out a card. [reading names] we are trying to get the microphones. >> i have been involved in various committees for more than 20 years. i am delighted to be here today. i want to give you a little background to help you make your decision. in 2005, the authority was operating independent of the city government and they could only identify enough money to build a bus station. the former supervisor became very upset to and felt that if he was involved, more money could be identified to build a tunnel to bring the train

downtown. >> if the speakers could line up on the right side of the room instead of the center aisle, that would be helpful. two minutes maximum on the right side of the room. >> they created a task force headed by the former planning director to look at various options. this resulted strategies. one of which was a gamble, which we won, to get the $400 million in stimulus money to build the bus station. the other was the matter before you. the principal purpose was to generate hundreds of millions of dollars that could be invested in bringing.i/hárain downtown. this project before you was not driven by developer interest or

commercial interest. 3ñn primarily by te desire to bring the train downtown. there is the potential of a very significant amount of money that san francisco can put on the table to make that happen. as you know, in the last few weeks, some good developments occurred relating to high-speed rail and the peninsula. there are forces out there that wish to leave the station. i think therek;ms is added reasn today for you to move forward and approve all this to make sure that people know that san francisco is serious about bringing the train downtown. i urge you to approve all these ordinance says. supervisor mar: i am going to call other names.

>> hello. i am a resident of district 3. i am president of the marine firemen's union. our headquarters property is located within the transit ;$center district plan area. on behalf of the membership of the marine firemen's union i am here to voiced general support for the transit center district plan and the related ordinances on today's agenda. specificallyf=7y we support the upperdá resolve our property -- rezone our property. we are opposed to any category designation of our property under article 11 of the planning code. we're also opposed the nomination of our headquarters buildings listing as a city landmark.

we stated our opposition to the historic preservation commission and the planning department and is matched with timothy on these matters. ,c,5÷as a result, reduction in proposed category designation of our property is a step in the right direction. however, it is our desire to avoid any category designation under article 11. to review, we support the transit center district plan. we're opposed to the application of article 10 and 11 listing for designation to our property. we hope you take that under consideration. supervisor mar: there is a question. supervisor wiener: i understand the objection is article 10 designation. excuse me, article 11. when you refer to article 10, this is proposed as an

individual landmark as opposed to a conservation district? >> yes. 240 second-y supervisor wiener: you are representing the owner? can i ask planning to respond to that? in terms of forming districts, it is -- there will always be disputes among the district. you're never going to have unanimity on a -- but when it comes to an individual landmarked building, that raises a different issues. my question is, it seems this is a property owner that is objecting to an individual landmark designation.

cuts my understanding is that legislation does not include the article 10 designation. the of landmark designation. staff has talked to the property owners, but there will be a separate piece of legislation. supervisor wiener: when that will happen? >> i do not know when that time -- i do not have that time line in front of me. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco chamber of commerce. i'm also before you today as the chair of your citizens advisory committee for the transit center and also co-chair of the chamber transit center committee that is working for many years on this project and it looks favorable today that the board will do we pass on this recommendation on these four are items. we strongly support it.

we believe the importance of all of these zoning changes and planned changes for the development of a transit friendly smart growth district with a typesetter appropriate and which uses that are appropriate -- with heights that are appropriate and would use is that are appropriate. we think the planning department for three or four years of great work to get this before you today. we urge your adoption measures. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon, land use. ♪6s]i nothing is going to touchu in these transit years go with the shadow in the city years

stick with your city for a thousandbím&ó go with the shadow analysis in the these city years there are some great plant known to man do the best you can all around the city town i tried to keep my city gladness in making better, give it a try and making a better all-around

downtown were the city transit isssú7 brt i know transit is waiting for you about ♪ [applause] >> that is always a hard act to follow. i was part of an effort in 1998 to put prop. 8 on the ballot. -- prop h on the ballots. we have a problem with the plan as it is. as was mentioned to you, part of this is going to be governed by

the planning code. in another section, a very important section, is part of this redevelopment plan area, which has other controls. they allow a lot more parking in this very congested area. they allow 300% more residential parking in residential projects and 100% more. )jt that it be brought in line. we need to do everything we can to make sure we do not clogged these streets. no one disagrees. the problem is that it never gets done. to has the authority to do it? when we were here in january, we had some concerns. we were assured that the board

of supervisors has full legislative authority. however this gets done, whether you need to take that authority back, whether the oversight board needs to do this, however it needs to get done, we feel like the parking controls in this zoning area need to get brought into line with the zoning controls in the rest of the district to make this plan as successful as it could possibly be. we look forward to trying to do that and create a sustainable 21st century transit oriented development on this side. supervisor cohen: just to a knowledge of the comment, -- acknowledge the comment, we never assured you that the board would have all land-use authority. i wanted to make that a matter of public record.

supervisor mar: thank you. ] deploy -- at the time when hines won the bidding rights, times were good. then the recession came and the outlook was bleak. since that time, the building has shrunk down considerably, only 60 floors from 800 force. taking away the iconic structure -- only 60 floors up from eight floors. -- 80 floors. san francisco has a golden opportunity to incorporate the tower back to its original height and vision. by doing so, you'll be putting a lot of people to work, fully

occupying eight floors and constructor markers building higher, which will increase revenue in the tower. fuh more businesses to san francisco. more money in the city coffers. one missing aspect to this tower is an observation deck at the top, which people could enjoy the breathtaking vistas֖o the bay area. what would you say to president obama or any other visiting dignitaries if they asked you if they could go to the top of the tower and view the beautiful scenery and you tell them the tallest iconic tower west of the mississippi does not have any room for an observation deck? what would they say? money should not be an issue to hamper this tower from being the best that it was envisioned for san francisco from the beginning of this process? kvu0uwe have the time to correcy designed this tower to make it work, to be the best in the world for san francisco.

it takes visionary planners to make instead of conservative minded planners that do not really care. this is more than an iconic tauber for san francisco. it is a symbol of pride and progress for san francisco. supervisor mar:e mr. whitaker? w i am a resident of the rincn hill neighborhood. i hope that you approve this transit center district plan. i want to thank the planning department and the redevelopment agency. doing great job of involving existing neighbors. there is a blacksmith on fulton street, i think he has been working there for 40 or 50 years. pleases2nrh do pass it.

i moved to the area to be able to walk and use transit to get around and get to work. i think that will be made even better with a plan. neighborhood operates -- it is my hope with the plan for the transit center district that that will activate the area in the evenings, on the weekdays, and on a weak case -- weekends. traffic congestion is the main challenge that we facek#mhu rig$ é

i want to reemphasize, there is a desperate need for public park space. there are 300 kids to live in the towers. there are about 600 kids to stay in the existing day care is in the neighborhood. please pass this. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am with patrick and company. i have two concerns i want to point out. we have saidb]ra today, if you k at the charge, there will be $400 million coming to our district. it is a property tax. it will double our property tax. if we are deployed a $200 million building in there, that

will -- $50 million, it it could put us at 8 competitive disadvantage as we go to market the office space. it is great to spend the money, but that is where the money is going to come from. the exit at the southwestern corner is not due to be built until phase two. i think that is a terrible mistake. we need people to get up to the park and use the park and make it an interesting place to be. without that facility, or any encouragement for the adjacent property owners or other buildings, we will not have good attendance and the park and that will be a disaster. those are two issues. the district is very expensive. getting people to use the park and make a dynamic impact. i do support what is going on and i think this is a great project and i followed it for a

long time. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. we have been an advocate of the transit center distance plan from the very urge you to support the amendment to 40 today. thisr5? plan really represents e city's most important transit infrastructure that we have seen in decades. both at the state and regional levels. in order to meet the regional growth projections and policy objectives, san francisco it needs more transit oriented job growth and this helps to meet those needs. the district plan is critical to the future of san francisco and the region. san francisco downtown is a major job center with over 250,000 jobs. qx region, a 50% of the workers in

san francisco use sustainable transportation to get to the downtown. we believe the open space elements in the affordable housing component of the plan are incredible and we feel that staff and all of the work that has gone into this plan represents really important values regarding these issues. we also recognize that the project areas are modest relative to the critical importance in value that this project provides for san francisco in the region. lastly, we believe that financial contribution that the new development will provide for the downtown extension is critical. other public infrastructure is a critical part of this plan and it is the purposei existence. the $500 million is essential to realizing the dtx and other open space improvements.

this plan gets us as close to paying for itself as we have ever seen in san francisco. we really encourage you to support the amendment before you today. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i want to thank supervisors cannkim and olague. this is something that is critical to our committee and we will be clipping -- keeping a close eye on that. in hijacked -- and i traffic areas, we separate the pedestrian signals from the left turns because we know that most interest take place when carssii are turning left and pedestrians are walking at the thank you. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon.

my family has had our business in this district since 1948. i have been involved in the planning district for the last several years. this has had an extraordinary planning process from a great group of people. a lot of private projects have been on hold since 2006. when you allow them to go forward, and will provide new open space, affordable housing on side, a lot of things that are less clear. i urge you to move this without further delay. supervisor mar: thank you. >> we have been supportive of the terminal project from its

very inception. at all levels. from what i am hearing, it may be needed to reiterate that support here. supervisor mar: it looks like this is the last speaker. >> i am against it because heavy traffic, what is going to happen? all of the buses -- instead of doing this, fix the buses. this is a waste of money. this is our future. what about the next future of the children? child care, we do not needed anymore. children are children. enough is enough. the money should go to affordable housing, thank you. supervisor mar: i see no other speakers. we're going to close public

comment. we have a comment from supervisor kim. i do wante appreciative of the years of work that went into this district plan, long before i was on the board of supervisors. )whacking is planned is incrediy < generate -- i think this plan is incredibly important. xi would ask my colleagues for your support today at land use and i want to recognize all the members of the public who came out to support this plan. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor kim.

colleagues,k> before us. can we approve them up with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you, everyone. could you please call item 5317? >> items 5-17 our legislative package related to the cpmc including ordinances and resolution commending the planning codes, zoning map, general plan, changing the official sidewalk with, and improving a straight encroachment, planned transfer agreement and development agreement. >> colleagues, this is the fourth and final hearing land use committee hearing on the cpmc project. i wanted toqñqáthank the project sponsor and all the community folks and others who have come

ouwu5háhe past three hearings on this item at committee. there has been a lot of passion and inside and we have learned a lot to the process. i want to say that we are learning about what kind of help care system we want in san francisco and also how a project of this -- health care system we want in it san francisco. how a project impacts of vulnerable communities in the area. we are scheduled to discuss housing, traffic, and neighborhood impacts. .vduring the past two weçoí focused on healthq we have reached some of its of an impasse on the future of st. luke's hospital. i think it is important to emphasize there are other issues we hold very strong concerns about. we have not received an adequate response from the project

sponsor for more transparency on the financial information from them:kn7 sponsor and the revised numbers on the improved workforce hiring. i know that was asked at the first hearing. and when we heard that -- only 40 jobs per your. we are still waiting for more information. there has been no indication that the project sponsor is changing their approach to negotiations, especially transparency and dialogue with community stakeholders. today's hearing covers a number of topics. we will see substantial differences between different community requests and what is being offered by -- in the development agreements. i hope we hear informaíh frm the city staff and perhaps the project sponsor that is more reliable than what has come before us.

i am doing my best to be optimistic and remain hopeful that we are continuing to have a good negotiation in good faith with the project sponsor and the city to reach a project that is a true win-win for our neighborhoods and jobs as well. i would like to ask if there are any other opening comments from my colleagues. i would like to say that we have a number of city departments speakers. economic and workforce development. and then the mayor's office of housing. >> thank you, supervisors. our topics for this hearing our housing portions ofita9 the development agreement and the portions concerning transportation@nd+u. with your permission, we will begin on the housing. when he is done, we will shift over to planning and mta staff on the transportation. if you want to take housing questions right after the

housing presentation or wait until we're all done, we can do it either way. supervisor mar: thank you. mr. lee? >> thank you very much. [inaudible] good afternoon. [inaudible] supervisor mar: 10 against the microphone on? the date academy gets the microphone on it? >> -- can we get the microphone on?

>> we entered into the negotiations on the development agreement with some key principles. one was that we ensure that the city received full value for any residential units lost within we ensured an appropriate contribution by cpmc towards the affordable housing. we respected the policy intent of the van ness special use district. in terms of the replacement housing obligations, as proposed, there will be the demolition of both rent- controlled units that will be displaced by both the adjacent buildings to the main cpmc campus. cpmc is proposing to provide