funds from hud money, there is no guidelines of section 3 of hud guidelines. and dealing with the local hiring, you know, this city, as large as it is, with all of the city departments that it has, it has no -- not one state certified or federal certified compliance officer to make sure that the laws are followed. we don't have that here. and i don't know why it is so hard the fact that this city receives so many funds.

and dealing with local hiring, i'm glad to see that that is in because of the fact you have a mandate here. and that mandate also deals with prevailing wages. you don't hear the full truth about what is going on and what should happen in this city. so i hope that my friend here, he brings up some better points, but i want to make sure that the amendment is definitely needed when you all meet tomorrow if this is on your tomorrow's agenda. thank you. he thank you, mrs. jackson, next speaker, mrs. lansburg. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is alex lansburg and i am here as representative of carpenters 22 and it was i that brought this to people's attention in last hour and granted it's unfortunate that it happened at such a late date. it nevertheless i felt it was important to raise this issue. i think one of the points that i want to make is that recognizing that that we have been talk talking about in terms of prevailing wages and

whether or not this amendment is inserted into this specific legislation, in some ways that is ancillary and what it is is part of a broader point that this land transaction, the affordable housing components are really all part of a package deal of making the 55 laguna project move forward. as supervisor olague and chris orazo speaking on behalf of supervisor olague, this is a package deal and there is no way this deal would have been approved if it was just 330 private units at the uc site. i think everybody knows that and it's important to recognize that the city's financial contribution is integral to making this project happen and that is what we're asking the supervisors to recognize. it's really reiterating something that i think everybody already knows and moving toward in a way to make sure that the workers who build this at the end, that we don't have a situation where the men and women building 110 units on believe of mercy housing are paid a fair and reasonable

wages while the workers build 330 units for private market development are basically paid at whatever the market can bear and usually in the development community, that ends up being as little as possible. so to the extent that you guys -- that this committee can make an amendment to this resolution, recognizing this one thing. that this is a package deal. i think that is the really the critical thing. if you can't do it today, if you could do it as the full board through your amendments we would greatly appreciate that. this is the one bit that we're asking the committee and ultimately the entire board of supervisors to recognized through its actions. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, mr. decosta.

>> supervisors, if you review this agenda item, you will see that that this property at 1 time was looked upon by federal government to be used. and this has been mentioned and then it was -- for a long time nobody knew really to whom this property belonged. so now we have uc, the regents, who are not very favorable in california, especially in san francisco. but they are very powerful. the regents are very powerful, and they are very corrupt. and most people will not say this because they don't have the ability to run a rap sheet on this corrupt regents, but i do. so now we have somebody saying that they want to build so many units for the lgbt community, and by throwing that

curveball, they want us to be very compassionate and say let's go ahead with this about 400-unit building. well, if the regents want to show some good faith, they can build many of these units at mission bay. but having said that, you see the carpenters union and later on there will be some others telling you that you know such things are fast-tracked and in fast-tracking it, we don't have a real environmental impact report. we don't have a very clear disposition and development

agreement, but you will see just like that tomorrow at the full board everybody will approve it. we would love to sell san francisco and i represent the first people. and let me tell you supervisors this land was stolen from the first people and after stealing this land, this land has been abused. and now when we have land like this, we need the people, the people of san francisco, wet people to know the real deliberations so that everybody has justice and there is fair play. we had an incident not long ago in these chambers, where we had to adjudicate one of you former supervisors and our shev. we the people run such things by we the people. so that we know if the local hire ordinance, other ordinances are fully vetted and adjudicated and inserted in such deliberations. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker. mr. paulson. >> thank you.

good afternoon land use. land use in the sky keep on turning. i do not that we're going to be learning tomorrow. land use in the sky keep on turning. i know you are going to be standing taller waller. wheels in the sky keep on turning and i know that we're going to be buying and we're going to be learning tomorrow. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so supervisor wiener? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you to everyone who came out today. i believe everyone agrees that

this is a very important resolution to move forward and to create this new public space for the community. and it's a very positive thing. i do want to just address the issue that was raised about this being one project. i agree that it's one project. it seems like there is, from what i'm hearing from my colleagues, without speaking for my colleagues it seems like there is probably agreement on that

>> thank you, supervisor cohen? >> yes, i will second that motion, but i wanted to say in my mind as well i see this as one project, not to be divvied up. and supervisor wiener, i want to make sure if i heard you correctly. did you say that you

thank you for that clarification. >> i would call this a transit-oriented development that has quite a few units of senior housing and also other types of community center and retail and office space and a community garden and it's just a tremendous benefit to the community. i also wanted to appreciate my colleagues' comments about treating it as one complete project as well and i they it's a tremendous benefit to the community. so i'm very supportive. s we have a motion on the table and can we approve without objection, colleagues? thank you. [ gavel ] >> miss asbury, could you call

i. no. 2. >> i'm item no. 2 resolution approving construction of surface and subsurface structures in union square park for the central subway project. >> thank you and we have a number of speakers that will be coming up in a minute, but to present from this is the mta. >> good afternoon, chairman mar, supervisors. my name is john, the central subway project denominator and i have a brief presentation to walk you through the proposed station design. these are the current renders of the northern entrance of the union square market street station and to paraphrase mark bueller president of the recreation and park commission his statements is that "this is a great example of how the approval process has significantly inproved the station design." before i go

into actual renderings of the station i would brief lick like to talk broke the. central subway is a 1.7 mile extension of the existing 5.4 miles of the t line that went into service in april of 2007. the combined central subway and t line will cut trip times in half to 68% of the population. this is on the geary side of geary and stockton. this is a view of the geary side of the square as it exists

today, and i would like for to you focus your eye on the middle right of the photographs, as the next slide will show you the overlay of the station itself. it actually restores all, but

250 square feet to public use. the station essentially is blended into the park, as you have seen from the prior slides, the before-and-after shots and all, but 250 square feet of park property will be restored. >> can you barely tell that there is a kind of a transit station there. it fits so nicely into the landscape. >> exactly. that is what mark bueller's comment was it's a great example of great design applied to a great park. and this is a view of the walk able surface, looking on the existing union square and looking towards geary.

and this is essentially the same vantage point, but towards stockton. it will become a podium for users of the park to walk on to the walkable roof and actually observe the intersection. and this is the view of the construction from stockton looking west and this design has been in the process since early 2006 with the approval of the environmental process. it also has the benefit of receiving approvals from the union square business

improvement district, the recreation and park commission, the san francisco arts commission,cludes my presentation. >> thank you. if there are no comments, colleagues, let's open this up for public comment. i know i have a number of speaker cards that i will be reading. >> i'm michael barrett and i was representing save muni against. >> mr. barrett, i will call public comment in a moment. >> i thought you were with doing that.

>> there are a number of cards that people have filled out already. and i will call michael barrett from save muni, so yes, i do is your card here and also tom lipe from save muni and if there is anyone he is who would

like to speak, please come forward. mr. barrett. so i don't know

one thing nobody >> good afternoon supervisors he represent savemuni.com and howard wong. i submitted a letter by email

and will submit several copies today in hard copy so have you that. attached to that is the lawsuit that i recently filed on behalf of savemuni zom and under the city charter, approval of any structures that are for a non-recreational purpose, such as this subway station must be by the san francisco electorate, before the structures can be built. for some reason that fact has been ignored and all of the proceedings leading up to today. so i want to spend a couple of minutes on that legal issue. so the charter on park property be built or maintained or used for non-recreational uses unless approved by a vote of electors." that is about as plain as you get in the law. this structure is not a recreational structure.

it's a transportation structure. calling it a recreational structure would be like calling a bicycle shop that sells bicycle a recreational structure. >> mr. chairman? >> supervisor wiener? >> i have a couple of questions for you about that. >> sure. >> because if i'm reading your interpretation of the use any structure on parkland for non-recreational purposes. so we have parks in the cities that are roads that go through them, for example, golden gate park, mcclaren park and others that are definitely not recreational. they may provide access to recreation, but golden gate park there are roads that are simply to get you from the north side of the park to the south side of the park.

we recently built bike lanes in golden gate park. although biking in one form could be recreational. a lot of people are biking to commute these days. we might want to put a cab stand at the edge of the park, and maybe put a bus stop at the each other of edge of the mark park. we have food concessions in these parks and, in fact, there is a new food concession that is being built. do those require a vote of the people and if not, how is it different than this, particularly that this station will provide direct access to a park for people who are coming

off of muni? >> i haven't analyzed all of those other factual situations that you have raised and i analyzed this one as it relates to this particular project. so i'm not going to try in next 3 minutes to analyze all of the different kinds of projects that you raised. but what i will say is that your reference to access suggests that you are taking the position, which i assume the mta is also relying on, that this charter provision is no different that the previous charter provision that related to is this same topic and that snot the case. the provision is different. the previous provision was interpreted by variety courts of appeal in giving the city latitude in order to use portions of parks for non-recreational structures that somehow facilitated the use of the recreational activities at the park. that is obsolete in a couple of

critical ways. one way is that the previous provision did not require a vote of the electorate. it was a flat prohibition on using park property for non-recreational purposes. this is simpaly procedural requirement that you go to the electors to get permission to build a non-gaap recreational structure. >> not just to build, but to maintain or to use and i'm sorry, i'm a little confused that before you made this argument wouldn't have considered what the ramifications are in terms of other uses and things that are maintained in parks that are not themselves directly recreational. because of course, any legal argument you need to know what the ramifications are to make that argument as opposed to saying that we're going make it here, but yeah, maybe you can no longer use roads or have a muni stop or have a food concession or put any more bike lanes in the park because that is not technically recreational and so you have to put that to

a vote of the people. thank you. >> the obvious ramification at a legal level if those other facilities that you are referring to are, in fact, illegal under the charter, then you would have a choice of either putting them to the vote of electorate, or amending the charter. so there are procedures to deal with those if it turns out that they are illegal. >> so we'll have to go back to the vote and ask if it's legal to have jfk drive go through golden gate park? >> like i said, i haven't looked at jfk drive. the last time i was there on a sunday there were a lot of people roller blading on jfk drive and presumably that is a recreational structure. >> i don't think people will use the elevators for recreation, i hope not. anyway another reason that the previous charter provision interpretation given by the

courts of appeals does not apply here is that it's basic rule of law when a legislative body, whether this body or the electorate, makes a law, they are presumed to be aware of the previous law that relates to the same topic and if that they change that law, that they are doing so for a purpose, that has a change in the legal effect. here the law was changed. and it would be to assume that the electorate had no intention whatsoever to make that change and to assume that the interpretation of the previous section still applies. so it would be violating both that commonsense and that very time-honored rule of law. my letter that i'm delivering also deals with some ceqa issues. because of the small size of this park, even very small changes can be significant. here the changes are significant and require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report under ceqa before the board approves the proposal that is

before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anybody else who would like to speak, please line up because we're going to close public comment pled guilty decosta. >> chair, i put in my card. there are two phases to this project. there is phase 1 and phase 2. phase 1 is the 3rd street light rail, which begins at 4th and king. and ends in the middle of nowhere visitation valley. now if you do the estimate of phase 1, it costs