appropriate for that area. i want to be careful when we talk about equity in different neighborhoods. we do want that, particularly around the transit modes that are needed, whether it is transportation, muni, sidewalk repairs, or even the green wave corridors. we need to make sure there equitably distributed throughout san francisco. when we talk about bicycles sharing programs, they might be more useful in certain neighborhoods more than others. my understanding is it is about short-term usage during the daytime. correct me if i am wrong, but i want to make sure we are appropriately placing programs by the needs of those neighborhoods. but equity is incredibly important, and we have applications that are being put in for the sidewalk repair for the green wave corridors. we need to make sure we have balance applicants. if we do not get applications

from certain neighborhoods, we need to figure out how to work with the supervisor from that district for them to do outreach to certain groups to make this application available or to submit applications. i saw in the summary that the bay area air quality management district actually is planning to deploy bicycles in kiosks throughout the caltrain corridor, not just fourth and king. it seems to imply that these other areas will have a program similar to the one happening in san francisco. not just at that station. could you clarify that? >> that is correct. supervisor kim: did you talk in more detail about what other spots -- i assume a planing process was in place before this was brought to us. >> right, and this was funded also in part by a transportation fund clean air grant from last year. this request would be funding mta staff during the deployment portion of the project.

as far as specific questions about the locations along the corridor, and may invite mta staff back to discuss. i would also like to point out in response to the geographic distribution of projects, this pertains not only to prop k funds but also to prop aa funds, the vehicle registration fee, and the one bay area grant, in which there will be calls for projects in the next couple of months, something else to think about in addition to prop k programming. supervisor kim: i am not sure if mta wanted to respond to the larger regional plan that caltrain is proposing a ride bicycles. as supervisor cohen has brought up. supervisor avalos: it is great that we have other opportunities from other funding streams. i just think the authority needs

to look at how -- we might not get applicants that come from the southern part of san francisco. we want them to see some infrastructure that can be developed to meet our transit goals moving forward. i would love to be part of the process. i think that is the way to change how we are -- not waiting for applicants, but looking to make sure we can get projects to meet our goals. >> we heard about this last time. we have assembled together a list of candidate projects for the vehicle registration fee and the one bay area grants. we will read your offices ensure that list. if you do not like it, we will work with you to get the right projects on the list. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. >> the other cities are the city of redwood city and mountain view and palo alto. two stations in san jose. those are the other caltrain

stations. and the areas around the caltrain stations that will be served. supervisor kim: how is that determined? >> those stations were not determined -- and they were determined by the partners. caltrain and the ta decided whether to choose those cities instead of brisbane, for example. they looked at it in terms of daily boardings and trip generation. basically for the pilot, the desire is to see this be a smash hit success so we can do a positive evaluation. we believe it will be positive, but it remains to be seen. then we can expand it to other locations. supervisor kim: it would be good to have a copy of the plan and the data that explains why these locations or pig. i know you have caltrain stations in supervisor cohen's

and my district. we want the data that backs up what this election was made. if we want to respond with other information, that might be helpful. >> i can follow up with this suitability analysis for san francisco, and i can request that the other materials from other participants can be provided. supervisor kim: thank you. i think this is a step forward. i have seen it in other cities. i look forward to see how it is utilized in san francisco. i have a question about the tree program. i know you have an explanation, but for the sake of the public because this is a controversial issue, we have a process where we are starting to relinquish the maintenance of our trees, and this is asking us for it tree replacement and maybe some additional trees. i am wondering if someone can talk in a little bit more detail on how we plan to continue to maintain those entries in our

city budget or if we are going to relinquish the maintenance of those injuries is all to a private residence? >> absolutely. i would like to invite staff from the department of public works to address your questions. concerns have been expressed at the citizens advisory committee and members of the public last month and at the cac a couple of weeks ago in regards to how dpw is balancing maintenance and planting efforts during a time of limited resources. also, some of the conversations at cac came up around, during the relinquishment implementation, if dpw has a method to evaluate economic hardship for folks who may not be able to maintain the trees that might become the responsibility and the ability to provide input into maintenance responsibility prior to trees being planted. i will invite douglas legg from the department of public works

to address your question. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we have been before you a number of times talking about our need to align our resources with the work that we have to do, so we have started the transfer of maintenance responsibility to private property owners for the approximately 35% of trees they're not already private property owner's responsibility. i would like to start by reminding you that most of your constituents with a street tree ready have responsibility to maintain that tree. the circumstances, there are a number of people who have been lucky enough to have the city maintain their tree. because of reductions in our staff through many years of

budget cuts, we simply do not have the ability to maintain the trees that are in the public area of responsibility. i have been doing a little bit of research. right now, the general fund and gas tax are paying for tree crews with about nine people. arborists and truck drivers who are taking care of those trees. the city of minneapolis where i come from, a population of about 380,000 people, about half of san francisco's population, they maintain all of the street tree. they actually have 200,000 street trees in minneapolis. they have street crews totaling 80 people. we have nine people in a city twice the size that are taking care of these trees. minneapolis has a fantastic urban forest. all of the neighborhoods are well forested in that city.

that is what the department of public works would like minneapolis to look like. we really are going to be coming to you in the near future and talking to you about -- how do we take care of not only the trees were talking about relinquishing to private property owners, but all of those trees that are already the responsibility of private property owners? many of them do not want the responsibility to maintain, do not necessarily have the knowledge about how to maintain those trees. it would be our dollar, and i think we have also talked about a study -- it would be our goal, and we have talked about a study to look at our urban forest. if it is a priority for us, we really should be looking to see how, as a city, we can maintain this urban forest and all of the street trees so we do not have the inequity of having some people taking care of their trees and others not having to. it'll take an investment.

it may take a new revenue stream or read prioritization of the city budget priorities. but to do that, we really -- we need to get it together. supervisor kim: thank you. to be more specific, this is a grant just to replace existing trees, not for new additional tories. >> this is essentially replacing trees that have died. they are in d -- empty tree basins. something has happened to them. they have been hit by a car. there have been vandalized. they got a disease. something has happened. this is to make sure we do not have empty tree basins. supervisor kim: i want to make sure that we have a process for new trees, because we are relinquishing many of the maintenance of trees. i want residence to know if we are putting up new trees, they

might be responsible for them. >> we will be notifying property owners who eventually will become responsible for that tree. if we're planting them, we are taking responsibility for establishing the tree, for making sure that it is healthy. as it grows, that we are watering of those trees. and then after a number of years, the private property owners, we're planning on it relinquishing these trees, and they are responsible for maintaining the. it is our intention for letting people know that it will eventually become the responsibility. i want to say that everything about trees -- your property value is greatly enhanced if you have a street tree. the livability of your block is enhanced. there is a benefit for having a

street tree. having an empty tree basin is a symptom of urban blight. that is worse than planting a tree, establishing it, and eventually asking the private property owner to take care of it. supervisor kim: i appreciate your comments. i am thinking about the future and residents coming to us for money. i appreciate your comments on this issue. i want to talk again about the equity issue. i think it is important that if we do not have strong organizational capacity in certain neighborhoods and we are not seen applications submitted by the, i think it is important that departments and the ta then identify locations in the projects themselves. this is something that occurred with district 6 in the previous park bond. we got very little of the money in the district. the response was that no one in

the district applied. i think that sometimes residents do not have the technical capacity to come up with which open space and which playgrounds are failing and what projects they can put together. sometimes i have to provide that assistance, if -- especially if we see an inequity. thank you. supervisor farrell: i would like to ask a follow-up in question. regarding these trees, when we did it in front of our house with the friends of the urban forest, it took a while. you talk about relinquishing that a certain point. maybe it is a gray area. well you hand it over when there is active -- will you be handing it over when there is active work being done being donetree? i wonder what the time frame will be. >> i will have our urban forester respond to that. that is a technical issue.

i think i know the answer, but she definitely knows. >> get afternoon. department of public works. generally, a tree requires three to five years of water to become established. at that point, it basically can survive on the seasonal rains. we choose trees that can survive on in the rain after the initial establishment time. before the trees are transferred to the property owner, we inspected them. we would do that initial care, that three to five-year time span. supervisor farrell: thank you. supervisor avalos: ok, we can open this up for public comment. >> what i have seen here with the presenters is that they have no idea whatsoever about the demographics of san francisco. and while some of you

supervisors arbitrarily are asking some questions, you really need to encourage young people to ride, and we have facilities, for example, in district 11 in the district 9 and maybe part of it in a district tend like mclaren park, allow young people to ride. but if you have the mentality that you're looking at only one segment of the population, it does not help. that is what i am seeing. if you look at the san francisco county transportation authority, there is no real representation from, say, the black community or really the asian community that lives here. we have like 10,000 businesses in district 10. they pay a lot of taxes. what do we get?

nothing. the sewer system in our area, something else in our area. what do we get? nothing. as long as they get $1 from the federal government or they get some money from the state government, they have to help. but you have all these the mormons here, and a lot of them are looking at -- you have all of these departments here, and a lot of them are looking at fte's. they're not looking so much as to the trees or to the infrastructure or to giving opportunities to our young people to bicycle, to address obesity, to help quality of life issues. no. the focus on fte's and payroll. no ability to look outside the box. [bell rings] supervisor avalos: anyone else who would like to comment? the seeing none, will close public comment. thank you for your presentation. i am pretty excited about the

bike share program. we just approved a contract for that. there's something happening in my district -- actually on the border between district 11 and district 10. actually, it is in supervisor cohen's district of a discussion about doing a bike skills program on the muni turnaround. there is actually an effort to actually reach out -- we have to do more, but reach out to more folks in the area to be part of that program. also the excelsior. you can teach about cycling and create better cycling in that area of the city that can link up to the transit as well. there is an organization doing advocacy around that called the san francisco urban riders.

i think that would be a good place to put some infrastructure in on cycling in the southern part of san francisco. >> thank you. we will look into it. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. this is an information item. we can go to our next item, which i think is general public comment. >> item number 10, introduction of new items. this is an information item. supervisor avalos: colleagues? seeing none. open it up for public comment. >> you know, supervisors, during your vote session, some of us who are tested and follow whatever you do -- who are astute cover public comment. now you do not see many people coming for public comment during the voting sessions because it is going nowhere. i am is dating to you all that occasionally i come here so

that -- i am stating to you that i occasionally come here so that i can write something about you do. cities that -- dizzies sad to say, year after year, despicable. -- it is sad to say. they talk a good talk, but they do not walk the walk. as you saw today, when the representatives are giving information that the last moment -- i was here. i did not get part of the presentation, because -- god only knows what. so we can not drafted in our blogs, because we can get it later online and address it. but if you have three or four members of the public here, give them the presentation to give them the information. because you keep making blunders and wasting our money. always remember, it is because of us, the constituents, that you all get your salaries. and always remember, public comment is meant to shed light.

[bell rings] shed light, sunshine. if you do not shed light, then the more people that really do not have morals and ethics, they do things behind closed doors. they do not represent us. people are suffering. people are really suffering. there will be a revolution. people are suffering. you do not seem to care. you do not seem to care. [bell rings] thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. seeing none, we will close public comment. next item. >> item 11, public comment. general public comment. supervisor avalos: ok, seeing no one, four, we were close. >> item 12, adjournment. supervisor avalos: we are adjourned.

thank you very much. >> 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.