the availability going to be? and that was kind of just not really out there and so when it came and they saw the 60 million and they are like, what? it was not transparent enough and so i think that it is important to us as we report to you to be as transparent on those aspects as possible. >> thank you, director? >> yeah, i too want to thank, this is very timely discussion about the approach to how to deliver this portion of the project and a good presentation. i would say something that having respond to the questions that were raised and that would be a proposal that would come out. and i told you that the second part was under the availability payment is the gaurantor of that availability and on the drive example that was mentioned this is the california is the gaurantor and i think that we need to find one out for this and without

that there will not be any developer that would be putting coming forward for a proposal. >> and if it is not a question that i want to make sure that we keep the discussion going. >> and the questions and comments from the board first, and we will go to the closing comments that you can address anything, if there are know specific questions, i don't think it to be constant back and forth. >> just to kind of summarize of what we had heard there is uniformty with the board in seeking a dialogue with cal train as an agency to talk about a unified project potentially with electrickfiation and dtx and primarily this project is not going to work without some

conversation on the governorans aspect specifically. and you know, for me on a personal level just to make the comments myself. you know, as from a policy level, i don't, my expertise is not in construction. so i am going to speak a lot less about the mo portion, but i am glad that we have the expertise on the board to speak about that and i would be more interested in the continued conversation along the land use aspects and the design and of course, the gathering of input. and talking makes me nervous and anxious and i am sure from many of us in this room, there are so many piece and agencis that have a say and a strong opinion about how we should be moving forward on this. this is a project that is so important to all of us in staoet but of course, regionally and in the state of california, as we move forward, over the next two months with

the discussion, and i am really looking forward to kind of having a more robust discussion with our multiple agencies and around this aspect and the financing, and the unification of the project. but also, the alignment, potential land use issues if there is going to be a greater discussion about the rail yard and the boulevard and others. and i just think that there is a lot out there and you really need to start moving on one pathway with greater unisom or thinking around this project but certainly, we would like the staff of both agencies to at least begin the discussion around cal train electrickfiation or dtx and this project is not going to be successful there if there is not common ground between our two body and so i think at that and if there is anything thatvy left out from the board. >> please. >> mtc would be, i think that maybe a forum. >> and maybe, i know it.

and they would have to be involved. >> and what is coming out on the study about the p3 is just looking on the dbfm on the securing of the funding and in order to start the project earlier than might be with other mods. >> what other funding. and in terms of the cost benefit. and just something for later discussion. >> and director and, any closing comments? >> they are commented >> and i wanted to thank the board and i just wanted to direct and it was very, important and we need to have the discussion on governorans and we are going to do that, and we are going to talk about the operation and we have been talking about this as well as the ta in san francisco, and something that it is important to keep in mind, and that is just like doyle drive and they

had a gaurantor in order to move forward, and you need to vaul of the funding sources committed. >> and we also need as a board to be working together, and to be making sure that the dtx is fully fund and that the commitments are there, just like we need to make sure that cal train electrickfiation is fully funded and so that is an important discussion that we need to be working towards as director or as chair person kim indicated funding is critically important. >> thank you. >> we have a member of the public that wanted to address you on this item. >> wow. >> and so, we will see you this time and we will prepare the remarks after this, and i will try to explain to you, how this works, but the problem that you have here is i am confused because you think of the existing cal train and to be

honest. you really have to separate the operations from the infrainstruct stur and now, in coming you are looking at the european model and you are taking your car and you are driving across the bay bridge and so how does that work, it is called the tracking rights and i will give you a typical example of cal train, you know how that works, the only way to get to gill roy is to get to the tracks and for the privilege of driving the trains on the tracks and simply, when capitol and the wander into the cal train territory and the part of the trains, and they pay cal train, tracking rights. and so by the time that you come to see the travel of the 22nd or whatever, it is very simple. and cal train wants to go to thinking as long as it is around, lining for changes but if cal train wishes to go to cal train, you have to pay some

money to get there, this is exactly how it works in europe if you want to leave paris and you go to lamburn you start with the rfs network and you pay your money to drive your train and you go to the channel and you do the same thing as the dtx and you take it right there and 20 bucks just to go through the channel tunnel and you get to the other side and the high speed one which is actually operated by a canadian pension fund and you pay them to ride the tracks. and simply we have the same system as cal train and we wander to the high speed line and once you keep it really separate and nice and simple now. and one minute left and i am going to show you the situations. and the rail and, and this is design big build and it has to be because it has to enter face a very, very precisely in the structure and that is in london right now and there no other

way to do this. the first tram was for the rolling stock, they had to abandon it because of the time constraints because they got the loan from the infrastructure bank and the two things that i want to talk to you on and very early relevant to the commission bay is that, two stations. one of them is called the (inaudible) train box and the master developer is developing two billion dollars next door and they delivered that 118 million dollar train box ride before it get in and the other one is canary wall and that one is incredible and it is 850 million dollars station, but you will submerge and the developer is developing and delivering the station for half of a billion. and they will actually use four of the levels four years before the first train of it gets there. thank you. >> thank you. >> if there is know other public comment, we will close

the public comment on this item. >> okay, seeing, no further comments, from board members, are there any other items on the agenda? >> that concludes the agenda for today. >> seeing that, the meeting is adjourned and happy new year's toefrn.

>> good afternoon and welcoming welcome to the board of supervisors land use & economic development committee i'm scott wiener and to my right is jamming r jane kim and to my left is chew. i want to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting the hearing. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> >> yes. please make sure to silence all electronic devices. items acted upon today will be on january 14th agenda. thank you. would you, please call item one >> it's an ordinance amending

the childcare committee and education. >> the sponsor is supervisor yee and we have grand dawson from the human agency to present. >> good afternoon, supervisors i work at the office of the human services. we're a relatively new office that was created on fiscal year 2013 it it consolidated the focus from the department of childcare and families and human services agency to create this office called the office of care and education. the creation of the early education is one of the many strategies to increase slots for childcare here in san francisco.

the office has a contract with the low income fund to administer the childcare fund which incorporates the funding from the human services agency and san francisco. the childcare agencies enter a agency committee proofs the expansion for construction of new childcare facilities we we have represents fray dcwf and the office of education and planning and the mayor's office of housing. you know, facilities are a huge resource for the education a very important resource here in the city. this there is an increase in the population and to serve the children 0 so san francisco is moving in the relevant direction. i met with mayor are a sue to

talk about this change in the planning code. and she misunderstood the reason for the change and proofed it. it's a clear up language to reflect the current city organizational for 5 years old. instead of identifying this to be the expertise around facilities it moves that to the office of early education. that's pretty much it. we work specifically on the needs assessment and on the city replacement that is referenced in the language. we oversee those projects and we precede the expertise around the documents so far as the facilities.

thank you very much colleagues, comments or questions. thank you. is there any member of the public who wants to comment on item one. public comment it two minutes >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors i'm douglas. first, i i'd like to thank you for holding this hearing which is more than i can say about thursday cancelled hearing as you usual. i am glad i have the time to come to this hearing. according to any understanding without the possibility of parole that be more cost saving to merger those two agencies together and tack the safes and put those into the direct services for needy children so maybe this committee would explain to people like myself

who are not familiar with the situation why you need two separate mifrsz if the need is for direct services to the needy planters so maybe we could consider instead of expanding the jobs of the administrators just to expand the money dribble for services >> thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment. seeing none, >> i want to thank the child advocates foyer this. >> commissioners, can we take this without objection? . that will be the order. madam clerk, call item 2 >> item it is the origin

amending the code for the negotiates special needs district. >> and item two the sponsor is supervisor breed her or her aid i hear them coming now. supervisor would you like us to deter this >> i'm ready. >> sfrooed is the author of item 2. >> supervisor. thank you chair woirn this legislation will allow the developers of the 555 project to proceed with the demolition and other entitlements for the project. all it does it extend the project for another 5 years. it didn't talk about the affordability retail.

so i'm actively engaged obtain those topics and not ready to proceed with the legislation at this time. i'll work with the western edition and the developer to come to an agreement around those issues and then when i'm comfortable with that in that we've reached a resolution to moving forward to the committee. but we all know it needs to be improved and developed to contribute to the community. this helps us while we complete the other details. i'm offering an academy for the signage controls for the project as well. the planning commission passed this language and it's important we establish those controls now. we need to have the signage in place. we can wait on the formula

retail aspect of the project but the signage controls whether the i imagine is formula retail or not really should be in place at offset of the project. those are fair signage regulations. their drafted and pass by the commission and their appropriate for the neighborhood then the current regulations. so colleagues 50id appreciate our support and i think kevin annoy from the planning department would like to present i've brought copies for the body >> kevin. good afternoon, supervisors. this is the fulton grocery store special district for the code. again, it's requested of 555

fulton street to demolish the existing building on the site for the 0 ground floor grocery store. this was proofed for the entitlements to extend the project with the uses that were originally proofed or it was proofed for the grocery store use at the site. it extraordinary under the sunset date in april of last year. therefore the estimation it necessary. at that time the commission recommended the estimation as well as other amendments. just to recap the commission did recommend the formula retail for

the affordability of the pursuit line for the attempt that might have the space and striking the cap for the non-tenants which is limited to 3 thousand secret. those are a not up for consideration today. with respect to the signage restrictions that strooed mentioned i will like to read into the record this is on page 3 and it would start as sub item 5. for the article 6 stipulate it to be limited. window signs. the total area of all window signs shall not exceed 10 percent.

sub item b wall signs. the area of all wall signage shall be limit. it shall not exposed 24 square feet or the highest wall which every is lower. the sign shall be limited. projecting signs. the number of projecting signs shall not exceed one per business as set forth shall not exceed 24 square feet. the signage shall not exposed the lowest on which every is lower. excuse me.

no part of this sign shall project more than 75 percent or 6 feet 6 inches whichever is less it shall be non-directly limited. signs on marquees. the signs shall be on marquees the area of such senile copy is in section 2.1-c shall not exposed the use of la gone. such sign copies maybe non-limited or indistillery limited and finally, the free sign towers shall not be permitted. that concludes my presentation i'm available for questions

>> sfrooed. >> i'd like to proof the changes and hopefully, your support to move forward this item. >> now to city attorney my understanding those amendments would precluded us from sending those forgot. >> that's correct. >> we can't put them out. so supervisor breed we'll continue this item one week >> yes. >> colleagues if there are no questions or comments we'll open this up for public comment any any public comment? >> i'm douglas.

>> i would actively speak in favor of this item and put on the record some special considerations to be considered. on ocean avenue there was a special use development where safe way stores antidepressant the main retail and then a above that there's good news condos built brown above that and safe way failed on that location and the location has been on and off antidepressant. i haven't driven by it lately so you might want to consider what happened to safe way and hopefully it won't happen to fulton street and on the record i'd like to make a prediction there's going to be a failure

near city college. according to my research the tenant is a miss match for that neighborhood and sufbl that won't work and we'll have two projects on ocean where both will fail so let's not let that happen on fulton street. also since we're on the subject of special use district i'd like to propose why candle stick can't be torn counsel and used for homeless services veterans housing and also for nonprofit offices. i think those 3 uses will definitely proof the area we don't need any more high-class shopping at hunters point

>> any additional any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. sfrooed proposed the amendments their amendments are adapted. any additional questions or comments. okay. we'll need to motion to continue the item for one week and we'll tack that without objection. madam clerk, call item 3 >> item 3 is a resolution authorizing the city and county special district to levy the tax these important work necessary. >> it's sponsored by mayor. supervisor chiu any questions >> good afternoon, supervisors tuesday night. the item is the second to last

piece of regulation to be able to issue fund for both divorce and seismic retrofits. this motion was made because of the soft store ordinance where we have 3 thousand 3 hundred building to be retrofitted. i want to thank the supervisors for working closely with mayor ed lee. i've had seattle contacting our office and it's truly ground breaking. we had a workshop with over one thousand tenants and we've had a lot of folks to sign up for the soft store retrofits. we have televised videos and we want to thank the building

inspectors as well. more importantly i want to say that the consumption of some of our financing and property outreach will be happening this month we'll have is an earthquake meeting and this is an opportunity for the owners to comply to meet with the contractor and manufacturers and lenders. so again, thank you very much for your support if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> at the were we'll open item 3 up for commit. >> good afternoon. i'm doug. since we're on the subject of special tax district go we have

a special tax district to handle the current electrical problems on treasure island. that's funny we can't keep the lights on for any - and it's not about treasure island >> right but i'm relevant i think. mr. gibb in her >> deputy city attorney. so sir, you can comment on the item which authorizes the special tax district >> well, then i guess i can't say anything about mel he murphy. >> is there any comment on item

3 smokz a. that will be the order madam clerk, is there any other business >> there's no further business. >> thank you we're púú@