this project moving forward, regardless of immigration status. i'm happy because many of the families that now are renting spaces within our communities that are uninhabitable will have an opportunity to have a good home. and we hope that we can move forward with this quickly so that in the next year we could start building affordable homes. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. anyone else care to address the board on this? okay, seeing none, i know

director ramos and director [speaker not understood] have been involved in this. would you like to -- >> certainly. >> sorry, is there somebody else? i'm sorry, go ahead. >> pardon me. i just want to express my sincere gratitude to charlie and those engaged in working at this so hard and so long. i'm really excited to get this opportunity to make this happen. i personally have been engaged in my day job with fighting for more affordable housing in our city. i am one of the families that, although my father worked here, we couldn't afford to live here. even today i can barely make ends meet to get my family housed. there are three of us living in a studio apartment. so, i know how difficult it is to find affordable housing. and really excited about this opportunity and looking forward to a partnership with the community and the mayor's office of housing and making this work. so, thank you to all of you and everyone that's worked on this. >> sounds like a motion to me. >> indeed it is.

>> [speaker not understood]. >> yes, i shouldn't take anything for being involved. i'm very new to this. i checked out the station and it is obviously in need of improvement, [speaker not understood] moving forward with this. >> sounds like a second to me. >> it is. >> just bring up the fact this is such an important connection for city college students to make that area more walkable and the directors might remember we had an e-mail from the city college student a few weeks ago who was complaining about something that probably can help resolve that. his problem was parking at home when he had parked at city college and driving home and getting parking tickets in his neighborhood. i looked at the map and i thought, you know, if we did have more friendly walkable, bikable transit friendly solutions for him, maybe he would be able to save money by not having to own a car. so, it was really exciting to see stuff like this go forward because we address problems that are kind of tangential to this actual space and the solutionses.

so, i'm really happy we're moving forward with this. thank you all very much for your hard work on this. >> what was that, we have a motion and second. i want to add my thanks to the community leadership here. i know it's been enormous, going on for a long time. all kinds of folks have been involved. we really appreciate the input. the project has worked better because much your involvement. with that all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> posed no? [speaker not understood]. thank you, great job. >> thank you. >> item 12, authorizing the director to implement route, stop, and day of the week changes on a twenty-four month pilot basis to the 76 marin headlands bus route, and rename the existing line the 76x marin headlands express and providing an update on other transit effectiveness project plans. mr. chairman, before we move on, would you like to take up the motorcycle parking issue? >> oh, yes. sorry. we received a note here after the item on the motorcycle i think it was -- was it 10.7? >> 10.2b. >> that mr. yee misspoke. there are four spaces. actually turns out there are seven spaces for motorcycles. on the basis of that, would members like to reconsider

their vote or what is the pleasure of the board? [speaker not understood]. >> no, not for me. >> director, you made the motion on this because of the public hearing. >> yes, i think the public hearing, the fact the work was going on to change the unused driveways so it could use curb space. i appreciate the member of the public coming forward and calling this to our attention, but i feel like the process has gone through correctly. >> seeing no one wants to revisit the vote or anything, that will stand. >> thank you, mr. chairman. item 12, authorizing the director to implement route, stop, and day of the week changes on a twenty-four month pilot basis to the 76 marin headlands bus route, and rename the existing line the 76x marin headlands express and providing an update on other transit effectiveness project plans. >> [inaudible]. members have questions or

comments at this point? >> i think julie is setting up. >> i thought so. >> are you ready for the presentation? >> technical issues. >> yes. i was just going to load it onto the powerpoint. i apologize it wasn't loaded in advance. >> [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, would you like to take public comment? you do have public comment on this matter. all right. keith bollenger followed by mary liz harris, and tony ann. >> good afternoon, mr. bollenger. good afternoon, my name is keith. i'm a native san franciscan. i'm here in capacity as john doe citizen. i'd like to say i'm usually a fierce critic of muni, but along with the njuda express and this proposed expansion of the 76, more power to you. i really like the fact this may be improving that.

let me relate there is a hostile on the marin head lands. i happen to be a lifetime member. golden gate transit doesn't go out there during the week. i'm of modest means. i do not own a motor vehicle. so i've got no means of getting out there. i asked the people who workout there, how do you do? we take a bus to the end of the tunnel and hitch hike. no thank you. so, it blows me away the golden gate transit neglects this transit area within their own territory, their own county. i find it super ironic that muni and the sfmta isn't remedying their lack of foresight. so, i wholly support any efforts to expand service. thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> mary liz harris, tony ann, susan casey. >> thank you, am i harris. tell owe, mr. chairman and the board of directors. i'm a citizen here in san francisco representing myself * . i have a great love for the marin head lands and my husband and i have pep a little bit of

time there. we would spend a whole lot more if it was expanded to the saturday, which is the thing you are talking about * spent. we have always had to be sunday at church. i'm with the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints and have a lot of things i have to do on sundays. so, i could not get out to the head lands. there is so much there to learn about the natural history of this area and we went to the marin head lands, i should say the marin mammal center recently. we have a visitor coming from australia that wants to get over there. if you have the bus on saturday, that will be wonderful. and i will appreciate if you have more publicity regarding it because a lot of people don't know that exists. and if we could see like the places where you're going to have the bus stop and the whole schedule, that would be helpful also. and i thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> tony ann, followed by susan casey, and then bridget boy lan. is mr. ahn here?

no, susan casey. followed by bridget boy lan. >> good afternoon, ms. casey. good afternoon. i'm also very excited about having the 76 expanded to saturday. i mainly wanted more information about why we wanted to eliminate stops, what the reasoning was behind that. >> thanks much. next speaker, please. >> last speaker who submitted a card, bridget boy lan. is ms. boy lan here? not. >> thank you very much. members of the board, do you want to do a presentation? we have seen it. speak for myself. >> i'm julie kirsch bum, operations planning manager. i prepared a tp update and presentation on this. if you prefer i could deliver it at the january workshop. it's really up to you. >> pleasure of the board?

>> [inaudible]. >> so moved. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i guess you can talk about it. >> i have just a question. i don't need the whole presentation. >> director [speaker not understood]. >> apropos to the whole tpe process, i think i gathered this. but it's expanded service on a saturday for this line. and since the whole tep and we've talked about right sizing and priorities and all this, is there a coordinated offset that will sort of make this cost neutral or something like that? or is this just straighten crease in service? -- straight increase in service? >> the answer is twofold. the saturday service is being funded by a grant from the park service * . it is about a 14 to 18-month grant. and then we will have to make a decision as an agency and you'll have to make a decision as a board as to whether or not

the ridership, additional ridership justifies the continuation. the route restructuring, which is eliminating a segment south of market and doing the stop reductions are intended to address the reliability concerns in a cost-neutral way. so, if we did not make those changes, our only other option would be to add a bus, which would be about a 50% cost increase to this route because we are currently in an unsustainable situation where we're hoping the route can cycle in two hours and it's taking more like 2-1/2. >> so, i guess -- thank you for taking my question. reframing it better, i appreciate that. that's my concern, is that the reconfiguration that we've done is really more to increase reliability in a cost-neutral basis. i'm thinking 18 months ahead

when, much to my chagrin, i'll still be in this seat. when you take away service, you get a lot more public comment and people arguably order their lives, although saturday excursions are not like people going to work. how would we fund it going forward? could we fund it going forward through route adjustments? or if we decided to go forward with this, would we have to come up with the funds ourselves? >> because of the scale of this change, it is literally two additional buses a week. it is very likely that we could find other efficiencies within the system to pay for this kind of change. going forward, though, the larger tep service changes do recommend an increase in resources and those are something that as a board i know you guys will struggle with as we move into the future. so, for this particular change i'm fairly confident that we could identify something, but the larger --

>> you figured out where i'm going with this, which is as we're considering the entire tep i think it sets a dangerous precedent if we reroute one by one. it seems attractive but we have to consider the bigger picture. what i see you saying on this one is, a, 18 months someone else is paying 230er it. and b after 18 months, the righter ship justifies it, we can probably pay for it with nonglobal tep funding, but rather just through further adjustment * . so, would that clarify it and further set the precedent so we don't get one off request or, hey, i want this bus going here on saturday and i want this bus going late? let's not get into that business with the tep pending. i'm happy to move this item. >> motion to move. >> second. >> let me ask a question. has there been any conversation at alan mullally with golden gate transit district? >> yes, we have involved them and we will involve them in our launch. most of the publicity and the promotion that we have planned is in partnership with the

ggnra. they're really excited about just having more park access in general, and particularly green park access. so, they've been our primary partner on this. >> i think this is fabulous. i look forward to seeing the members who commented on that bus because i use that as a hiking bus as well. and can we make sure that a member of the public that questioned the stop reduction or the route truncating has the correct information so she knows? >> ms. casey. >> ms. casey, so she knows which stops are going to be going where, which part of the route is going where? >> absolutely. i'd be happy to follow-up. our primary focus was to make sure that all transfer points were served and, so, that would be a good rule of thumb. but we'll make sure she has the specific stop. >> also the ridership members, if we get publicity out there for this because i think there is a demand we don't know about, especially as we've seen

car ownership among our younger residents go down. i know this is going to be a really attractive way for people to get out of the city on the weekend. it will be interesting to watch this. >> . -- thank you, anybody else? we have a motion and second. everybody in support say aye? >> aye. >> opposed the same? we'll have a presentation on tep? in january? i think it will be good to get reminded where we are with all of that * . thank you, ms. kirsch bum, good to see you. >> item 13, authorizing the director to execute amendment no. 1 to contract no. sfmta-2013-08 with new flyer of america, to purchase 17 additional 40-foot low floor diesel-hybrid buses through the cooperative purchasing agreement established by the state of minnesota's materials management division, for an additional amount of $11,780,005, and a total contract amount of $48,669,369. mr. chairman, no members of the public wish to address you on

this matter. >> second. >> we have a motion to support this. a second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> [inaudible]. >> and, mr. chairman, with the cancellation of the closed session, that concludes the business before you. for the record. >> one hour, 19 minutes. thank you very much, everybody. happy election day, we hope. yes, we are closing in memory of [speaker not understood]. okay. thank you very much, everybody. [adjourned]

>> the meeting will come to order. this is the monday, october 29th, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i feel a lot of giants fever still in the air here. over here with the giants colors on. we have three items on the agenda today, but let me first say that our clerk is ms. andrea ausbery. i'm the chair of the committee, eric mar. to my right is vice-chair supervisor malia cohen. we're expecting supervisor scott wiener any moment.

could you please give us our announcements? >> yes. please make sure the sounds on all cell phones, electronic devices, speaker cards and comies of documents are included as part of the file to submit to the clerk. items on the november 6 board agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. i'd like to also thank sfgtv for televising us today, especially our staff greg burk and john ross. we have three items on the agenda today. ms. ausbery please call item number 1. >> item number 1, administrative code - port prepayment of jobs-housing linkage program obligations, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, by adding section 61.12, to authorize pre-payment of jobs-housing linkage program obligations for developments on certain port lands; and adopting environmental findings. >> and from supervisor jane kim's office it is giants colors as well, mattias aremo. >> good afternoon. i'm here because the supervisor could not be here with us, but our office has been working with the port on this legislation to create a mechanism that would allow the

port and the mayor's office of housing to work collaboratively to develop affordable housing on port property for the public trust has been listed. this orbtionv would authorize the port to enter into an m-o-u, memorandum of understanding, providing for the port to receive credits for the value of port below market rate leases to mo and it's on a fair market value. the port would authorize this to use this credit to prepay job housing linkage program obligation for future and private development on portland and by enacting this ordinance the city would create an opportunity to see affordable housing development on the waterfront which is something that we've been working really hard on, and give the port at the same time the flexibility in structuring job housing linkage via obligation. * i wanted to also say very quickly that the approval of any project that in this

legislation would not be changed by this legislation. so, we have the mayor's office of housing and the port here to present. [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisor, [speaker not understood] from the mayor's office of housing. we'll provide a brief powerpoint presentation to go along with our presentation. i will be speaking at the beginning of the presentation and [speaker not understood] from the court will continue and i will close. so, powerpoint. >> so, can we get -- there it goes. >> great, thank you. thank you. there we go.

so, before you today is a amendment to the jobs housing linkage ordinance, a program that we actually administer through the mayor's office of housing. so, this is a brief overview of what we will be presenting. i'll provide a brief overview of the ordinance itself. the proposed amendment to the ordinance, patricia will go over the pier 70 development challenges for which the port hopes to apply this particular ordinance change, some of the feasibility and appraisal issues as well as some state legislation that went along with this. and then i will close with next steps and public outreach. so, the jobs housing linkage program essentially imposes fees on the development of most commercial development within san francisco in order to meet the demand for affordable housing produced by the new employment that is brought forth because of the new development. so, fees are imposed on things like research and development, retail, large big box retail as

well as other commercial development. and then the fees are administered by our office when they're put into the city's affordable housing fund along with things like the inclusionary housing fees. and then we use those funds through the mayor's office of housing to support the construction of new affordable housing units. the actual amendment before you today would authorize mo and the port to actually enter into an alternative method to meet those particular obligations on port property. as said we would be entering into an m-o-u specifically. this ordinance change would be consistent with state law that was authorized the port land for affordable housing. that would be in exchange for the fees that they would be otherwise paying on port property. and it would be essentially a credit to the fees that would be paid in equivalencies. and the land that would be suitable for affordable housing, we would be provided

to us at below market rates so that we would be able to use it, then, for future development. and then i'll turn it next to trisha. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, trisha, port staff accompanied by the special projects manager. i'd like to just start by thanking supervisor kim for her leadership on this item and i'd like to also thank theresa with the mayor's office of housing for their assistance as well. so, as port staff have articulated through its ten-year capital plan which has been forwarded to the board of supervisors, there are some unique characteristics of port property that drive up the cost of development. we are typically building on filled land which is not seismically based so you have to drive piles to support structures. we have a lot of historic resources that are expensive to save and oftentimes we have

environmental remediation challenges with port property, which we are addressing with our regulatory partners. in 1997 the port completed a seven-year planning process to look at potential uses of port property with broad consensus of the waterfront land use plan. and it provided for a range of potential uses at different sites and there are some sites that are no longer needed for maritime purposes. often these are field lots that are on the west side of the embarcadaro and there we conat thevtion place uses like residential office, hotels, et cetera. in 2007 the port worked with state senator carol migden to terminate the trust use restrictions on some of the seawall lots on south of market

street. in order to get to residential and office types of uses we have to terminate the trust use restrictions that apply in state law. and the legislature did that. they found the seawall lots were no longer needed for water access. last year we worked with assemblyman tom ammiano and ab 26 49 signed into law by the governor december 29th this year. it found seawall lot [speaker not understood] north of market street is no longer needed for trust purposes and the legislation allowed the city to contemplate affordable housing at this site as part of an effort that would help to offset jobs housing, linkage fees owed after 70. that legislation also contemplates similar flexibility at seawall lot 37, which is in mission bay. this slide shows at 815 parcel.

port staff is suggesting that seawall 2-21 is part of [speaker not understood] by ab 629 might be an appropriate site for affordable housing, but that would be subject to review under ceqa and further outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. >> ms. pasad, which street is that parcel on? >> it's the -- bounded by broadway and [speaker not understood], correct? >> thank you. >> sorry, it is the map is a little small. which would be subject to review under ceqa and further outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. it's about a block and a half off of the embarcadaro. it's almost an acre in size. and is a very developable parcel that exists in the northeast water froth historic district. article 10 of the planning code established the northeast waterfront historic water district and describes types of architectural streitv and building styles that is appropriate for that local

historic district. and we hope to work with the mayor's office of housing to see if this site is indeed appropriate for affordable housing. >> thank you. >> lastly, the next steps we'll be undertaking this should resolution pass, we would be returning to the northeast waterfront advisory group with the port, of course, ab 26 49, and also the action on this particular legislation. the port and our office would be continuing to look at the feasibility and appraisal discussions on potential sites. one of them could be [inaudible] seual lot 3221. we would be available for updating historic preservation commission on requirements related to the historic district should we pursue lots 3221 i. of course we would be returning to the port commission and the board on any updates on further action. that concludes our presentation. >> thank you. and thanks ultimately from

mayor's office of housing, our director for being here, too, and brad benson and ms. prasad from the port. so, colleagues, i see no cards on this item, but let's open this up for public comment. good afternoon, members of the board. peter cohan, council committee housing organizations. we were asked to look at this ordinance several months back and give significant feedback to the mayor's office of housing and the port, much of which -- almost all of which was incorporated in some shape or form. but i want to just put a caveat in here. the jobs housing linkage program has been a very, very critical part of our affordable housing funding and we want to keep it that way. this is an unusual situation the port is facing and these particular sites, but to reiterate the importance, the jobs housing linkage is in no respect something to be shift today a land dedication option.

* shifted to this is discussed quite a bit in inclusionary housing. i think supervisor wiener knows we are finding out all the difficulties of being able to compare an apple and an orange in terms of land dedication to the typical mechanisms of either in-lieu fees or units. so, we're supportive of this ordinance to the extent that it lives within the universe of circumstances the port is facing. the things that we were particularly concentrating on were that there was some sort of site feasibility analysis that was very strongly done by mayor's office of housing and that the cost for those were actually built into the crediting. there is due diligence of various types, including ceqa analysis needs to be done to make sure a site is acceptable. and then also what the appraised value s. so, that was something that was woven in very carefully. secondly, whatever deal was worked out between the agencies for land transfer and that cost

crediting be brought back to the board for ratification so we have a degree of transparency here for us and everyone else. but otherwise we're supportive. thank you. * is >> thank you, mr. cohen. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, can we move this item forward with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you. ms. ausbury, please call hearing number 2. >> hearing to receive update from the office of economic and work force development, mayor's office of housing, and the department of public works on the progress of the octavia boulevard project, central freeway ancillary projects and the disposition of central freeway excess parcels. >> thank you. supervisor olague is the sponsor of this item. i'm not sure if one of her staff is here. perhaps we can start with the presentation from department.