last september, we asked to lower the fee to $100 for a low- budget film. we are doing what we can to support local filmmakers. >> that is great to hear. i was not sure if the space opened up. i thought there might be issues with the landlord but i am glad to see it resolved that i know that rent is one of the obstacles and the city for office -- for our local filmmakers. supervisor avalos: thank you. i would like to thank supervisor farrell for bringing this board. we have to ask ourselves if it's worth up to $2 million for film in san francisco. i actually came to more accept this program and it was based on some of the experiences we had

in 2007 and 2008 that attracted the production of "milk" that was able to attract a lot of business. it seems like the investments we made with the rebate program helped to make sure those films came about and had a lot to do with hiring local residents, especially -- i was especially pleased to see that happen. it's not like an open-ended program. it is based on what we have available for the rebates, so up to a certain amount, i can accept it. what else can we get out of it in terms of later film productions? i'm excited about woody allen coming to san francisco and

maybe he will reprise himself as virgil stark well or do something like a new production of "what's up doc" or vertigo. he needs -- we need something iconic to put san francisco on the map again and it shows san francisco in the greatest way, the beauty of this city is what we are going to make happen and that will have a great effect on this city and the city's economy in years to come and i think the art form itself is something to invest in as well. i do appreciate the concerns supervisor kim has around local hiring. i think the room is packed with people here who are local residents who i think expect to benefit from the film program. if we need to tighten up, and i sure if we do it in this legislation or separately, but it makes sense we invest

locally in our protection element and staffing and services we have in san francisco. but i will be supporting this ordinance and i want to see a move forward and be successful. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor farrell: a few comments -- i take your point about the local nature of this. one thing to note is when we talk about the number of residents employed in the local wages paid, those all local wages put in the statistics. i worked very hard with susanna and we spent a lot of time with spread sheets to make sure we carved out what are the real benefits locally. if we're going to spend money on any programs, that we spend our money as efficiently as possible and get the biggest bang for our buck locally.

a few other points -- although it's not a reason i would doubt this program, but -- without this program, but this is actually a moneymaker so every dollar we spent, we get more than a dollar back in general fund revenues. it is mainly through permit fees, the substitute sales tax and what have you. it is expanding the money by getting it back in whole right now. it is a major thin margin and it's not a reason to promote this. it is something to be noted. the question was asked about the trend. we had $1.5 million over the last few years and why is it this amount here? you will see that based upon

the great work, evangelizing this program in los angeles, middle of a producer's here in san francisco, the amount of productions has ramped up over time as the awareness of this program has grown. in the first two years, the same dollar amount was extended is because it was not adopted early on. if we can build on that momentum, that is the reason we were building it out. in my opinion, why it is important, it is creating global jobs in late san francisco and i think that is of the utmost importance. this diversifies our local economy in a greater way. it's not massive, but it is real. these are real folks and we should be supporting them. one folksy -- one. the folks at the san francisco travel association made, -- does

it promote folks shooting locally and having san francisco on the big screen and from a general civic pride point of view, having san francisco on the big screen, we don't disappoint and i think that's important for our city and i want to make sure i was clear on why i think this is important. >> if i could add some comments -- she was just hired for the witty alien -- for the woody allen movie and they will be doing local hire. another local writer-director and production manager is local and they intend to hire local. very often, the key people have,

the head of costumes and set decorators are often brought in from l.a.. but the more production we get here, the more these companies will see we have this talented group and with all of the loss of production to other states, so many of these people have had to go to louisiana, the mexico, and new york and we have lost a lot of work force. but the more productions we get here, we can build that up and continue to hire more and more locals. supervisor kim: i want to appreciate my colleagues points. i see the benefit in terms of tourism in general fund dollars, but it's important week support employment growth in the city. i appreciated the points and i would love to see the numbers on that. i understand as you lose certain part of the industry, it's hard

to develop an important part -- a job -- and employment pipeline. we want to make sure there is an existing supply of jobs if we're going to train residents in a variety of aspects of the technical and production areas. i would love to hear more about what we can do to encourage the training of our local residents and hope. >> i don't know if you are aware that in order to qualify for the rebate program these companies have to interview for the hiring program. i know on "hemingway" one of the people they hired who never worked in production at all is now working consistently because he proved himself so and valuable. little things like that are helping to bring people up and i hope we see more of that.

>> thank you for reminding me. supervisor chu: thank you for the work you have been doing attracting folks and getting the word out. i think supervisor farrell described a lot about the diversity and the point about the more youthful, the deeper bashan have in terms of talented individuals and staying in san francisco and i am sensitive to the residual impact on the economy. but with regard to promoting the san francisco, we could not pay $2 million and get a potential advertisement for san francisco.

these films hope to evoke a place these people want to see and have memories of. there are many reasons why filming in san francisco is beneficial to the city. given that this is a time limited piece of legislation, i would encourage the department to make sure you are familiar with the control offices report and make sure you respond to some of the points that was made and share it with the board to make sure we are moving forward. i think it would be educational to know about the local hiring component. you have talked about the first source hiring requirement but the other things -- i think it would be educational and informative.

also, the metrics going forward, i think you have talked about some of the new data you are requiring and providing information about various things. i think it would be helpful to understand what you are tracking and come to years down the line, we will have a strong track record of how this program is going and hopefully at that point there will be no question about the benefits to it. i would just recommend we do that. we have this item before us that we have public comment -- do we have a motion to accept the amendments articulated -- there were three of them which were fairly straightforward. we can do that without objection. to the item as amended, we have a motion to send it ford? we have a motion to send the item for word and we can do that without objection.

-- ford without objection. i would a asked to give redline copies to the clerk. thank you. any other items before us a? we are adjourned and we will see the committee members. back at 3:30. [applause]

>> good afternoon, everyone. this is the monday, at the 14th, 2012, a meeting of the land use and economic development committee. my name is eric mar. please give us the announcement. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. items act upon will appear on the may 22 board of supervisors agenda. supervisor mar: we have three items on the agenda today. please call item number 1. >> item number one, st. encroachment for an outdoor child play area on redwood street. >> good afternoon.

this request came to us from project management on behalf of puc in conjunction with the construction of a new building at 525 golden gate bridge as mandated, -- golden gate bridge as mandated, a licensed child care facility provide a minimum of 7500 square feet of outdoor space per child. since the child care standard was built into the property line, they will be using the sidewalk, a portion of the sidewalk will be fenced in for this child care area. in order to maintain a safe path of travel around it, sidewalks will be bold out. this was approved in conformity with the general plan, and also by a mta.

there were no objections. dpw held a hearing on this item. we received no objections. we respectfully request that you move this forward. thank you. supervisor mar: let's open this up for public comment. public comment is closed. can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? >> we have three amendments on the item. the city attorney has admitted three minor changes. the first one, you have copies. supervisor mar: so -- >> would you like me to read them? supervisor mar: it would be good if you could read them into the record. >> the first one is on page 2. >> if it is ok, i can read them

into the record as well. i have them also. supervisor mar: that would be great. >> the first one is on page two, lines 4 and 5. recognizes pc needs to sign and a knowledge the encroachment permit and the agreement. before the permit will be effective. page two, line 5 and 6, identifies the only in the encroachment agreement is in the clerk's file. dpw practice is only to forward the agreement. page two, line 15 clarifies that the puc, given its charter a 40, only to obtain those permits that are legally -- authority, only to obtain those permits that are legally required. supervisor mar: i see a nod from

our city attorney. we have close public comment. colleagues, can we move these amendments without objection? can we adopt this resolution with a positive recommendation? thank you. thank you, everyone. we now have items two and three. should we call them together? we are joined by president chiu. >> item 2 -- ordinance amending the san francisco transportation code. supervisor mar: we are joined by the sponsor. president chiu: a couple of weeks ago, we had a lengthy hearing on the situation involving to airbus's -- tour buses in many of our residential

neighborhoods. this is an issue that has been longstanding. many neighborhoods and constituents have complained about noise, parking issues, and other quality of life concerns. i want to thank the mta and staff for working to put forth a draft tour bus policy to govern how our cities tour buses would operate on our city streets. item number two, the number of transportation code amendments to move that forward. i do have a couple of amendments to take out mention of a permiting structure that we had initially discussed. at this point, we will not be moving that forward. but i would like to do is invite up jerry robbins to walk through to talk about what the mta is currently doing.

>> thank you. we prepared a draft management plan in february of 2011. in the last 16 months, we have implemented many aspects of that plan. i have a summary -- it indicates which items are ongoing, which items have been completed, and which items we have dropped. so, in august 2010, we began increasing enforcement of two airbus -- tour bus loading zones. in september, we implemented 16 short-term zones in the

fisherman morris -- fisherman's wharf areas. where they would not be blocking other bosses. that has been completed. in march through may of 2010, we met with. 39 pier 30 to improve -- pier 39 to improve tour bus operations. we have reviewed locations am union square, and that is an ongoing effort. we meet every two months to discuss the situation there and tried to work out problems. supervisor mar: can you explain why pier 39 does not support

that? >> we suggested that the taxis zones and bus zones be swapped. they felt it was not necessary. they felt it was working adequately the way it was. they did agree to step up their internal management of the zone to make it work better. we did not make any legislative changes. i think we have helped the situation somewhat. we have been working very closely with sf travel to approve the information that operators receive on how to operate in san francisco. we have a publication called the "motor coach update." it goes into quite a bit of

detail. but streets they're allowed to operate on, which treats that are not allowed to operate on. we gave them the opportunity to contact me if they have suggestions on how that publication could be improved, or how the regulations could be improved. in august 2010, it discusses this permit system that we had envisioned for all tour bus operators in san francisco. every private operator would need to work with our department to obtain a permit if they wanted to part in any of these specially designated parking zones about the city. we asked for feedback on that idea. we got some resistance from operators and we also thought it was going to be quite a difficult administrative task to

outreach to companies across the country, explain this permit system, collect their fees, at issue a permit, updated every year. we are not currently proposing to pursue that at this point. that is a summary of what we have done so far. supervisor mar: when you expect the mta board to finalize this plan? >> i think we have implemented the things that are feasible. i do not think there is -- most things were approved by the mta board as they were implemented. i do not think there is a need for them to come back and take a look at the entire plan. supervisor mar: you do not think there other things your agency can do to move things forward? >> enforcement is key. supervisor mar: to speak on the

topic of enforcement, which is the topic that came up at the last meeting, i would like to invite -- >> i have been transferred over to traffic. i am working at mta. i will be coordinating the plan to enforce any of the violations as they occur, targeting whatever locations are identified and whatever the plan is. we will be working very closely with them. i will be coordinating the activities from the district stations along with the traffic company enforcement. supervisor mar: no enforcement efforts has wrapped up within

your division? >> correct. the boat ramp up as the legislation is rolled out -- we will ramp up as the legislation is rolled out. we understand the problems in the target areas and we will be dedicating our resources. supervisor mar: will you be able to track the number of citations? >> rouble issued the citations and violations -- we will issued the citations and the violations and then we will submit a full report. we have about 23 officers at mta and we have 24 motorcycle officers that are assigned to mta now. supervisor mar: one thing that would be helpful is to understand month by month what kind of citations have been issued. many of our local tour bus operators will understand what they need to do pretty quickly. i anticipate it will be our out-

of-town companies that will have more trouble getting into compliance. >> that is what we intend to do. we want to track it and see where everything is going. supervisor mar: in three months, if we could give a status report. and maybe every quarter for the first year just to understand how implementation is going? thank you. colleagues? the last person i would like to invite up is to talk about -- is tom here? i did not see you. he is from the department of public health. he is responsible for the enforcement of noise issues. he has been working closely with my office and the operators are around legislative item number three. it gets at this issue of open- air tour bus loudspeakers. it was proposed in all these

conversations of the department of public help set up a regulatory structure that his office is responsible for enforcing to ensure that our bosuses are in compliance with noise ordinances. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we have been able to meet with the operators and do some fields evaluations of their equipment and they're in a seat -- annunciation systems. we believe that -- annunciation systems. we believe they can deliver an adequate message to their patrons and still comply with the standard at 50 feet. it is embodied in the state motor vehicle code. what we would basically do is have a local system, or local regulatory system, that allowed

us to more fluidly implement the motor vehicle code compliance and have a direct location for members of the public to launch -- lodge their complaints. we could have a system or we could rapidly communicate those complaints to the operators and develop an effective mechanism for getting compliance. assuming all the parties involved try to comply with the regulation. we are hoping for a cooperative interaction, one through which the operators recognize that it is in their best interest to try to accommodate the acoustical needs of the communities in which they are operating and report back to you how well that

works or does not work. supervisor mar: initially, the legislation had an implementation date of june 1 of 2012. obviously, that will be overly challenging. i would like to propose that we change that date from june 1 to october 1. it is my hope that we will be able to get this program up and running before october 1. i want to give the industry and the department enough time to make it happen. i would have -- i would be happy for it to be shorter. if that makes sense to folks, that is something i will propose. >> it would be helpful. >> i can tou hearr bhear tour bm inside my home. i know the