know what muni is doing now. to make sure that this system becomes more reliable and that we do the absolute most with what we have. the next number of years. the 1st wave of lrp's from siemens the new ones will arrive in 2016. for the central subway. it will be several more years after that until we start seeing these new lrp's in the system as a whole and then there will be a gradual transition over time as we decommission the defective [inaudible] and put siemens into exclusive use. so, this hearing will explore with mta with the current situation is and i will say that light rail service has deteriorated in the last number of months. ginny was making some good progress and more vehicles and services and even running three-car trains during rush hour. that appears to have completely t-shirt related as some accidents have occurred and

some breakdowns and other mechanical problems. so, we need to know with the current situation is, what the plan is to get us out of this current situation, and how muni sees the next 3, 4, 5 years going in terms of not just angel writers don't worry at some point in the future it's going to be all fixed but how is it going to function the next number of years as we continue to grow as the city and is more more people are relying on this transit system. i look forward to the conversation. thank you >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee thank you. to become i like to adjourn the memory of in memory of state senator john for rent, who passed on september 11. at his home in district 7. senator for ram shape california's transportation policy over 22 years career in legislative state legislation. he also played a major role in acting california clean air act. after

his retirement from the state center in 1986 the san francisco section of the interstate [inaudible] 280 as you know the 280 freeway was named in his honor. the senator also established the metropolitan transportation commission in the bay area. some of you are members of that. which became the country's 1st regional transportation authority. legislation that allowed [inaudible] orange district to conclude does include very transit systems. several of us are also on that particular board could his work continues to make an impact on bay area transportation and will for the long into the future. senator for ram has a lifelong interest in politics and law. he graduated near the top of his

class at usf school of law and served as a deputy attorney general before running for public office. he retired in 2004 and traveled extensively and enjoyed spending time with family and friends. senator for ram is survived by his friend of his wife of 56 years his 2 sons and 2 daughters and 4 grandchildren assessment >> thank you supervisor you. resident should >> thank you colleagues of a couple of items today. 1st i want to start with the difficult memorial. i want to recognize the passing of [inaudible] lee a loving mother and grandmother. previously taught music and language in china. had been a resident of chinatown for 20 years. as many of you know this is he passed away after being struck by a path a speeding car near the on october 7 when she was 70 years old. born and raised in china,

mrs. he moved to our city 2 decades ago. she has 5 children in the bay area. her husband passed away a few years ago but you chose to live alone in chinatown to be with her friends and her community. on the day of the collision mrs. jen had dropped her children off at the chinatown library. and continued on her way to her senior center for a game of mah-jongg. she was an active member of her family association and its choir. her older son said his mother strictly follow traffic rules. todd her grandchildren to look both ways before crossing the street. to pay attention to street lights. when the language turn yellow mrs. he would pull back and patiently wait until it was safe to cross. i know there are many throughout our city who are incredibly saddened by this loss. this is a tragedy that is another wake-up call that san francisco needs to be more to protect pedestrians. ironically, on saturday morning i was heading to the [inaudible] event where i know many of you were there to

advocate for more funding for transportation safety. when i was called to join the scene. just earlier today, i have to mention at 11 o'clock a.m. was another collision at the same [inaudible] segment to intersection resulting in another pedestrian injury while we were sitting here during orange county transportation authority meeting. many of you may recall one time chance out activist was killed in january this past year after being struck by a speeding car injection a few blocks away. she was 84 years old. i think were all incredibly frustrated and saddened by these back-to-back tragedies. in the past few years stockton street alone has witnessed under the collisions. we know that older adults are among the most vulnerable to be killed or injured and with a large aging possum population in chinatown pedestrian in street safety must be a top priority for our city. in this year's disc 3

participatory budgeting process our residents voted to allocate $20,000 to make pedestrian safety improvements at the high-speed intersections. i'm requesting the mta use these funding along with other available resources to examine pedestrian safety improvements and traffic measures for stockton and sacramento. including creating an intersection scramble extending light timing & better signage, and widening the sidewalks. we all need to do whatever we can to protect our residents so that we don't lose any more of our members. in this tragic way. on behalf of our city i want to offer our condolences to mrs. gans family for her 8 grandchildren and her 5 sons. should be missed dearly by all her friends and neighbors in chinatown. >> related to the area of public safety on a street am also requesting that the mta review its policy on the ability of bus operators to call 911 in cases of emergency. yesterday morning as i was heading to and muni bus stop i

saw an elderly woman lying on the ground. she been trying to board the muni bus and end up falling and hitting her head. as i approached the scene while she was not moving, the bus driver was attempting to call in mta dispatch report to report the emergency but he was put on hold. when i asked of anyone had called 911 from an ambulance's bus driver told me he had not because of an mta policy that did not allow him to do so. i end up having to call 911. thankfully the woman regained consciousness and an amulet with finally on its way but are muni bus drivers should have the ability to call 911 if that's not the case i'm requesting the mta make this change to this commonsense policy. today i'm introducing another piece of legislation major reform other cities contracting laws. to expand city contracting opportunities for local diverse small businesses. this is the form

that comes after hearings i held earlier this year and overthink the many representatives of small businesses and diverse current and future contractors including the coalition for economic equity. champions are contracting laws for years. i'm introducing this [inaudible] package along with mayor lead to reform chapter 40 b of the administrator code and i also want to take a moment and think our city administrator her staff, and then department represents for their work on this topic for many months. 3 decades ago are sentences go board of supervisors passed chapter 14 b after notching a history of passive and sometimes active discrimination in our cities contracting policy. to fulfill our city's commitment to economic development in all of our diverse [inaudible] and communities. over the years this is a law that is helped to foster a vibrant network of small diverse businesses throughout san francisco. in

recent years there've been many in our community who believe that there has to be reform of our current rules to make sure that were maximizing the hundreds of millions of dollars that we could be investing in our local and diverse businesses. we know that our small local diverse businesses are often at a disadvantage when they compete for public contracts against larger firms or businesses located at outside of our city and we need to do more to level the playing field for small businesses. the reform package that merely and i are introducing includes at least 15 policy changes. i like to describe a few of those key reforms. the most important element of what we are proposing is that we establish a citywide goal for local and small business contracting of no less than 40 percent. at this time, there's no citywide data that we know of that process he tells what exactly where we are although experiences with roger contracting departments indicate that this is an achievable goal. our legislation also includes reforms require requiring that departments 1st make an effort

to does when it comes to smaller contracts, to 1st obtain bids from local businesses. for construction contracts under $400,000, for professional service contracts under $100,000, you're asking departments to make efforts to obtain 3 bits from local businesses before opening up the contracting process to nonlocal business enterprises. our legislation also expands 14 b the comments to projects that require development agreement to be approved by the board of supervisors. the legislation increases threshold personifications of local businesses in certain industries which will allow small businesses in our city to continue to participate in our obe program as a [inaudible] art package also includes anti-retaliation provisions as well as great mentor protégé programs to foster partnerships between established contractors and local businesses. we know

that there's more that we can do for local and small businesses. we need to make sure that we let them level the playing field then again i want to thank mayor, city initiative, as well as many advocates to work with us for many months to move this forward. rest my arms i was in the church of thank you mister president. seeing no other members names -- [inaudible] >> madam clerk could you call items 21-24 >> the board of supervisors will convene a committee of the whole for a public hearing of persons interested in the proposed resolution of formation for special tax district number 2014 1 establishing the trans great community facilities district. resolutions to determine necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for the cft resolution calling for a

special election. to cement the issues of the special tax. in anchoring bonded indebtedness and the establishment of the appropriations limit to the qualified electors of the community [inaudible] district this public hearing was continued open from september 2 and september 9, 2014 >> thank you. colleagues, this is a hearing that we started a few weeks ago and has been held and is continued. what i'd like to do unless there are any initial comments from the district supervisor, is to turn it over to mister ken which burn update on where we stand today. >> good afternoon supervisor. ken richard l ewb. we have just a short report for you today. 2 weeks ago at this hearing we reported to you on alternate payment arrangements that we had discussed with some of the developers involved that would allow some of the payments to be made for the special taxes over a longer period of time. resulting in more payments made over that period of time and the same net present value value to the city. we also told you that we made it clear we

would need agreement from 6 developers in terms of supporting the [inaudible] district i'm not initiating resolution against the city and some other things. the report i have for you that we were not able to receive that agreement do we do not receive those waivers from all 6 developers, and so is i think we promise to you 2 weeks ago, our recommendation 2 days to move forward with the original set of resolutions. without the alternative payment arrangements with the original payment arrangements. that we would ask you to move those forward today. i was going to ask my colleague not here to say a few words in expiration of some things and then will be finished with our reports. >> good afternoon supervisor. 90 [inaudible] director of the office of public finance. i do want to just clarify that the $1.4 billion as referenced in the legislation in front of you and as was presented at the board in -- on september 2,

2014 is the maximum aggregate principal amount that could be issued through the life of the district. it is separate and different from in terms of what's been reported on and most important, the agreement that we had discussed at the last meeting resulted in an equivalent amount that was -- as was presented to the board. so, the agreed were looking at [inaudible] as the project role in terms of project funds available to the project. i do also want to acknowledge the financing team that's been working with us on this transaction. joan told, chris lynch, susan goodwin, consulting, tim conwell from [inaudible] and eileen gallagher as well from [inaudible]. i'd also like to thank city attorney's office for their help in this. we had to answer any questions you

might have on the numbers. >> banks not. so our recommention is that you past the original resolution that were in your file 2 weeks ago and were open to any questions you have for staff. >> supervisor winter >> thank you mister president. i want to thank staff for your work in the last number of weeks. to try to come up with a resolution here as i stated pretty serious, i've always taken a very dim view to the claims asserted by the developers here that they somehow interpreted the documents as locking in the bottom of the market valuation in these properties. even though the up zoning and the subsequent growth we've seen has just exploded the value of these properties. so, i've never really understood how that argument can be made in any kind of meritorious way. it

doesn't make any sense and i've always been of the view that we need to approve this and the developers need to pay into the belarus what they committed to pay and to the -- to make sure the [inaudible] to move forward the downtown extension can move forward. i was pleased when the resolution was proposed 2 weeks ago because contrary to an editorial that ran in the paper, that resolution would have gotten the [inaudible] every single penny which was entitled. the net present value is exactly the same and so there was no judgment whatsoever to the city or to the gpa, it was simply a restriction of how exactly it got paid for the developers. but, unfortunately i guess maybe the developers realize that from our perspective were getting everything so they decided not

to do it and that's -- i guess that's their choice but we now hear that if we approve this they're going to follow while a lawsuit and i am of the view that anyone can threaten to file a lawsuit and it happens all the time he would we shouldn't let that practice down in terms of doing what they want us to do which is to drain hundreds of millions of dollars from the belarus which would be pretty devastating to our ability to deliver the downtown extension. so, i think we should be approving this belarus as it is and moving for. i hope they don't sue. i think a very weak lawsuit but regardless, i don't think we should be bullied into getting a huge amount of critical transit money because a group of developers don't want to fulfill their obligation under this massive up zoning that the city did for these properties.

regarding the lawsuit, a question for mister [inaudible] i know in the planning code in the creation of transit district, there is a requirement that the developers "" it is late and the members. so the question is is trying to tank the mother was either by voting against it defeating it or filing a lawsuit to try to blow it up, is that participating? if it is not enough in violation of the terms of this district, what are the consequences? >> thanks supervisor. the me articulate the city's position is false: the developers agreement to establish a cfd drop finance transit the saudis was an essential part of the city's agreement to grant the developers substantially more

floor area ratio which gives them a huge increase the value of their projects. if any of the developers oppose establishing the [inaudible] district by going to vote for its formation by taking any administrative or legal action to impeding formation that would violate the projects conditions of approval and or their dbas with the cai or agreements with it she gpa as applicable. in such a case the city would have remedies under the planning code and/or the dbas or agreements between those developers. which could include, for instance, not limited to, depending on the circumstances withholding occupancy permits for the buildings in question or withholding future discussion i permits during the construction process. >> so, if the developer were to either vote against the districts or sue [inaudible] or

otherwise impede the ability of the districts to form, the city could withhold [inaudible] occupancy other discussion i permits including berlin permits? >> yes among a group of permits yes >> okay. so the city does have that ability. is the city, i imagine, actually considering taking no steps. i think it's important for those developers to understand, i think they, in a way, i don't want to broad brush. i think a number of developers here and there some distinctions to be drawn but i think at least some of the developers, one in particular, seem to be of the view that they have sort of a free shot that they don't want to pay all the money that they're legally required to pay so that going to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer file a lawsuit and there's no downside for them.

they simply get a free run of potentially having some judge overturned the district although i think that's unlikely. and if the judge rules against them if they lose their lawsuit, and then they go and pay into the belarus. but they've now delayed everything they have this huge budget that they're trying to wheels, say if if you don't give us what you want if you don't reduce by hundreds of million-dollar jewelry of debate for a downtown extension that would mess up your [inaudible] by filing a lawsuit on trying to get it overturned and at a minimum delaying it because they're always delays with the litigation. so it's really a terrible tactic and i'm really disappointed that they're moving in this direction. i think it's very important i'm glad to hear your statement that we are very clear that there will be consequences for developers who pursue this route to try to undermine this district. >> supervisor farrell >> i think supervisor

winterson most of what i say. very disappointed that we move forward and look forward to [inaudible] to make this a reality >> i'm also disappointed we weren't able to get your resolution today. that would've made our city hall and also avoided [inaudible] around rc deep and potentially risk the financing that we have coming in for the terminal really just a few months and so some of my

concern is that the impact of litigation or more immediate for us. but denies the mayor's office and the mayor and his role in really strong and always standing a very firm line for really being in the entire year before this even came to the board. i just have a couple of technical amendments to read into the record on to of the resolutions. 1st, file number 1408 one for the resolution permission for the city and county of san francisco [inaudible] district. the 1st is on page 3. church of supervisor came i haven't

[inaudible] what i like to do if there's any public comment on this any discussion of a common commitment to the consideration of the arms >> that started all way to make a motion on these technical amendments until after the comment that >> thank you. supervisor you >> thank you. i'm pretty disappointed. this is what the developer asked us to do he can do is to say stop the process and see what we could come up with a compromise that we want to. i thought most of the things that they were working towards were settled. so i'm like everybody else you're probably very disappointed that it didn't work and yet we propose bonus for 2 weeks. my question i'm glad supervisor

wiener spoke line of questioning is clarified that there's consequences in this. i'm just curious, and i don't know how much we can divulge on this, but what happened but it fell apart? can you clarify? >> i guess rather than mean any specific names, i think that the issue is that the compromise were the new payment plan as a preferred to call it requires from the beginning that all 6 developers were agreeable. otherwise if we don't get promises not to sue from all 6 it's pointless because of one sues it's the same as as if they all sued. so, we weren't able to get that. there were 2 or 3 that were on board from the beginning and a couple that we couldn't get in the end. we thought we had assurances. we do have assurances in the beginning but

minds change or something changed. so that's pretty much what happened. by late last week and began became clear we were not going to get the agreement from all the. again, avoiding any names, there were several that were on board immediately and were never a problem and there were few hours that we could not get. so that's what happened. >> thank you. i also want to thank the mayor's office for the work to put into this and trying to reach a compromise. >> supervisor wiener >> thank you. i just want to wish that last comment by mister rick is important i want to be very clear on my comments. the big believer [inaudible] were trying to demonize all these developers. i know there were some willing to agree to this and i think [inaudible] legally and everything to do in a good civic actors. i'm appreciative

developers were willing to enter this very good resolution but fourthly not all of them were. it actually brings up a larger point that i think sometimes when things like this happen are working very hard to try to address the future needs of the city around housing, around all sorts of creating new neighborhoods, all sorts of different positive votes for the student develop it is not easy in this town. we know it takes a long time there's a lot of opinion. we have a lot of sites. it's very difficult process. we try to really make the case to residents in the city that good smart well-planned fivefold element is a positive thing. the city and that is sometimes very hard argument to make for people that a lot of our residents, they get that. even though they may not always -- except that when you have a situation like this, with the public sees that you have again not always developers are not backing out

of a clear commitment that were going to do an absorbing that she's free helping to fund these transit infrastructures. when the public sees developers reneging from that commitment, that gives a black eye to all developments. it makes it harder for other developers who are trying to do the right thing by doing really good development and participating in the needs of the community. so i think it's unfortunate that this is happened but again it's the reality of where we are and we will just wither. thanks >> thank you colleagues any further discussion? me after visiting members of the public was to speak on this public hearing? >> that tax hit the road jack and all that tax. if the road jack [inaudible] tax and tax hit the road jack [inaudible]

that's what you say good luck with this item today. >> any of the members of the public was to speak on this topic please. >> tom gilbert p [sp?]. what did we have here? i think everybody knew that it was 8 a transport center. diehl and it was very nice and generous and now there's somebody that wants to put a lawsuit together to stop it. kind of like a almost a hostage situation. so, what they are after is the city and the people san francisco losing

a little bit of money. or a lot of bit of money. the developer plans to keep a little bit more money. so i'm thinking why don't we put a little bit of our lawsuit together and lean, put a lien on all their properties and all of the officers, chairman of the board of directors, and put a lien on the personal properties that they own and just leave it like that for a while and see -- because they're going to make money from our losing money. it's kind of an interesting idea. thank you >> any of the members of the public was to speak on this topic? okay see that at this time his hearing has been heard and is now filed.