more jobs can get created. that's part of the immigration bill along with family, along with pathways to citizenship for those that are technically not legally here. how do you spend the $1.2 million on this program? >> thank you. that's over a three-year period and half of that money is coming from the foundations that are participating. that's why we wanted to officially thank them. the other half will come from the city general fund through the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs that adrian has. and she will be working with all the nonprofits to fund them appropriately for the activities that will get people the training, the orientation, the classes, but also the outreach, building their confidence that they should go through the citizenship process. thank you. thank you, everybody. (applause) ...

>> and welcome to the san francisco land use and economic development committee. i am scott wiener the chair of the committee and to my right is jane kim who is the vice chair and to my left is david chiu. our clerk today is lisa miller. i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting today's hearing and specifically jessie and mark and

those that can't sit in the room we have an over flow room. we have public comment cards at the front. if you're interested in speaking fill out a card and the item number that you want to make public comment. madam clerk any announcements? >> yes. please silence all cell phones and pagers and all cards should be submitted to the clerk and will be on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. madam clerk can you call item one. >> item one is an easement for pacific gas and electric in san mateo county for $15,400. >> and john updike from the department of real estate will present. >> good afternoon. so pg&e is embarking on a safety plan that upgrades their lines. several of those lines ran adjacent to

our sf puc lands. there are some instances additional easements are needed beyond what they have from the city. this project, the crystal springs station is one of those and includes automated valves and technologies and want only make their lines safer but protection to our critical infrastructure. this is located not far from the crystal springs rest area off the i-280 if you can picture that location. this is literally a spoken's throw from that location. the value was set at aiment -- $15,400 and we agreed on that amount and over an acre in construction easement rights. those rights will expire in six months and in addition to that

modest amount of compensation we have insurance and endimmity language related to the new easement rights but the existing ones as well to further protect the city. there is a letter from planning. the sf puc commission approval and the ceqa findings which note this project is categorically exempt. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. colleagues any comments or questions? okay. we will open it up for public comment. is there any public comment? and without objection that is the ord. madam clerk please call item two. >> item two is for muni and how

it will be paid for and jowbl growth. >> thank you want i requested this hearing to have a frank discussion how we should be planning for the expansion and bolstering of the public transportation system to meet the future needs of san francisco. we are estimated to grow as a city and we need to make sure that muni and the rest of our transportation system is going to be up to the task of servicing our growing population. a few months ago we held a hearing at this committee where we talked in very precise numbers about the challenges that muni has, challenges that any of us that read the system see everyday and i believed it was important for all of us to understand in terms of the hard numbers and we learned a few

things. for example, that muni is performing at approximately a 60% on time rate which is far below what most of us consider an acceptable level. we learned that muni does not have nearly enough light rail vehicles and that on 50% of weekdays muni does not have enough light rail vehicles to even cover basic service. we learned that we also have a shortage of electric trolley coaches, and we learned that muni has 2.2 billion dollars in deferred maintenance and has huge unmet needs in terms of capital repair rehabilitation and replacement. we learned other things as well and i won't repeat everything, but i think it's fair to say that muni right now despite its best efforts is struggling to meet the needs of san

francisco's current population. san francisco is estimated -- that we will grow by adding 100,000 people over the decades and the bay area will hold 2 million people. we will be adding a lot of new housing welcoming new people to our city and that in many ways is a positive thing. we see new construction going along around market and mid-market and having people in the proximity of that subway and exactly where we should be putting new housing and treasure island and the development at peas 30 and 32 and hunter's point and mission bay and pier 70, et cetera we have development going on in the

eastern part of the city so the muni that we have day, a muni that is struggling because of deferred maintenance and under investment for years and struggle to meet the needs of the current population is a system that 10-20 years from now is going to be that much older and expect to meet a larger passenger load and it's critical that we as a city plan carefully how we're going to stabilize and bolster the muni that we have and how we're going to grow service capacity to meet the growing needs of the population. it's something we should have focused on 10-20 years ago but need to be focused on it like a laser now and move forward so the purpose of the hearing is hear from the mta office and

the mayor's office and for growth and not just planning because it's not good to have the plans on the shelf but how to acknowledge that growth and we have a task force meeting and we're working hard to move forward plans and funding plans but i thought it would be a good opportunity to hear from our agencies from where we are are and where we're going and i would like to start with john ram and 10 ken rich from the office of economic and workforce development and ed reiskin our director of transportation. >> thank you supervisor. good afternoon. if i could have the projection power point that would be great. i am happy to be here today to talk about transportation and land use and i will say that as in the short time i have been here, that i guess isn't that short anymore, five and a half years, there has

been much better cooperation and working relationship between the transportation agencies and the planning department as we fully understand the connections and the importance of policy development between land use and transportation and i think that is key to making the system work. if i could have the overhead that would be great. >> sfgtv overhead. >> well, i will just start in the interest of time. there we go. just as a snapshot and i won't go through all of these in detail but as a snapshot of statistics in the city today the current population is actually closer to 820,000 in 2013. and it is a little over 1 million during the day. there has been an increase in jobs in the last decade and that's an important

fact. just on that point for a long time since the early 80's the city hadn't seen any net new job growth. the job and spaces built in downtown and south of market were off set by loss of jobs in other parts of the city particularly the industrial sector. what we're seeing now for the first time in 40 years is a true increase and south of market and industries moving into that part of town. as you know the major transportation systems are at capacity. we are at record highs in the ridership and you see the numbers here coming into san francisco. so just as supervisor wiener mentioned here's some of the facts about growth in the area and in the city. plan bay area which was just approved last

week by the abag board projects by 2040 the region will have 2.1 new people and 1 million jobs and requiring thousands of housing units. that is 50% more than that exist in san francisco today so the reason we will see one and a half san franciscos in terms of growth. that plan calls for most of that development, housing -- excuse me,. >> two and a half san franciscos. >> yes. okay. i think we have about 400,000 today, seyeah, right. so that plan calls for most of the growth to happen along transit corridors which abag defines as development areas and housing and two thirds of new jobs and the city, even though we are central to the region, we are expected to accommodate about 15% of the growth and as a percentage doesn't seem like a high number

but it's 200,000 jobs and people and 93,000 jobs -- housing units, excuse me. >> could you hold on. could we please close that door? could we please close that door? could shn tell the sheriff to close the door? i'm sorry mr. ram for that disruption. you can go ahead. >>i think perhaps most importantly with respect to this growth is that it's the pace much development that would actually require us to consider. it does mean about 65 new jobs every year and. >> >> and housing units every year and a higher pace than we produced in the past but it is something that we are increasing in our capacity to build that

additional housing. these graphics simply show where the increase in jobs and housing will happen. these are areas that we have produced plans over the last 10-15 years. as i said the next 25 years we will see 1/3 increase in jobs and you could see the numbers here. primarily in the town down -- downtown mission bay hunter's point and produces the 1/3 increase in jobs and the same with the housing side and the plans note -- you see the notes here in terms of the actual numbers that are expected in each of those planned areas and i will say one of the things that i am particularly proud of we have plans for the area where the growth will happen so we know where and how will growth will happen and where most of it will not happen. i will also say the early plans that we started doing and the department and the city started doing 15 years ago now did not

holistically consider the changes to muni, the operating system, but they did establish impact fees including a transportation component to mitigate the impacts of growth and included many suggestions and financing mechanisms for transportation improvements and most cases impact fees pay for 30 purse of the improvements and. >> >> and they can only pay for the impacts created by the project but pay for 1/3 of the improvement and it's our job to collectively pay for the remainder. obviously land use and transportation have to be integral in the working relationship and linked. both at the local and regional level down to streets and pedestrian and systems and if i could just highlight a few of the plan disps what we have done in the plans in terms of incorporating

transit syncing. obviously the plan was based around transit as a key. it does everything from helping to fund the downtown rail extension to developing a comprehensive circulation plan, widening of sidewalks, bus lanes and so on and establishes transportation impact fees and it does in fact pay for itself. the scale and development covers all of the improvements. the corridor plan still in stages and will do the same and we will believe it will raise the fees for those improvements. certainly we're working with mta on the water assessment and covers all modes of transportation on the waterfront and we are taking a comprehensive look at that over the next fwif years and high speed rail and the impacts and the transit oriented

development that is associated with it. that is a nutshell captures the basics of where we in terms of planning and i will curb it over to ken rich from the mayor's office. >> thank you. just a question. i think this is something that we through out because any of these -- not just these specific development plans but development in the city in general and additional population assumes that we're going to have the transit capacity to meet those needs and make those transit investments because the way we're doing development it doesn't work unless you have the transit to support it. we're trying to have fewer cars and less traffic and got to have that transit, and so much of the development goes along areas to the city and the southeastern part of the city for exame that doesn't have nearly enough transit capacity, and one thing when we -- i have the honor of serving

as a member of the metropolitan transportation commission and when mtc and abag approved the plan last week and one of the ares i raised and it was buried in the plan is when you look at the capital rehabilitation and replacement needs of all of the bay area transit systems between now and 2040 which is when the plan runs through, and you look at what is projected in terms of committed funding, funding we're likely to get and the hole that we have no idea where the funding is coming from for all of the transit systems there is 18 billion-dollar rehabilitation and replacement hole where we have no funding identified for what's going to pay for that. of that bart is 6 billion muni 5 million and transit 2 billion

so it's a very scary number. >> >> and so much of the planned area and bay plans in the city relies on having a transit system growing with the needs how should we think about that gigantic hole because it's a big one? >> i don't disagree supervisor and i won't tell you i can come up with those funds. it is not unique to the bay area. it's a national problem and as we are moving back into central cities this is more of a problem. i think the other -- the other thing to say about it there is -- it is pretty clear this growth will happen whether we plan for it or not and the question is how do we make sure it happens in the right way? and this is why it's important for land use and transportation to be linked and not just

providing service to those coming but the survey say 30% of the people that live downtown walk to work and if you increase the percentage of people living near work it would reduce what would otherwise be a transit burden and i think it helps us think more holisticically how to solve the problems and provide the transit service. >>i think it's important to keep in mind a lot of this problem in particular as with some other major infrastructure problems results from the complete collapse of the federal government's ability to deal with items that the federal government traditionally dealt with. 20 years ago congress would have passed a major

infrastructure funding bill and provide funding all over the country and including the bay area. >> agreed. thank you. >> good afternoon. ken rich with owd and we have been working with the city partners and lead efforts on several complex projects where we were able to reach negotiated agreements with the sponsors on a sort that you do with a large agreement with a contractual element. you see some of these on your slide. these agreements have been tailored to specific needs and they have produced in part substantial capital investment in transportation. for example, infrastructure rolling stock and facilities, and then also innovative dedicated revenue streams,

household transit passes in some cases, parking surcharges, transit passes linked to events. we did this with the project that just came through and solutions that make sense for those projects. moving forward i think it's clear that we're going to continue spear heading large complex transformative -- you can use lots of adjectives, and mix used projects. some examplings are the is that laid lock site, the potrero hill site, the uc campus, and several development projects coming down the line. the emphasis on transportation investments among all the different community benefits that we have to look at when we're dealing with these large projects. the emphasis on transportation investments related to these should and will increase. we intend to be mindful of our partnership that

has been managed well by peter albert and ensure that projects contribute to system wide needs and the transportation sustainability program, but also on a case by case basis we intend to collaborate with developers to find creative meaningful solutions to neerkd transportation issues around these projects and in closing it's important to recognize that funding generated through the agreements are a critical but certainly an incomplete part of the picture and that is my prompt to turn it over to ed reiskin and talk about the larger transportation picture. >> thank you i have a quick question and then i will recognize president chiu and a number of these are with transit but we have seen projects not

paying any transit impact fees potentially. we also saw when the renewal of the impact development came to the board of supervisors lasted year the board sort of partially eviscerated it in terms of reducing its ability to generate meaningful revenue for the transit system to reflect development impacts. what can we do to make sure that development is consistently paying to mitigate transit impacts that support the transit system? >> i think -- as my understanding that the main vehicle across the board understood requirement is the tsp and replace the tdf and cover a larger number of use. i know there are conversations about the number of uses are and i think we're still a year away from getting that passed so i think there are a few

projects coming in in the interim where you have a tdif that doesn't cover residential and we don't have the tsp in effect but as soon as it's in effect there is a baseline that everyone understands and that's the first important thing. the second thing on the large projects we always had an understanding -- maybe there were a couple that slipped through but on the large ones that i mentioned i can't think of one that won't have a major transportation component to it. >> right now mission bay there is a dispute whether it applies to mission bay so those projects might not pay any impact transit fees at all and in terms of the the other group i hope you're right and grant an exemption to mega hospitals and they don't have to pay the impact fees and i hope it doesn't happen with them and we exempt out

residential but my confidence level isn't super high. >> i would point out on the project that just came through and not required to pay it they pay the same money in lieu and we negotiated aggressively with them because from the beginning we knew they weren't subject to it but we got them to pay. >> thank you. mr. chiu. >> thank you and mr. rich i want to thank you for the leadership on these projects and with the work in the city and hunter's point, and treasure island and other areas that we have some of the community benefits going to transportation, but i was struck by the last bullet that the funding generated through the development agreements is a critical but partial look at the picture and can you quantify what transit demand would be by these projects what percentage

of the upcoming need roughly? are we filling 80% of the need? 20% of the need? do you have a sense? >> unfortunately i can't do that. we don't know enough about the projects in the future to do that. i think the important thing to realize -- to make sure that the projects carry their weight but i think that we need broader funding solutions and that's just what i was trying to set up and you're looking for more specifics and can the projects cover 20%? 80%? i just don't have that right now. >> i appreciate that and the numbers are hard to get at. we should have some sense when we build housing in a certain sense of the city how many people will come to work and live and play if the areas and if we had a ballpark and around the costs what a developer is contributing to that would be helpful and i am not at all suggesting we would require future developers

to cover 100% of the expenses but having a ballpark not having the metrics make it hard to have a baseline. it makes our job harder, the mta's job harder and your job harder so what kind have had planning is there to take that into account and understand the numbers and a least a broad based matrixes and it's good to know if it's 20% or 80%? any information is better than none. >> i think we can do a better job with each project as it comes. one place where we do a good job and john spoke to this and the area plans, and the recent ones and trans bay and the central corridor plan there was quite a bit of work on the impact of the system and how much we can generate through fees on the projects. i think it's a little different story when it's one off development project but i think we can try

to do the same analysis with those too. >> what large projects can we did that. >> i think we can do that on all of them and better analysis moving forward. >> thank you. >> thank you and just to follow up on that, two points. first transit impact fees -- they're important but they're one time so when you look at what is going to happen over the next 10, 20 years after a development is done having that ongoing source of financial support is pretty critical. thank you mr. rich. and i will ask director reiskin from the mta. >> good afternoon chairperson and members of the com. i think mr. chair the way you framed this discussion at the out set of the hearing and then the remarks from john and ken

really helped frame the issue and i do want to reemphasize a point they think both of them made i think as you're seeing on the regional level but particularly in the local level there is much better coordination i think in terms of land use and transportation planning in terms of doing them together; in terms of integrate transportation needs into the land use process and vice versa so i think that's where we need to be and should have been and i think the overall story so far is we haven't invested in the transportation system that we have today for the last generation or so, and again that's a similar story with a lot of the city's infrastructure and we have all this growth that is projected to come which i think as director ram said the growth is coming regardless whether we want it to or not. it's a matter how do we manage it so it