speak -- oh, we have christa from supervisor olague's office. >> good afternoon, i'm i'm supervisor olague's office and unfortunately the supervisor is not here to speak and i will read some comments. colleagues it has come to my attention whether the entire 440 mixed unit project at 55 laguna street is subject to prevailing wages or whether the requirement apries solely to the portions financed by other public funds. it's my belief that the entire project is subject to prevailing wages. the planning commission initially approved the 55 laguna projects a mixed-use project. with retail and community space in 200. after extensive community involvement and debate -- the

board of supervisors substancely approved legislation to create the special use district and the san francisco superior court upheld that. since then we have had discussions with both members from the carpeters union, as well as wood partners -- and we understand that they are going to be discussing this issue in more detail on thursday, but i wanted to just state for the record the supervisor' experience with this project and how she saw this was integrated and had you she really felt that the union jobs should be offered for both sides of it. it was never her understanding it would only be union on one side of it and not the whole project itself. >> thank you and please thank

supervisor olague. supervisor wiener or supervisor cohen. >> chris i have a couple of questions as a matter of clarification. so today your role is just to read into the record the supervisor's comments. are there any suggestive course of action or anything that she wants us to do? >> i think at the time there was maybe discussions about an amendment to make sure this was codified in there. i'm not certain about the timing of this. this kind of came to our attention -- we have been a little preoccupied so i wasn't able to talk to her about the next course of action, but we know that they are in discussions and we hope that that is going to be something that is going to resolve some concerns or some questions, hopefully, by the end of the week. >> when you say "they are in discussions," who exactly do you mean (the developers, as well as the unions that we have been in discussion with, particularly the carpenters union. >> thank you for bringing her comments to the board. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> so i would like, through the chair, ask supervisor wiener if he wanted to have an opportunity to talk about the issue -- the comments that supervisor olague brought up? >> sure. and actually, this is the first time that i ever heard anything from supervisor olague or her office about this particular issue and, in fact, i just checked my staff and my office has received no contact whatsoever from supervisor olague's office about this. in addition we did receive contact that i think about 12:59 p.m. today about a minute before land use started about the possibility of an

amendment, and working with the project sponsor and with partners and with mercy housing and open house to talk about ways in which we can have union labor and prevailing wage with respect to this project. my personal opinion is that having good prevailing wage and having union labor for the entire project is a good thing and it's something that we should do. and that is in terms of the many months i have been working on this project that. is what we have been talking about and where we're going. >> mr. chair, i want to go on record and echo the comments that supervisor wiener spoke i want to go on record to say

that workers receive a prevailing wage. thank you. >> thank you, and i really appreciate my colleagues' comments. i think looking at the project as a whole, to make sure that there is the strongest possible prevailing wage and union jobs is really critical and i know the carpenters union addressed that as we open up public comment. now let's open this up for public comment. maximum 3 minutes per person and at 30 seconds to go there is a light ring or ding that will go off and if people could do their best to stay within the 3 minutes. the first speaker is allen meekum from the university of california and if anybody else would like to speak, please line up. >> supervisors, good afternoon. my name is allen meachum

authentic i wanted to assure you that we're in full agreement with the contents of the agreement that you have before you, including recordation of the restricts easement simultaneously with the passage of title and i'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. supervisor wiener? >> if i could just say, thank you, because i have been -- well, before i was in office i have been following this project and interested in it, given the importance for the lgbt community and for as along as i can remember there was a dispute between the city and uc about who just owned this and i always wondered why we can't just resolve this and i'm thrilled that the city and uc have been able to resolve it in a really commonsense way. thank you. >> and thank you the city. >> thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak?

>> miss jackson? >> thank you, espinola jackson bayview hunters point and i would like to say in listening one of the concerns that have i with this city and i have mentioned it many a times, especially when you talk about housing and when there are 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