legitimatize aau on 301 brannan site. it merely allows them a pathway and that decision would still go before the planning commission. and then to the board of supervisors in the end. so, i feel comfortable leaving this in as is just to give the greatest flexibility and leverage to planning department [speaker not understood]. that's where i am today. >> if i could just ask a question of planning. my understanding is the legislation we received did not include this. and, so, again, that was what was provided to us from planning and what was -- what we did last week was simply to keep the option of taking it out. but that was not exactly where the [speaker not understood] was or the commission was. >> that's correct, supervisor. john ram with the planning department. the planning commission vote today remove the grandfathering of that particular property so it conbe legalized. there would be, as it stood as it would stand at that moment, there would be no way for them to legalize it even with the conditional use. so, what's being discussed is the possibility of

grandfathering it so that at a date when they could come back to the commission, they could approach the commission for approval of occupying that building. >> so, just to clarify, i think to supervisor kim's point, i think the logic runs the opposite what the planning commission has said was they do not want to grandfather it so that it continues to provide leverage to the planning department and the city attorney's office in their negotiations with aau over these issues. and if it turns out in the future that the negotiations are such that the city agrees that we should move forward with all of these things, and i do hope that we would get there, that would be the appropriate time for us to consider zoning control changes to allow them to do what it is they want to do. >> i mean, it beg the question -- one could discuss what gets better leverage. if we were to -- if the discussions with the academy were to come to an agreement where we would agree that that was an appropriate place for them to consider, you would have to amend the code at that point. you couldn't just do it through an agreement, of course. the code would actually have to be amended to allow them to be in that location.

>> to make sure we understand procedurally where this is, our understanding is the academy of arts would move into and started using the space without obtaining the correct permit. >> that's correct. >> and then subsequently filed a conditional use, which is pending and sort of frozen as the e-i-r proceeds? >> that's correct. the e-i-r -- obviously we can't grant any approvals until there is an environmental review done. and as you know, i think we also issued notices of violation for all the properties and those that are in suspension pending a series of conditions which they so far have met. so, we are in negotiations and hope to come to agreement with them within several months. i fully expect that agreement would come to this -- to the board at some point. it could include zoning changes, it's just not clear at this point where we're going to end up. >> thank you. president chiu, do you have anything else to add? so, i have given this quite a

bit of thought over the last couple of weeks. both before and after the last hearing, and folk might recall i was the author of the student housing legislation that dramatically [speaker not understood] and in most cases banned universities from converting rental housing into exclusive student housing, which aau has done in the past. so, i don't know if there was an academy of arts christmas party last year. but if there was, i certainly was not on the invitation list and that probably wasn't surprising. with that said, i think that this situation is different. so, the history here is, as i just noted before, that aau began to use this as university space without having gone through the conditional use process. this was not a plot of land or a parcel that was banned from the current use.

it required a conditional use under the zoning. they then did late admittedly go in and apply for a cu under the zoning and that is pending and not moving forward right now because of the e-i-r. the use will not be able to be legalized unless and until the planning commission approves the cu, which will be at some point down the road. i think that it would be odd for us to say to a property owner, your land -- your parcel is zoned in a certain way. the law allows you to use it for the way that you want to use it with the conditional use. you have applied for a conditional use, you're going through the process which is now sort of in limbo, but you are going through the process. we are now going to change the zoning to make it so that you can't even apply for a cu. i think if this were any other property owner in the city, i

think a lot of us would be raising eyebrows and saying, you applied for your cu under the current zoning. we're now going to pull that out from under you and say you can no longer even get a cu unless you negotiate with the planning department and then get the zoning changed back in the future. that doesn't sit well with me. i do believe that even with the grandfathering this will be part of a negotiationses with the planning department. this is still going to have to move through the planning commission ~ and i highly doubt that the planning commission will approve this if there is not some sort of more global resolution between aau and the planning department. and, so, for those reasons i will not be supporting the motion today. colleagues, are there any other comments? okay. seeing none, madam clerk, will you please call the roll? on the amendment? ~ >> on the motion to amend the ordinance as stated, president chiu? >> aye. >> chiu aye. supervisor kim? kim no.

supervisor wiener? wiener no. we have two no's and one aye. >> the motion fails. supervisor kim, are there any other -- >> no. i just want to thank the land use committee for taking a great deal of your time to discuss this neighborhood plan in district 6. i just -- i i'm really pleased with the final outcome of this plan. i just have to say there were so many moving pieces, so many interested parties. ~ south of market, of course, as a representative, i will say is a very unique neighborhood because it encompasses so much -- so many uses, so many needs. it has such an interesting history in terms of land use. and i feel like what we put forward today is really a balance. and i know jim meko talks about this all the time. in fact, were on the campaign trail together so i got to hear him say this on a weekly basis, which is the importance of developing complete neighborhoods. and i really feel that the plan that we are putting forward today allows us to maximize that vision of a complete neighborhood that involves a place where you can work, where

you can live, where you can play, and many sorts of those things. i'm also really happy that we are able to work out something that was going to benefit those residential and transit needs. affordable housing is clearly a huge priority in western soma and south of market in general. and i have always been a huge advocate for pedestrian safety, which is a critical need in the south of market as well. we are lucky to have so many developments on a certain level on the south of market, too, which we were speaking to previously which allows us to make a lot of the transit needs that we have whether it's crosswalks and sidewalk improvements through many of these developments. that being said, we're happy to see these increased fees come into the eastern half of san francisco. so, i want to thank my colleagues. i want to thank mr. meko again, and all the members of the community. when we come to the full board, i will do a broader thank you. and of course one of the members of the public brought it up, i want to recognize my predecessor supervisor daly who

really was the supervisor for at least six years while this plan was in process and supported it from the very beginning. >> i have a question for the city attorney. with the amendment that was made, are we able to move this out of committee today? >> john givener, deputy city attorney. yes, you can vote on it and move it out of committee today. >> thank you. >> so, i'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to move this item, item 2 -- excuse me. >> item 3. >> items 3 to 6 to the full board with recommendation. president chiu, do you have any comments? >> yeah, i'll second that. >> second that motion. i will not be supporting the motion today. i think i made some comments at the beginning of the last hearing on this that while i am very respectful of the process that's gone into this plan, i

noe nor must amount of work has gone into it over the years with a lot of people. ~ enormous there are some fundamental issues with the plan that concern me. i know that it was a lengthy process. i think that there were pro speckatives that were not adequately represented in the process. we heard about that last week in terms of night life and i want to thank supervisor kim for i think stepping in at the end and resolving some of those issues. ~ we've also heard raised issues around the sally and the pretty dramatic restrictions on office and housing including around design professionalses which i think is overly broad. ~ and i know any public process, you're never going to get everyone and there are always going to be people who come in at the end and have different opinions. but with this plan, i've just seen too much of it so, i won't be able to support it, but i do want to thank those who have

participated. i don't expect that i'll be in a majority today or at the full board of supervisors, but that is my perspective. so, madam clerk. >> chair wiener, would you prefer we send this out with no recommendation? >> it's really your choice, supervisor kim. >> i'd like to suggest the following. i would prefer to support this without the aau grandfathering. so, at this time i probably will not support it at this moment, but if you'd like to rescind, we can amend it and i would send it out with recommendation in that case. >> i would be willing to send it out without recommendation if that would be the choice of supervisor kim. >> okay. my preference is to send this out to the full board. i think we can continue to have discussions about any other loose ends. so, if we can send this out without recommendation, i will support that motion. >> okay. any other comments?

the motion as amended is to send items 3 through 6 to the full board without recommendation. can we take that without objection or do we need a roll call? >> do that without objection. >> without objection, that will be the order. item number 7. >> item number 7 is a hearing request for an additional presentation from the planning department, mayor's office, and municipal transportation agency on san francisco's participation in the long-awaited electrification of caltrain and the future high-speed rail. >> item number 7 is a hearing that supervisor cohen and i both called to hear about the status of san francisco's participation in the electrification of caltrain and high-speed rail. as we just heard in our last item, we have some very, very significant challenges around transportation, not just in san francisco, but in the bay area as a whole. and a key part of improving and modernizing our transportation system to meet the future needs

of the bay area is a strong caltrain and that includes electrification, it includes high-speed rail and of course it includes extending caltrain and high-speed rail to the transbay terminal. and, so, we're going to hear an update today and we'll, colleagues, if there are no introductory remarks, we'll hear from john ram, director of planning. >> thank you, supervisors. john ram with the planning department. i'm very much pleased to be here today. i think this is a hugely important project for the city, has major long-term implications. and i think frankly it's a sign of our progress that the planning director is making this a planning project not [speaker not understood]. it is a hugely important project how we think about planning these days to link transportation and land use. so, thank you for this opportunity. i just want to start by doing something that we do a lot lately, which is to talk about why it's important to do this. these are the numbers on this

side and i think you have copies of the presentation, yes? did you get copies? >> no, i'm sorry. that's okay, we have it on our screen. >> sorry about that. i always like to start with the growth in the region and in the city. the projections that abag has made for 20 40 is that the bay area will grow by over 2 million people and over 1 million jobs requiring 600,000 housing units. ~ and i -- and they are moving in a good direction in the sense that they are proposing that the vast majority of this growth happened in what are called priority development areas, which are served by transit. the city, the three mainly cities in the region are expected to account for 15% of that growth. of that growth, san francisco is expected to take about 200,000 jobs and about 100,000 housing units. so, even though we're taking a

fairly small percentage of the regional growth, it still requires us to take or they're looking at us taking a significant part of that growth. and the only way to do that in the city and the transit first city is to look really seriously at major transit infrastructure. so, and this part of town, of course, downtown south of market, mission bay, this is where much of the growth is going to happen. the areas in color on this map are the areas where we've done planning work to accept the vast majority of that growth. so, in rough numbers, about 20% of the city will accommodate about 80% of the growth. and again, the only way to do that is a fair robust transit system. this, of course, shows the high-speed train corridor which is actually where caltrain exists today. of course, the focus is in what i like to think of is the intersection between south of market, south beach, downtown and financial district. so, what i'd like to talk about is kind of the short-term situation that we find ourselves in and the long-term

situation where high-speed rail would come into the city at full build out. of course, we all are interested in creating a high-speed rail project that would connect san jose to san francisco as part of the statewide high-speed rail system. it is an important project where i'm very excited that california will become the first state to actually start construction potentially this year on this. so, just to compare ideas here and where we are in this, currently the high-speed rail authority is proposing to electrify caltrain, of course, to build a temporary $250 million station at fourth and king, and with electrification it would not yet go to the transbay terminal. that requires, of course, the dtx or downtown extension. what we have looked in talking to caltrain about is to combine the electrification and downtown extension. we think it's important we get

to it sooner rather than later. [speaker not understood] implemented more quickly, there could be more environmentally friendly project and we think could be delivered as a public private partnership. i always have a hard time getting that out. caltrain, of course, electrification of caltrain is a way of getting high-speed rail to the city sooner than the full blown project that would be the same train all the way to los angeles. by electrifying caltrain we can get to speeds that are nearly as high as high-speed rail in a much shorter time frame. so, as you know, the existing conditions in that area are sometimes less than desirable. the rail yard and the highway itself take up about 37 acres of land. obviously there are environmental impacts. the highway and the train create a barrier between mission bay and the south of market, potrero hill. and we have -- the only two at grade crossings of the train in the city are in this very area, which is interesting at the higher density parts of the

city are where the [speaker not understood] crossings are. this plan shows very diagram atically ~ the red on the map, green showing the potential at grade. underneath townsend street a potential proposed future below grade station. so, just to emphasize one of our concerns as i'll talk about in a minute, in the long run that would be both an at-grade station and a below grade station at fourth and king which we think is very confusing and a little bit awkward and perhaps an expenditure of funds that is not appropriate. and then, of course, the train would turn and go up fourth into the transbay terminal. so, just want to talk briefly about some of the issues, both the opportunities and the concerns we have about electrification. first, of course, it's a great opportunity. it's faster, more frequent service. at a minimum we think we can

get six trains an hour. the trains are higher capacity. obviously they're more environmentally friendly and lessee missions, less noise, and in general we think could serve as a great transit corridor between san jose and san francisco along the peninsula. on the other side of the coin is some of the concerns we've had. and i want to emphasize we have been talking to caltrain about these concerns. they understand where we're coming from and we're working as i'll talk about in a minute as a short-term solution to address some of these concerns, at least in the planning stages of the project. we are concerned that electrification in the short run as proposed would preclude transit oriented development on a 19-acre site in the middle of the city, one of the city's densest neighborhoods. the city managed to study looking at potential value of that site. the value of that site could be up to $225 million at its maximum build out, given the size of that site and its

location. >> [speaker not understood], this is an incredibly important point, and i'm glad that the city and caltrain have been talking and working, trying to work through this issue. but i have been -- i'll be honest, i'm very frustrated that the 4th and king potential rail yard development, that has been so challenging to try to get that into the project being analyzed for the electrification. i think it's a key component. i think it would be really odd to try to separate the two in an environmental review or otherwise and just a huge potential missed opportunity if we do anything that prevents us from this severe under -- from ending the severe under utilization of this plan. so, i would really encourage the planning department, other city agencies to keep pushing very, very hard to make sure

that caltrain takes this into account. >> absolutely. thank you for that [speaker not understood]. >> i have a question as well. >> yes. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. it's actually great to see this number. i think that we are all looking at ways that we can ensure that dtx and high-speed rail can happen. my understanding is that we -- that the air rights for the fourth and king rail yard is already owned by the master developer for mission bay. so, i'm curious as to how the $225 million could then be used to fund dtx-hsr in caltrain. maybe i'm asking the question incorrectly. if you can clarify. i hear multiple perspectives on what value we can actually garner from the site. i know a separate conversation, of course, is the value that we can garner from the 2 80 sites where the pillars are. ~ but my understanding is the

fourth and king rail yard site, while it may be important for the overall dtx line and high-speed rail, wouldn't actually generate revenue that would go towards funding that particular need. >> good afternoon, supervisors. joshua switzky. i manage that [speaker not understood]. you are correct, the land the owner occupies [speaker not understood] successor that owned [speaker not understood] mission bay. however, caltrain owns and operated rail operated easement for the land. and what that has created is essentially a stalemate of equal, equal partners, if you will. caltrain would have to approve [speaker not understood] any future use of the land. that is to their detriment. similarly, there is no value of the land without caltrain making accommodations to make development possible. so, you're right, this $225 million figure is theoretical

and it's subject to a much future discussion, negotiation among the two main parties at stake, caltrain and the underlying landowner who would reap the benefits, the financial benefits. but i think it would be a safe assumption that there would be no benefit to caltrain accommodating future development if there weren't a major financial beneficiary from such an arrangement. so, yes, you are correct that they don't own the land, but they also have full details however of everything that happens on the land. >> right. wouldn't then the value of that dollar amount go towards caltrain potentially for the movement of their storage yards and all the other sorts of things that would need to happen under this type of alignment? i just want to have -- i know it's hard to say because it's a preliminary study, but i just want to be careful when we talk about value going towards something that we all support if it may not be able to go there. >> it's a fair statement that 100% of that is probably not

available, but you're right, it's up to future negotiations and there could be ongoing, you know, revenue that is generated in the future that benefits everyone as well. >> got it, thank you. >> i just want to note one thing. in terms of the phrase benefiting caltrain, i think it's important to keep in mind although caltrain is just -- operated, runs a train system. caltrain in san francisco, san mateo county and santa clara county and the people who reside therein and who will be all dramatically benefited by having electrified caltrain and high-speed rail that goes downtown, i think it's in everyone's interest to do what we can to fund this system and that includes the development of the rail yards. >> thank you. another concern that the city family has is regarding the investment in what will essentially be two stations in the same location. there will be a surface station in the short run that caltrain is building as part of

electrification and the low grade station at fourth and townsend also will be under that green spot on the map on townsend street. so, that could be confusing, could be a duplication of efforts and it's something we would like to try to figure out a way to avoid. i think if i might, that basic concern with this, with electrification and some of the approaches that are being taken is simply not precluding future options. and that that's our biggest concern here. we totally support electiontrivctiontion cakes. we want to make sure it happens as quickly as possible. ~ we don't want to allow it to happen or our concern it happen in such a way to preclude future benefits for the city and that's the biggest concern right now. >> mr. ram, do you see any rationale from a land use or transportation respect of having two stations as opposed to [speaker not understood]? it seems wasteful and duplicative. >> looking ahead in the long term when they're both there, i don't see a good -- from a land

use standpoint, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i think it's -- one could argue it's a question of what public funds in the long run to do both. i understand why it evolved this way, because of the way the dtx is being proposed and the way the caltrain electrification would not -- would have to be upgrade. we think there are ways to look at this differently that perhaps allow us to only do one. >> are there conversations happening with caltrain? >> they are. one of the issues is really the up front investment they're making at fourth and king and if there is a way to minimize that investment so that true temporary facility can happen there allowing the future high-speed rail train to then come in more beneficially to the city. they are proposing to spend $250 million which is a figure that concerns us to spend that much money and then undo it in 10 years. >> thank you. >> obviously, and this is an issue that's come up repeatedly over the last several years. we brought it up early on with high-speed rail. the electrification, if carried out -- again, and the way it's

currently proposed we're concerned that it might preclude future -- the ability to appropriately create great separation at 16th and seventh and mission bay drive. as you know, high-speed rail has proposed that the rail be upgrade and 16th and seventh go beneath the train which we are concerned creates a serious gap between mission bay and the rest of the city, cuts off those two neighborhoods from each other. and again, it has to do with the investment that's made in the short run, precluding the possibility for future investment that's more beneficial in the long run. and on muni, similarly, there ha always been the long-standing desire, neighborhood plan to extend the 22 line all the way to mission bay. and if electrified caltrain and [speaker not understood] it creates conflict between muni buses examine caltrain station, trains running through that intersection. so, again, we're really concerned about that grade separation as it's being proposed. and believe that the better

solution is to lower high-speed train in the long run and have 16th cross that grade. similarly, concerns about the bayshore station, the ability to put that station in a more transit friendly location, we believe that there are ways to rethink that and create better connections between the t third line and the future geneva brt extension. and again, we would like to -- we are talking to caltrain about this end of the line as well which is of course right at the city border. in the long run, then, when high-speed rail comes in, this has gotten a lot of play recently, but the idea of removing this portion of interstate 2 80 is on the table and i just want to start by saying we have, asked the high-speed rail authority to look at this when they were working on their e-i-r for the full system. two years ago we had asked them to consider this as an option. the rational being that at $70

billion investment in high-speed rail should consider a range of options as it approaches san francisco. and we believe that this option had to be considered as part of it. so, while we are not saying this is an absolute -- the only absolute solution to this concern, we are saying that it should be an option that is robustly considered in this phase of the work. so, we have put the idea for folks -- excuse me. the idea of removing the train north of 16th and creating a boulevard at that point. it would utilize the grids just like removal of embarcadaro did to disburse the traffic. it would create connections, wider sidewalks and bike paths and create about 07 feet of developable land along the edge of this boulevard, much like the octavia boulevard project today. the underground alignment as you see here could be amended to create less of a sharp curve if this were to happen and

obviously accommodate regional level and bicycle traffic in the process. and, of course, open up particular -- open up the rail yard for potential development. again, the rail yard is about 19 acres. we believe could accommodate about 3-1/2 million square feet in zoning that's comparable to what is being looked at in the surrounding area. and again, the freeway -- removal of the freeway does, we believe, increase the value of that parcel with all the qualifications that supervisor kim mentioned, of course, about the value. but removal of the freeway does add more land to that parcel for development as well as just simply increasing the value of it without having the freeway there. so, in the short term, i'm pleased to report that our discussions of caltrain have -- with caltrain have resulted in an agreement that we would do a six-month study to look at alternative to full electrification of the rail yard, that our compatible with long term. so, to look at whether the rail yard