street to main street effects a property that was never in the original environmental documents. to have it take to build station under. fortunately, we are in that building, that is where our office is and we have already met with the owners. but, there is always... because you are going to do something with the land above it and we are actually going to put an inner city bus terminal there for the long-distance carriers. so, that is a change to the environment in that area. and you do need to go out to the locals. the other thing is because of the... there are two properties that we were not even going to touch now we have to work either to preserve one of them is got a historical significance, and we will work underneath it to protect it. but again, this has not... the owners of these properties need to have a chance for a say. the vent structures we want to

make sha clear and because they are above ground structure and they vent smoke. they may never vent smoke. we may never have a train fire. i prefer that to be the case. but certainly a lot of transit projects and other cities have had problems with vent structures and people, and we have done our best to provide some preliminary designs which we think will get rid of those concerns. >> those are good examples. i was just curious, thank you. >> director metcalf? >> i am really glad that we are talking about the extension of the cal train i am hope thating we spend more time as a board on this. i have no concerns whatsoever about ecom or the price. i am concerned about the scope of what is in this and what i know from talking to other people in the community is that

the various partners that will be necessary to connect cal train to the transbay terminal do not agree about the alignment. the san francisco mayor's office and i am the mayor's appointee to this board does not agree with this alignment. i don't believe that the san francisco county transportation authority does. getting agreement between the various parties in addition to the high speed rail authority and cal train is the task ahead for us. the, i believe, i have a great concern about opening a supplemental and then locking ourselves in and then telling ourselves that we can't reopen it. i know that we have to do a supplemental eir but i don't think that we yet know what should be in it. >> i just add on that that

question. because i had a related question. and so i was actually curious because i know that we are also in discussion and this is largely around how we fund, high speed rail and dtfs in the long term and that there has been conversations about kind of a much, much ambitious project that involves development and undergrounding and lots of lots of other things and i was curious as to whether that might be part of a different phase and that is why the scope of this face two was so limited? >> if i could respond to that. we were asked by the federal rail administration as a continue of the 400 million that they allocated to us that they extend the platforms and the radii. we applied to the federal transit administration for a grant specifically to do that and that is all we were... the money we were given was to do

just the specific work that the fra asked us to do as a condition of the 400 million. so we cannot add more to the scope because there is only, so much money. because that is the first point, the second point is that to my knowledge, cal train and high speed rail are supportive of our alignment and the work that we are doing as art lloyd can attest to. we can certainly have a discussion director. but at this point, we have a cleared environmental document. and we are in the new starts pipeline. we have got only so much time, to get the funding that we need in order to start construction under the new start schedule and we are proceeding along the cleared environmental document that we have and we are do what the fra asked us under this very specific scope of the money that they granted us so we can't add to the scope that does not preclude doing what you indicated about reopening

things but we were given a grant to specifically comply with what fra asked us to do and that is what we are doing. >> which of the various things that you proposed that could be part of the scope, which are the ones that the fra requires the gpa to do. >> the increasing of the radii at the structure and the lengthening of the platforms. >> yes, and the fta, who in fact, funded this required us to put the vent structures in because of the programs that they have had on other projects. >> and >> yeah. i would very much endorse what the director said. we are not ruling out what might happen separately to the downtown extension. what the discussions that i have had with the city have not been to realign downtown extension, it is what to do

with the yard and four and this what for do with the approaching for the south, which was never thought of dtx or any extension. we were extending from the existing station, to downtown. >> right. >> and that really does not take on the responsibility for the south. >> right. >> and we would put them as partners. >> thank you. >> director lloyd wanted to comment as well. >> thank you. >> just a comment that we at cal train are moving forward with the electricitifiation and so we are moving forward and we are going to move forward regardless on what happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things

to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions specifically to this item? >> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be

undertaking a process, with all of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station. however, maybe not all trains will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some

storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our... i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are conversations about dtx and cal train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am

hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well. >> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding the mayor's office is julianne is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second.

but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible. and we are happy to see the blended system move forward as something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the

environmental work going forward one of the things that observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal train. so for example, the approximately half of the trains according to the old plan would turn around at fourth and king. and in terms of rider ship and capacities and the needs of san francisco the revenue for cal train having as many trains as possible go into san francisco would be the ideal thing to have happen. and there are also are questions also regarding the alignment and whether the current alignment is actually

the most cost effective and the layout of the stations is there any room for improvement in terms of number of riders and the effectiveness of that line in the long term. so i am very glad to hear director metcalf raise these issues and you know we certainly, strongly encourage in either this project segment or subsequent project segments to address the miss match between the current older plan and the needs of the blended system and the long term ridership and revenue goals of cal train and the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> all right. seeing none. we do have a motion and a second. >> can we take a roll call on this item. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf.

>> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item nine is approved. >> thank you. and we will look off the schedule for a broader discussion on dts and cal train at future board meetings in the next couple of months. item number ten. >> approving the arise participation level of 8.3 percent for years, 2010 to 11 to 12 to 13. and we did get in the informational presentation at our board meeting, i believe in september or october. so, if you could just give an update since then. >> right >> and the director sarah galatty will report on this. >> i thought that i would give a little bit of background since director was not here in september. i have to leave in two minutes any way. >> well the brief update is that we did put the revised goal of 8.5 percent out for public comment. we also had a small and

disadvantaged business roundtable at our offices and got a lot of good suggestions but no comments that would lead us to revise the goal so we are recommending approval of 8.5 percent for the remainder of the fiscal years. >> i am curious about the feedback that we got that was helpful, i think that this is a goal that all of the directors share in terms of increasing minority in small business participation. >> yeah, the roundtable that we have, we have represented from asian american architects and hispanic chamber of commerce, california small business association, etc., etc., several woman's groups as well. most of the feedback had to do with out reach, we are to really get word out about contract opportunities that these small businesses are looking at. and places like bidsink making sure that our website is easy to navigate and that we are sending out notices which we do. they also had some feedback on

matching up the goal setting process that you go through, a process of matching the industrial classification codes and looking at the dbes available in those areas and they have suggestions on which codes to use that would capture the smaller businesses than just the big urses and etc.. >> i appreciate that. what the out reach has done. >> thank you. >> is there any other discussion or questions? >> seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and a second? >> second. >> and roll call. >> thank you, with that director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye and item ten is approved. >> item number eleven. >> approval of the minutes of the october 11th 2012 meeting. >> i know that director harper

will abstain from this vote. can we take a roll call on the minutes for october the eleventh, 2012 >> yes, members of the public anything that they wanted to address you? >> director harper? >> do we have a motion to move this forward. >> moved, second. >> my apologies. >> with that, director harper, abstaining lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> that is three, ayes and item eleven is approved. >> item number 12. >> is the areview of on 007, for california code. >> and galati will crpt on this item. >> directors this is required by the california government code as well as the investment policy be reviewed annually even if we are not proposing any changes. we are not proposing any changes at this time. objectivities of our investment

policy remain the same, safety, liquidity and return on investment has a much lower priority. we currently keep most of our cash in a u.s. bank checking akoupt. we obviously do not keep a high cash balance it goes in from the funders and goes out to the contractors. and we do have a trustee account with deucshbank. most of which will be in trescy notes that will come to end of the year. and we will look at investment options at that time. but looking at the economic out look and what we think that interest rates may do in the future as well as cash flow needs we probably will choose investments with short maturities so we can month forward. i am happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> seeing none, thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. >> do you have a motion on item number 12. >> it is informational. >> i am sorry.

>> at this time, we are done with our special calendars. so i will take a motion to convene and to closed session, is there a motion to do that. >> so moved. second. >> so we will at this time. convene into closed session. so we do ask the members of the public to please exit the room. >> and no members of the public did indicate that they did want to address you on the item. >> my apologies about that. >> if there are any members of the public that want to address the board of directors on this >> the meeting will come to order. good afternoon, everyone. it's monday, november 19, 2012. this is the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, i'm the chair of the committee. to my left is supervisor scott

wiener. supervisor maly a cohen is absent today. our clerk is derek evans. mr. evans, can you please give us the announcements? >> yes. please make sure all electronic devices are off, copies submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on december 4, 2012 san francisco board of supervisors agenda unless stated. >> thank you. we have six items on the agenda today. but i've been notified by supervisor olague, item number 5, she has urged us to continue that to item on the call of the chair. that is the resolution to remove all management proposals and activities derived from the sharp park conceptual restoration alternatives report's alternative a18 from the environmental impact report for the san francisco recreation and park department's significant natural resource areas management plan, and to consider proposals and alternatives for the future of sharp park golf course through a separate and complete california environmental quality act review process. so, even though i'll move to continue that to the call of the chair, we still will hear public comment on that item. and my understanding is that item number 6, improved taxi

service quarterly report, supervisor wiener's item, that is potentially going to be continued as well. >> for one week. >> for one week. and because items number 1 and 2 are sponsored by our president david chiu and he's tied up in a gao committee meeting right now, hopefully without objection, we can jump to item number 31st. so, without objection, mr. evans, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, [inaudible] ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by: 1, adding section 318 to put a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units, as defined in the building code, that can be constructed with reduced square footage unless the units are group housing, affordable housing, or student housing; 2, amending section 135 (d) and adding section 135.4 to impose open space and common space requirements on efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage; and 3, making environmental findings, planning code section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 -- with reduced square footage. >> thank you. and the sponsor supervisor scott wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

today is planning code legislation to the efficiency unit legislation that has already been heard in this committee that other legislation which is at the board of supervisors on tomorrow's agenda is a building code amendment. the companion legislation before us today is a planning code amendment. this legislation is being considered as a committee report, that it can be heard tomorrow as well, and dovetail in terms of timing with the underlying building code amendment. specifically, this legislation before us today is an amendment to the planning code that would establish a cap on the number of smaller efficiency units for the planning department entitled before a study and re-authorization would be required. the cap is set at 375 market rate, smaller efficiency units, after approximately 3 25 smaller efficiency units are entitled by the planning department. the department would be required to conduct a study so we can better understand how these units are being used. over the past several months i

have worked with others, including board president david chiu, and various community organizations including the council of community housing organization, community housing partnership, the housing rights committee, and [speaker not understood], to develop this compromise piece of legislation. i'm happy to report that we have reached a compromise to allow for the program to proceed. i will also note that the cap does not include student housing, group housing, and affordable housing. and then i also want to note that today i am offering some amendmentses to the planning code administration. before i have those distributed, those amendments, i will describe them. the amendments basically speak to the reporting requirement from the planning department as well as to the common open

space requirements. in terms of reporting, the amendments before us today include language that articulates what at a minimum the report on the efficiency units should include. these reporting data points are sales and rental placing, a map showing the geographic distribution of the units, data comparing smaller efficiency unit production with stated unit mixed goals and adopted area plans. and a comparison against the regional housing needs assessment or rema goals. regarding the common open space requirement, the amendment to the legislation will require at a minimum 10 square feet of common open space for each smaller efficiency unit as defined in the legislation. while i'm supportive of this trial with the initial cap of 375 units, i do believe that these smaller efficiency units can be one of the many solutions to help address the

housing affordability crisis that we are experiencing here in san francisco. san francisco has a desperate need for housing across all income levels and particularly in the work force, student housing and other populations. the underlying building code amendment, which is the companion legislation to the item before us today, promotes in my view housing affordability by design, reduced costs for conception are passed on in the form of low rents. and this can be done without subsidies. while we do have a very robust subsidized affordable housing program in san francisco, of which i am extremely supportive, it is not by itself enough. the smaller units will be an attractive and affordable option for people entering the work force, for students, for transition-age youth, for the formerly homeless, for seniors, and for various kind of housing, market rate or not market rate. as many as 40% of san francisco

households are single people. this could be a great and much more affordable option for them. we know that rents are through the roof now. a one-bedroom apartment in many places of the city is running for 2,500 or even $3,000 a month. large studios are often running for $2,000 or more a month. and many people simply cannot afford these rents. we have a lot of people who are living in roommate situations and sometimes cramming in more people than they probably should into some of these roommate situationses. and i believe people should have the option, if they want, to live on their own in a smaller unit with their own kitchen and with their own bathroom. these units will also support a growing national and international trend of what we call cooperative housing where people have smaller private spaces, but share larger centralized common areas in buildings. we're seeing this with various

kinds of housing, including senior housing. mr. chairman, i respectfully request that the committee support today in forwarding this legislation today board. and, mr. chairman, if you don't have any comments, we can -- does planning have a report? >> yes. >> so, we'll hear from planning. >> thank you, good afternoon, chairman swedener, sophie hewett planning staff. [speaker not understood] this past thursday, november 15th. at the hearing after public comment, and fairly robust discussion, the commission passed resolution 18 747 recommending that the board of supervisors approve the proposed ordinance with several modifications. there has been some confusion since last thursday's hearing so i'd like to take this opportunity to clarify that the commission voted to support the proposed ordinance with a cap of 375 units on efficiency

dwelling units. the commission's recommendation was to refine the concept of a cap and that was based on a lengthy discussion about when micro units would count toward the numeric cap, would it be at the time of entitlement, would it be at the time of construction, or perhaps at the certificate of occupancy. further, the commission discussed the reporting requirement and recommended that the board of supervisors clarify the content and the timing of the report [speaker not understood] amendments address that concern. the second modification proposed by the planning commission was that the board not add a new definition to the planning code. rather, that the new common and open space requirements should refer to the definition of efficiency dwelling unit used in the building code. third, the recommendation from the commission was that the maximum requirement for interior common space be replaced with the minimum requirement of 10 square feet of common interior space per efficiency dwelling unit and i

see that you've added that into your amendment. and then lastly, it was a minor suggestion that the proposed new interior common space requirement be removed from proposed planning code section 135.4 to the planning code section 140. and i understand that that change has been made as well. that concludes my presentation and available for questions. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hayward. okay. mr. chairman, at this point may we open up for public comment? public comment will be two minutes. >> because of the number of items and speakers on other items, two minutes. >> and i have exactly two public comment cards on this legislation. i suspect there are more commenters than that, so, please fill out a card. i'll call the two that i have. jamie whit -- whitaker and deborah bennedict.