think there is a protocol by which you have to carry yourself. one of the gentleman from metro made reference to my dead mother. i did not say anything. i encourage stephan and peter daley to resolve these issues. i wanted the whole deal, metro hands down, you were head and shoulders above ports of america. what is the problem with you and the ilw? what did i say to port of america? i am disturbed by the fact that down in la that you got the bid

and metro is doing the stevedoring. if you get the bid and have someone else do the work for you it shows you you don't have a handle on it. i would ask when you come back in september when the three parties come together, when you need to sit down and resolve the issues. negotiation is about give and take. you never get everything you want. i want to go out with metro and the port of san francisco and double the amount of cruise ships coming in; i want to

work with metro and jim peters so that we can buld a state-of-the-art bulk facility. i want china to invest in our port and our city. thank you. >> thank you willie, and i appreciate the comments of the made. i want to add that i think we echo that we want these issues resolved. we want labor peace. we are here to make a decision on whether metro is a qualified bidder. we heard a lot of similar to say they are the qualified bidder; this is not the final contract. with support that the party should sit down and resolve these issues before any final contract is approved. it is the basis of what we are doing today, whether metro is

qualified to commence contract negotiations. i think i'm hearing that there is agreement that they're qualified to enter into contract negotiations, and some of the terms raised by our labor partners that we would continue to ask metro, the port on the unions to sit down and resolve this because it is important to have peace and i agree we don't want passengers to feel tension. based on that, i would like to ask the commission to vote to accept metro as a qualified bidder. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> the name of today has been jobs. it's important that we continue to create opportunities that will continue to bring people to the waterfront with these jobs. i do have a question regarding

lbe goals -- if there are any? >> good evening commissioners. port staff. this particular agreement falls outside chapter 21. lbe goals were not set up front; if it had folded inside we would have set lbe goals up front. because it is outside of 21, and the reason it is is because leases are excluded. also this is a quasi lease management agreement. focuses on payments to the city for this agreement. the operator will hold revenues and pay the port a fee.

however knowing the commission's desires, in the request for responses was said that it is our intention that there will be local business component, and local hire as well. the goal will be determined in concert negotiations very much like a development agreement. it will be at their option to agree with an lbe goal and local hire requirement. >> so hopefully when you come back in september since you are the most qualified to do this job that we will have great news regarding lbes and labor issues. thank you. >> (off mic) >> great, thank you. >> i'm sorry, it's 14b, i don't know why i said 21. >> is in it 12? ( laughter)

>> commissioner murphy? >> i would like to say that the numbers speak for themselves as far as mentor is concerned. i would like to see this move forward. i would like to echo commissioner adams about making the peace and working to differences out. i think that's important. >> i want to concur with my colleagues. the message has been sent loud and clear. working with labor is an important value in san francisco; that is something we prided ourselves on. san francisco is known as the city that supports labor. we are so dependent on our tourism economy but we don't

want to show labor strife to visitors when they come here; that is counterproductive to all that we want to accomplish so i hope the message has been sent that we are pleased that metro did well and getting such high marks; we hope that these issues can be worked out and resolve as we go through the negotiations moving forward. >> i think we want to say what commissioner adams already said, the port commission is not the place to resolve these issues, we are not stakeholders and that. we hope that that will be the case, would not see that -- we are not in a position to judge as to what the term should be but we do expect that you will tell us how you can resolve these issues the two

parties going forward. all those in favor? aye. resolution number 1325 has been approved. thank you. >> item 12, new business. >> commissioners i have an item from commissioner brandon on the youth employment coming back from an earlier discussion. any other items a request? >> small one. i want to convey a message from some of the people that travel to clark, ireland, with monique our director. what a wonderful ambassador she is from the port of san francisco and wanted to give you (off mic) (off mic) ( laughter)

thank you. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. >> moved to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor? thank you.

>> welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i'm scott wiener, the chairman of the committee to. my right is supervisor jane kim, the committee vice-chair. to my left is supervisor david chiu, a member of the committee. our clerk is alisa miller. ms. miller, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence on cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 18 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. and i also want to acknowledge and thank sfgtv for broadcasting today's hearing. greg burk and jesse larsen. and i want to note that item 6 has been called from committee to the full board and will be -- has been agendized at the full board tomorrow so that will not be called today. madam clerk, can you please call items 1 and 2 together?

>> item number 1 is an ordinance dedicating city property, within portions of state trust parcel 2, known as mission bay park p10, lying along mission bay circle and mission bay drive as open public right-of-way and naming the new park mission bay park p10; accepting the irrevocable offer for the acquisition facilities; designating said facilities for open space and park purposes; accepting the park for maintenance and liability purposes, subject to specified limitations; adopting environmental findings and findings that such actions are consistent with the general plan, priority policy findings of planning code, section 101.1, and the mission bay south redevelopment plan; accepting a department of public works order; and authorizing official acts in connection with this ordinance. ~ acquisition item number 2 is ordinance accepting the irrevocable offer of public infrastructure improvements associated with the mission bay drive extension, including acquisition facilities on mission bay drive, mission bay circle, and a portion of owens street; accepting additional property on a portion of owens street; declaring city property and additional property as shown on official department of public works maps as open public right-of-way; dedicating such improvements for public use and designating such areas and improvements for street and roadway purposes; establishing street grades and sidewalk widths; accepting said facilities for city maintenance and liability purposes, subject to specified limitations; adopting environmental findings and findings that such actions are consistent with the general plan, eight priority policy findings of planning code, section 101.1, and the mission bay south redevelopment plan; accepting a department of public works order; and authorizing official acts in connection witindicated, we hav offers of improvement to review today. one is mission bay park plea 10 which is depicted in green. and the roadway circle surrounding it. all of this within mission bay development area south of market. just for some perspective, i offer a larger view. you notice [speaker not

understood] the public att ballpark is there. this is mission bay drive extension as well as the circular area and median around it which is park p 10 and a larger view. ~ mission bay drive extension and circle will do is connect 7th street into mission bay and eventually be extended. ~ what what you're being asked to do is accept the infrastructure for the roadway which is providing a utilities roadway, road for traffic, pedestrians and bicycles as well as the green area which is for open space which is park p 10. the project -- both projects have been constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. the department of public works

has issued a notice determining the projects are complete and ready for their intended use. the department of planning has determined construction acceptance of the public infrastructure and improvements are consistent with the city's general plan. and the redevelopment agency had determined that the [speaker not understood] instruction acceptance of the public improvements are consistent with mission bay south [speaker not understood]. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer. >> thank you very much, ms. moy. colleagues? supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just have some quick questions. so, this is then going to be conveyed for the maintenance by the city, i think dpw? >> yes, the roadways will be maintained by dpw. the park will be maintained by the office of community investment infrastructure using community facility district financing. >> okay. so, it's not really a park, right -- >> it's a median --

>> a median. >> it's an open space park, but it's not something you go romping on and playing with. also a great benefit of the green area, and i'm going to show that to you right now, is that these green areas are also used for stormwater management containing bioswaleses. i think people can romp around on it a little bit, but not -- >> actually, this is actually just a general question and i should know the answer to this but i don't. in general when we have open space for parks that are under the former redevelopment area plan, do they typically get conveyed to rec and park, or dpw or does it stay within the successor agency? >> it tase within the successor agency for decades and decades. i think that's a decision that's been moved off into the future. i'm thinking maybe as long as 40 years from now. >> okay. >> 20 43. >> 20 43 is when all the open space will then get conveyed to rec and park? >> to the city and i think at that time determination will have to be made who to get

conveyed to, whether rec/park or another agency. >> and then my second question is actually specific to this item. so, i understand there's going to be some traffic changes with this. i was just curious as to what they were. on 7th street you'll be able to make a left turn now onto -- >> yes, onto mission bay drive. >> onto mission bay drive, but not onto berry street? >> that's correct. that's because there were safety issues with making that movement. as you might recall, this is also one of the few at-grade crossings of caltrain. >> right, right. >> and i know there are some discussions with the community, the ocii as well as public works will be meeting with the community to make sure they understand the need to have the crossing belt this way. in the future as we extend more streets in and out of the area, there will be other ways to get around. but for now it's not a safe commission to make that turn. >> right, and i think i've made this -- it is across a railroad

track. will you still be able to come out of berry street? so, if you're heading left -- >> yes, i'm sorry. >> you can still exit out of berry street but you can't enter in from that road. and if you enter in through this new road, how would you get onto berry street from there? if this is kind of your new entry point into your residential area. >> you have to circle all the way around. >> could you show me how that works? i'm sorry, i just couldn't -- >> [speaker not understood]. i walk it, i know i drive it. sorry. >> can we answer making a left or right turn from 7th street, you come down all the way to the circle and around the circle, come back, and then make a right turn onto berry street. >> onto that kind of upward and then you turnoff of berry? >> yes. >> okay, thank you.

>> any additional questions? >> those are all my questions, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. any other comments or questions, colleagues? before -- is that your presentation? >> yes. >> great. at this point we'll open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item 1 and/or item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we have a motion to forward items 1 and 2 to the board with positive recommendations? >> so moved. >> okay. and can we take that motion without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> okay. madam clerk, can you please call items 3, 4 and 5 together? >> item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code, section 205.4, to allow mobile food facilities at certain types of institutions in rh (residential house), rm (residential mixed), red (residential enclave), and rto (residential transit oriented) districts, subject to specified conditions; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ districts item number 4 is an ordinance amending public works code, article 5.8, to address various

locational and noticing requirements concerning mobile food facilities; and making environmental findings. ~ facilities. item number 5 is an ordinance amending the transportation code, division i, article 7 (violations, section 7.2.82, to prohibit any person to park a mobile food facility vehicle in either a business district or a residential area and, from that vehicle, offer food or beverages for sale unless displaying a valid permit issued by the department of public works, in a format and manner approved by the municipal transportation agency. ~ permit. >> thank you. i am the author of items 3, 4 and 5 relating to food trucks. so, colleagues, the legislative package before us today will modernize and rationalize how san francisco regulates the food truck industry with a goal of encouraging a flourishing food truck scene as well as the flourishing brick and mortar restaurant scene, giving consumers a choice and striking a good regulatory balance for our neighborhoods and our city. elements of this legislative package have been endorsed by the planning commission, by the small business commission, and by the youth commission. san francisco, as you know, has a very interesting and cutting edge food scene.

it's important for us to embrace this innovation and to encourage it. food trucks are a key part of this culture. they provide new and interesting kinds of food, flexibility. it is a good place for new entrepreneurs to enter the food industry. and we see many young people, immigrants, and women who enter the food industry through food trucks. one example is la cocina, a wonderful organization with a food truck in dolores park that allows primarily immigrant women to turn their skills for cooking into entrepreneurship. food trucks also help activate public spaces, bringing people outside to gather, to get to know their neighbors, activating sidewalks, plazas, et cetera. the food truck movement is important and has broad popular support. we see this in the long lines

for many food trucks in our city. we also saw it in the vehement opposition to assembly bill 1678 which would have dramatically reduced food trucks being able to operate, leaving few if any food trucks in san francisco. two years ago, and i stress that, two years ago, i got involved in this issue for a number of reasons. it wasn't an issue i had campaigned on or intended to take on when i came into office. but i got involved for a number of reasons. first, we were seeing increasing conflict between food trucks and brick and mortar restaurants. due to insufficiently detailed and clear permitting standards, this was causing chaos and uncertainty for both brick and mortar restaurants and food trucks with numerous appeals at the board of permit appeals. and i actually think that the people who are probably going to be happiest about this legislation is the commissioners on the board of

appeals who have been seeing a lot of food truck permits. of course it's not in anyone's interest to have a system where the bulk of the permits are getting appealed. it becomes unpredictable, expensive and cumbersome for everyone. so, my goal is to rationalize our permitting process which is overly restrictive in some ways and not restrictive enough in other ways. and in doing so, to foster and continue to foster an interesting and cutting edge food scene in our city. two years ago i convened a working group of stakeholders who were interested in trying to come to a resolution, to ensure fair and clear and evenhanded treatment of everyone. for the last two years we have been working as a group. we work closely with the building owners and managers association, boma, with the golden gate restaurant association, with off the grid, and have been in regular

contact with other organizations, neighborhood groups, merchant groups, business improvement districts. we've also worked closely with the school district and with the school district's food and fitness committee. one problem we quickly encountered was that our zoning for food trucks was very restrictive in some areas which can lead to overconcentration in the areas that are not restricted. we discovered that our planning code prohibits food trucks on many college and hospital campuses unless they're zoned as commercial, which they usually are not. and that's despite the fact that i think a lot of college and campuses would want to have food trucks. in addition, a number of years ago the board of supervisors passed legislation banning food trucks on streets within 1500 feet, i.e., three blocks on average, around all middle schools and high schools. the 1500 foot rule was well

intentioned, but led to consequences. a three-block radius around every single middle school and high school in the city in all directions is quite extreme, and for some high schools and middle schools that are embedded in commercial areas, it can effectively preclude food trucks from the bulk of the neighborhood. and we've seen that in the mission, many parts of the mission it is illegal to operate a food truck on a street because of that rule. and the extent of the 1500 foot rule conflicts with the spirit of neighborhood integrative schools where neighborhoods, schools coexist, and help each other, as opposed to one dictating what the other can have in terms of food choices or anything else. it's also important to protect the school lunch program, which is why the 1500-foot rule was enacted in the first place. we want to support that program. we want to make sure that there is equity so that you don't

have wealthier kids leaving school and lower income kids staying in the cafeteria. and we certainly don't want to drain money from the school lunch program. i initially proposed a 500 foot or one block buffer for all middle and high schools, in other words, reducing 1500 feet to 500 feet. after extensive negotiation with the district and others, the amended version of my legislation provides for a 500 foot buffer around middle schools and that either a 750 or 1,000 foot buffer around high schools. and the reason that we went with the two-tiered system was we wanted to do a thousand for high schools, but there was a small -- there are a small number of high schools that are so close to commercial areas and are surrounded by commercial airs az that a thousand feet would still be overly restricted. so, we went with 750 feet for that small number of schools ~.

and the legislation as noted will now allow food trucks on hospital and college campuses. in addition, for the first time the legislation establishes a 75-foot buffer zone around existing restaurants, measured from the front entrance to the restaurant, and provides that a food truck cannot park on a street within 75 feet of that entrance. the legislation will also improve noticing. currently only businesses receive notice of a permit application unless it's after hours, in which case residents also receive notice. the legislation will continue to have notice to residents for after hours applications and then for daytime applications we'll provide notice to both -- not just businesses, but also owners and managers of

commercial property and to neighborhood associations listed with the planning department. the legislation will provide that a food truck can be in a specific location for up to three days a week and that every seven years the food truck will have to go through the permit renewal process. the legislation also extends formula retail controls to food trucks. we saw recently a burger king food truck opening up in manhattan and this legislation provides that if a business as a brick and mortar business is already formula retail, then the same formula retail controls will apply if they decide to open up a food truck. so, formula retail is banned, the formula retail truck will be banned if conditional use is required -- actually, no, i'm sorry. the formula retail controls will follow the food truck onto

the street. and then in addition, the legislation will improve enforcement against food trucks that operate without permits. currently food trucks have to get -- sign up with the department of public health and have to have annual health inspections. they also have to have a permit from the department of public works. dpw has had significant trouble enforcing against food trucks that don't have permits for lack of staffing and also because dpw notices of violation are very difficult to actually get full enforcement on. you have to end upbringing court action. ~ the legislation includes an amendment to the transportation code that will allow mta parking control officers to ticket food trucks operating without permits and those tickets can then be enforced through the dmv. so, colleagues, that was a

mouthful. this legislation, again, has resulted from two years of very, very, very intensive negotiation among the various stakeholders. i will acknowledge that i don't think anyone is jumping up and down about every aspect of the legislation, as with all negotiation and all compromise, there are different aspects that different people maybe like a little more or like a little less. but this is a compromise that resulted from very, very deep and extensive negotiation. and i think we have a good result that is a significant and more predictable regulatory scheme than we have today, and i hope you will support it. so, if there are no introductory remarks, i do have several brief presentations from departments and from some of the key stakeholders in the negotiations. i want to start with sophie

hayward from the planning department. ms. hayward? >> good afternoon, chair wiener and supervisors. sophie hayward, planning staff. the proposed ordinance is considered at the april 19, 2012 planning commission hearing and the planning commission passed resolution number 185 876 0, recommending approval with technical modifications to the proposed ordinance ~. and the proposed amendment to the planning code is limited in scope. it would allow an intermittent activity, such as a mobile food facility, within our rm, red, or [speaker not understood] zoning districts provided the use is located on a parcel that contains a medical institution or post secondary institution. and then further, any intermittent activity permitted in these residential districts is subject to restrictions on hours of operation between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

unless you have any questions, that pretty much concludes my presentation. >> thank you, ms. hayward. i realize i misspoke before about formula retail trucks. what the legislation provides is that if formula retail is allowed as of right, a formula retail establishment can have a formula retail truck if formula retail is either banned or requires conditional use, then the formula retail truck would be banned. and that is so we don't have -- i think the planning department was a bit hesitant to have conditional uses starting to apply to our roadwaysbecause that would be unprecedented. ~ >> that is correct. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i do have a question, because i know in the c-3 formula retail as of right, and i think one of the last things i want to see is a burger king or mcdonald's with a truck all up and down market street. so, i just wonder if there's been any consideration about that. i know that that is an area that we allow formula retail, but i just really t