feeling and actuality of physical public safety. also, that we arealso, we are ae increased foot patrol, officers developing relationships with the neighborhood. i can work with sfpd on perhaps the correct timing as we move forward. i want to make sure as we are making these investments they are creating the outcomes we support today. chairperson chu: i think the question will come up about the substation's we have. i would be cautious about the city entering into future substations. i think from our previous study that we spent a lot of money on creating a report that evaluated police services, we talked about the need to have even smaller

numbers of police stations so we can better manage our resources, have more people out on the street. i would hate for the city to revert back to the place where we are opening a ton of assets, as opposed to being on the streets and the beat, as most of our community members want to see. whether it is in excelsior or the sunset, many of our officers what people on the street. we do not have the resources. to continue to have to staff and spend resources there, given we know we have a retirement and stepping issue in the department, does not seem like the right direction for the city to go in. i am disappointed to hear from the police department about the need to pursue technical innovations are practices that could help streamline the way we conduct our business at the moment. we have been talking about this issue long time, about how we keep resources out there.

we have yet to see what that looks like. i am disappointed to hear we are still at a place where perhaps several years out -- maybe that is a question we have to bring up during budget conversations are at a future hearing. i think we need to reevaluate and see what kind of technological devices and help we can have to get people who are on the streets out there, as opposed to having to return to their stations. i want to voice my concern for that. this is an item that is simply a resolution to amend an existing lease and reduce the rent. i am not a person who is going to say i do not want to see a rate decrease. thank you for the real-estate department bringing as a piece of legislation where we are seeing modest savings to the city. that is something i appreciate. this legislation is not

allocating funding for the substation. it is money that is in the budget that the mayor's office is choosing to move around to accomplish this. i do have questions in the future about the special revenue fund. how much do you have in there? where do we find $650,000 in this project? that is a question i have in the future. i appreciate the explanation about not finding an adequate space at a city-owned facility. that is something i had a question about, and i think this was a good answer to it. i appreciate the fact that if we had used the city facility, it would not have the benefits of the storefront presence. that is an important piece of this. with regards to the police department, there is not really, from what i am hearing in the presentation, a strategy for how you would staffas, going back to supervisor avalos's point, how

you would staff of this. is there a reason we would not pursue a different strategy? i am disappointed in hearing that. i do think that in terms of the police department there is a benefit to having a substation. there is a benefit to having a police presence in the mid- market area. it is up -- it is challenged. many merchants have tried to turn the tide around. some of the compelling arguments is to help to draw business into the area. these are things i think could, in collaboration with a substation, helped turn around the mid-market area. one thing i would like to follow up from the police department goes back to the question supervisor avalos asked about whether we have learned from previous substation's about the effectiveness of them. i want to know whether this will

lead to a reduction in crime. what had to change in the area? from need -- from the police department, it is not enough for us to allocate this money to you. i want to see measurable impact. what are we seeing that has changed in the area as a result of the substation? how is the substation used? are people going to the substation? are they not? how much is changed by these officers not having to transport back to the main office the experts i am ok with doing this for now, although it is difficult to support of this moment, given not really having this information. it is a difficult item to support, but i will be supporting it. supervisor kim: i want to thank

my colleagues. another is is a difficult issue, primarily because we are using general fund dollars for this investment. i do appreciate your support on this today. do you want to make an amendment to ensure we get a report that the budget committee within six months or a year on the investment of these funds in terms of the outcome? it could look at the data of crime previous to the substation, and what the results and outcomes have been after. supervisor avalos: i would support a recommendation. i think that might best take place in the public safety committee. supervisor kim: that can be referred to the public safety committee. chairperson chu: i would like to see that, given the investment into a substation, which is counter to the conventional wisdom of having folks out there and trying not to have as many assets to have to maintain.

i guess that would be an amendment to the recommendations to allow the report. i would say six months after the substation is open to give time to allow for experience to be had. in addition to the six month check-in, the department ought to look at the base level of crime statistics so that we have something to compare it to. i would request a go to the public safety committee. i think that is appropriate. we will test that amendment. can we do that without objection? thank you. before we go on to the next item, we are going to take a quick five-minute break. thank you.

chairperson chu: welcome back to the budget and finance subcommittee. we just took a quick recess. we have been in session since 10:00 this morning. we are going to continue. we have a few items on the agenda. we still have items 10, 9, and

13 on the agenda. i know there are a number of members of the public here to speak on item 13, so we will call that first so we can allow you to testify and speak and not have to stay longer unnecessarily. mr. young, will you call item 13, please? >> hearing to receive updates from the office of economic and workforce development, mayor's office of housing, and department of public works on the progress of the octavia boulevard project, central freeway ancillary projects, and disposition of the central freeway access parcels. chairperson chu: this was brought to us by supervisor solagu -- olague. we will wait a moment and let her know so she can make opening comments.

thank you very much. we have called item 13, which is the progress on the octavia boulevard project, central freeway ancillary projects, and disposition of central freeway access parcels. we skipped items 9 and 10 to allow the public to speak on item 13 first. supervisor olague, do you have opening comments? supervisor olague: i have been involved with the octavia boulevard plan since sitting on the planning commission. because of this involvement, i have been concerned about the progress of the visions and goals. today's hearing is to bring a level of transparency to the

progress, especially the sales and development of the remaining parcels and the ancillary projects. when i first took office, the sale to the boys and girls club race many issues about the timeline. many of the questions arose from the inconsistency of the specific sale with the octavia boulevard plan goals. the board amended the parcel agreement. today, oewd and the mayor's office of housing would give an overview on the development time line. at the call of the chair, i will ask that this item be continued and moved to the land use committee to hear a report from the city attorney about things. the octavia boulevard plan includes a dynamic mix of affordable and market rate housing, a lively boulevard with active storefronts and open

space, and extensive street improvement that includes pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. it is my hope that city departments commit to doing a better job on completing this plan as originally adopted. >> thank you very much. supervisor olague, the departments are oewd and mou, correct? -- chairperson chu: >> kelly pretzer. office of workforce development. i am here to give background on the parcels and detailed information on the overall sources and uses for the project, as well as a preview of what tasks we have yet to complete. for a brief overview of what i will be covering, octavia

boulevard is a complex project which draws on many departments. the mayor's office of housing, and dpw, and planning. this has been divided into a conceptual part -- conceptual pockets. we will begin by looking at contracts, then what is contained in those contracts. then, we will discuss the sale of parcels. we will then extract those items which will be coming before you in the future. not long ago, the central freeway was a double decker structure. it extended across market street, headed north. the central freeway was badly damaged in the 1989 earthquake. the form of its replacements the dish reduced structure took many years and a ballot measures to decide. we will start by discussing the various voter initiatives, ordinances, and contracts which have guided the form of octave

the boulevard. proposition e was passed in 1988. it called for an elevated structure from mission to market, and an at-grade ground- level market from octavia. in 1999, proposition i was passed. while prop e decided the form, prop i decided the mechanism. the city would sell pieces of land and use that revenue to build what we now know as octavia boulevard. he'd give special emphasis that those pieces of land the city sold would be used presidentially, including affordable housing. it also discussed uses of the remaining funds. the cooperative agreement was between the city of san francisco and the state

department of transportation, and was signed in 2000. this was the contract between the government entities to implement agreements. it transferred state-owned parcels to the city. the agreement also included a number of obligations the city would undertake in exchange for ownership of these 22 parcels. these were the construction of octavia boulevard and the implementation of a traffic management plan, as well as rehabilitation of portions of van ness avenue, which were to be adopted as part of highway 101. four years after the agreement, the city was undergoing a planning process for the market action octavia area. it was important not to sell parcels in a way that might undermine the community planning process.

as i will elaborate, a key component of the plan that has directly informed the overall management of funds related to the boulevard is a balance between housing, concentration, and building a complete neighborhood. it sought to ensure that change not be the haphazard result of fluctuating economic trends, but tied to larger goods for the city. the plan draws on the relationships between these three ideas of housing, transportation, and building a full neighborhood to create a transit-oriented neighborhood, encourage housing. housing was a key part of the plan and directly influenced the approach to the plan. it gave guidance that the people who live in the neighborhood create the community of the place. housing a diverse group of people means providing ranges of affordability and housing types

in a safe and attractive setting. the development program prioritized housing as a direct result. they worked well together. after 1500 or so of for the book uses -- affordable units planned, roughly 450 are in the central freeway parcells, a full third. a development plan called for 50% of all units to be at an affordable level, another target we have exceeded. as the sale moves forward, it is helpful to remember that in many ways we are implementing the community-generated plan for the area. the final foundation document i would like to discuss is an ordinance approved by the board of supervisors in 2009. it approved the sale of remaining utensils at market rates. it also required that any

parcells would be subject to a declaration of economic justice. now that we have established the foundation, i would like to take a deeper dive into the obligations required by those documents. a reminder of the requirements i have already covered from the corporate agreement, which included obligations the city would undertake in exchange for ownership of those 22 parcels. those were construction of octavia boulevard and a traffic management plan, as well as a rehabilitation of portions of van ness ave. in addition, as part of the process, a group of what we call ancillary projects were prioritized, focused in areas south of market street, where the raised highway remains. the streetscape improvements come at a cost of approximately

$2.40 million for construction, and construction began earlier this year. in addition, it prioritized two uses on caltrans-owned parcels beneath the freeway. those include a state park and a dog-run facility, which is initiating the community design process. finally, the central freeway cac prioritized and active use in an area that had been dead in did. this area, affectionately referred to as the hub, is finalizing the plans for an open space, construction cost $1.80 million. here is a quick design. what is depicted is a farmer's market moving night use. it is not -- it is designed in a manner