has done a tremendous job on the east side of the embarcadero. they did a project that no one could have believed came out as good as it did. i do not think there is anyone in the city to has applauded their work -- who has applauded their work. providing retail that activated the waterfront. they had the primary financial

backing from the california state teachers' pension group, and clearly, the teachers are not part of the 1% that people are concerned about, reaping some of the financial benefits. i am a planner. i think from an urban design point of view, a transition from the golden gate towers towards the waterfront, these projects would provide, would be a very desirable thing. the urban design plan never contemplated the removal of the freeway. my first day at the planning department, coming to the planning commission meeting, we are going to be doing something historic today. the planning commission adopted

a plan that day, in the planning department has carried it forward with the northeast embarcaderos study -- embarcadero study, so for these reasons, i support the project, and thank you for your time. >> i have a couple of points and a couple of observations. this was one of seven suval lots that was the reason for supervisors request for a study. the six other lots are north of broadway and have a 40-foot height limit. this was in the dancer area. i have been on the citizens advisory committee from the

beginning representing the preservation committee. and been through this project from the beginning of that i was against it originally. until the configuration of a building and i joined forces because it was a nice project for the site. this is a developable site. i question shadows. maybe i am not informed well enough. this project is north of washington, the park is south of washington. is not the son generally not in the direction of casting shadows? one of my main causes and as a preservationist i am concerned about the port's billion dollar plus a list of creating on it

sound. this has poured revenue like crazy. a comment about the rush parking. 255 will service the ferry building. which brings up another lot. this is a fine development and this is the same development. i hope that in fact this does not become a problem. it is a terrific project for the city. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone

else who would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor president chiu, , any closing remarks? >> thank you. president chiu: as i said at the beginning, i thought it was important to hold this hearing today in part because there have been numerous public hearings with other city agencies. and planning, the port commission, we have not started that conversation here. the most recent public meeting was last thursday when the planning department voted to initiate a process to consider the site. i thought we have had not an adequate consideration of the community with issues that have been at the heart of the debate over 8 washgin -- washington.

when i came into office the discussion at that time was whether and 84-foot proposal was an appropriate proposal versus what i think many folks in my district wanted which was to seek a rezoning -- see a rezoning. i think a lot of letters in this book provided by the sponsor of the project are in support of what had been that 84-foot height project. we're talking about a project that is 136 feet. it is a different project and will have more conversations. these are issues i think we need to start earlier. within a few short weeks we will be considering this project in front of the board. there has been discussion about the planning department, the

report did put out. while placer electric -- appreciate the work that was done by staff, i did not think it reflected the input of many members of the community that participated and i did support a separate process that is embodied in the community vision report that has been circulated. there are a lot of interesting ideas in this division that have not been part of the process and the project we're talking about. i thought it was important for us to begin this conversation. we're going to continue it in the coming weeks and i want to thank you and everyone for this conversation. this not the end of this, just the beginning. thank you. supervisor mar: if there is no other comments, let's continue this item to the call the chair. are there other items? >> no further matters. supervisor mar: with no other items, meeting adjourned. thank you. [gavel]

supervisor mirkarimi: good

morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting to i am ross mirkarimi, a chair. i want to thank sfgtv for their ongoing excellence. madam clerk, would you please read the roll call? >> >> supervisor avalos? present. >> supervisor campos? present. >> supervisor chiu? present. >> supervisor chu? present. >> supervisor cohen? present. >> supervisor elsbernd? present. >> supervisor farrell? present. >> supervisor kim? absent. >> supervisor mar? absent. >> supervisor mirkarimi? present. >> supervisor wiener? present. we have a quorum. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. item number two, please. >> approval of minutes of the november 15, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

roll call, please. >> item number two. >> supervisor avalos? >> supervisor campos? >> supervisor chiu? >> supervisor chu? >> supervisor cohen? >> supervisor elsbernd? >> supervisor farrell? >> supervisor kim? >> supervisor mar? absent. >> supervisor mirkarimi? >> supervisor wiener? item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: all right. please read items number three four. >> 3 commenters report. four, executive director's report. these are information items. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, this is my last meeting as chair of the transportation authority. i want to thank you all for allowing me to serve you for two years. as i look back over the last year, but in particular the last two years, i think it is important that we can all take pride in some major milestones that we were able to achieve together, such as the completion of the environmental impact report for the van ness bus a

rapid transit line. i project this is poised to move into implementation, and one that i believe will change for the better, the way people see public transportation in san francisco. on high-speed rail, we spent a very productive year forging a unified san francisco position in the face of rapid change them in the policy environment both in washington, d.c., and in san francisco. i believe we will see caltrain electrification in high-speed rail kunduz san francisco at center than most people predict. we only realize the dream, the downtown high-speed rail terminal, but we're also known to show the way for the rest of the state. our coalition building worked in this area, and it will be a major legacy. i am proud of the work we have done on the presidio parkway. we're poised to open the first phase to traffic in early february, and our work on the

public-private partnership has said legal challenges all the way back to the state supreme court. again, we are blazing new trails in project delivery. they will benefit not just the city but the entire state. we have made significant progress in presenting a unified front in the region on san francisco's infrastructure needs related to the proposed sustainable community strategy, scs, and raising their readiness for pungent housing policies that can provide governments to make the right decisions to enable us as the region to make the most of our investments in transportation and infrastructure and do our part in addressing climate change. aside from the passage of prop k, that when the first general it -- revenue-generating measures in 2003, weaver also successful in putting forward the first ballot measure to transportation authority, and that was proposition aa, which

passed last year. thank you, colleagues, for pursuing that it also, the transportation authority in providing the dollars to conduct one of the first shared audits of the mta, as the ta has been tapped in helping address some of the larger chronic problems certainly experienced by a sister agency, the municipal transportation authority. i believe that many of these are big topics in the legacy, and the progress we have made will be measured are the next several that it did not want to thank supervisor campos and supervisor mar and all of you for the focused energy and clarity have brought to the discussion of the many important policy issues that we have faced at the transportation authority over the past 12 months and previous 12 months peter i am grateful for the opportunity to work closely with the authority's executive director and staff. i greatly appreciative of the

due diligence and excellence that ta staff have provided a there is plenty yet to be accomplished, but i leave with a clear sense that we have moved the agenda forward. it has been in awarding experience. thank you for the trust you have invested in me and for the opportunity to serve as the authorities chair. i look forward to seeing the operatives work from the fourth floor and promise to keep in touch. thank you. mr. executive director -- >> mr. chairman, commissioners, a good morning. i am the executive director. my report is on your chair. many take a moment here to bank and acknowledge the outgoing chair for his distinguished role as the steward of the jurisdictional authority over the last year. we have worked very closely with him and have never been

disappointed in his ability to find the true policy content out of all the discussions we have had with him. and, as he said earlier, there are many issues that are legacy issues. there are others that he did not mention in his remarks that i think will continue to occupy us. the one that comes to mind right now is the new measure that will replace level of services, our measure of performance of the transportation system, which is something that he pioneered several years ago, actually, and we have been working with them ever since, and getting to the point where we will be blazing a new trail not just for san francisco but for california in terms of how the ceqa transportation impacts fincher is looked at from here into the future. and i, i am fund of making

predictions, predict that the work alone, one adopted by local community groups, will have a larger impact than sc375 in setting us on the right course to sustainable development. thank you, mr. chair. on behalf of the staff of the transportation authority and myself, we wish you the very best of luck in your new capacity. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> i do have a few items i would like to highlight. we cannot have a report without an update on what is happening in washington, d.c., on the reauthorization of the six-year service transportation act. you all heard about this at some length at the last meeting. the house, under the leadership of chairman micah, had worked to put together what looked like was going to be a five-year bill.

we are, however, again back at the point of discussing what their revenue is going to be. there was some sense of an agreement just a month ago about using royalties from extended oil and gas exploration to pay for the revenue gap, but that has fallen apart as republican members of the house have backed away from that. then we had the valiant efforts going on in the senate, led by senator barbara boxer, to try to put together a two-year bill there, and the gap there is smaller. it is still $1 billion, but it is still a gap that appears at this point to be almost insurmountable as far as the political will in congress to find the revenue source for it. it has not helped that this task as a sort of collided with the goal of at the supercommittee on deficit-reduction, which of course has a much bigger

mountain to climb. and i think it all boils down to confirming my prediction of about a year ago that we were unlikely to see reauthorization, certainly not a multi-year reauthorization, before the presidential elections. what we do have is an extension that brings the current bill, is essentially, to march 2012, and i will predict today that we will have another extension that will bring it beyond the november election next year. the other rather alarming aspect of the lack of action that the federal level is that until expiration of the $230 per month federal transit commuter tax benefit allowance, which expires at the end of this month. we have not yet seen the willpower to extend it. it could bring as to the point where the commuter tax benefit

for transit users is reduced to $125 per month, while the parking benefit for people driving goes up to $240, which really is the absolute opposite of the kind of policy we should have are in this country, considering climate change and everything else. so we are actively trying to work in the coalition's to get congress to recognize the importance of passing this bill i am and i give the new and evaluation of the chances of this at this point, because the climate in congress is very strange, but i am and hoping for the best. i will keep posted about this and report back in january. and like to thank supervisor campos and supervisor wiener further testimony on december 8 in front of the senate committee on transportation and housing, the state senate committee headed by the senator, which

took up the issue of ab57, which is the bill that proposes to change the voting composition at ntc. unfortunately i was out of the country that day. i was not able to attend, but in this then they were there, as well as one of our assemblymen, and there was a very interesting and in-depth discussion of the possibilities for regional consensus on a bill that would address whatever fairness issues may have been raised by other counties in the region. i understand that mtc will be voting on its legislative agenda for the year 2012 later this month and that ab57 will be a big part of the discussion, and i am looking forward to supporting our mtc commissioners in that endeavor