leadership of peninsula in san francisco cannot make the mistake of ending up with a system with differential heights of platforms. anything that can result in reduced flexibility at stations and certainly at the end of the line at transbay has to be avoided. it wasn't a height issue, but those of us who have been around since muni metro went into embarcadero station, know we have end of the line problems with capacity in san francisco with muni medical center metro. we thought it would be resolved and we still have problems at peak times i'm sorry if it's going to be a problem ultimately or a difficulty for caltrain to figure out the equipment that they need to buy.

but we know what the international standard is for high-speed rail and that seems to be approximately 50" level floor, with the propulsion systems underneath. if that is what it has to be, we need to find a way to make caltrain's equipment compatible with the needs of statewide high-speed rail and the need to have an efficiently operating terminus in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lazarus. next speaker. >> good afternoon. supervisor. so a few things. to start with the question on land use, stafford city used to be an abandon rail-yard and the reason it was abandoned it used to get flooded and used the dirt from the london tunnels to raise the entire thing by 30'. you need to think about opportunities on the transbay

tunnel. you could be raising treasure island by 30'. you could be raising the bayshore baylines by x number of feet. on the subject of platform heights. in europe, every high-speed rail must be able to arrive -- every station will have to become compatible by 2020. the slides unfortunately shows waterloo station which was abandoned in 2007. the issue there is that the trains coming from europe with 30" train, but every domestic platform is 36". it's compatibility with the rest with 36", but the foreign trains from france are 30". the question of the high-floor

emus. there are many problems. head room and they actually made the trains 50" higher, which means that they are not able to go through the tunnels. on the width, where they increased the width by 66"s, these trains if you actually allow them in option directions in the tunnels will actually hit each other. the next problem that if you go double-decker, these trains unlike the single-levels are unstable, so they use non-standard tracks. they use a different gage. >> thank you. shirley johnson. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and supervisors.

my name is louis, san francisco transportation authority. i would like to make a couple of statements of clarifications. we have been a big supporter of both high-speed rail and cal train for a long time. these are projects that we have been dreaming about for a long time and very happy that they are happening. on the compatibility issue, this is one that the transportation authority together with the city family we have been advocating for quite a while. in all deference to dave, with his relatively new to the area, we started talking about a compatibility two years ago, when the mou was first put together. and caltrain project was revived because it had been on the shelf because of lack of funding. from those days we have been encouraging high-speed rail and caltrain to have compatible height in the platforms. and we're very happy to see

that now they are moving in the direction that they are moving. it looks like there is a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak and quite encouraged by the information that we have been getting. in order to address one of supervisor kim's questions, it is true that the majority of the commuter rails double-platform -- double-decker vehicles usually come in 25". however, there are manufacturers that make them 48". the same thing happens with high-speed rail. the most common is 48, but they also make them at a lower height. there is room for compromise. maybe there are less vendors, but they are available.

>> can you complete your last sentence? >> as far as the diesel vehicles becoming obsolete, that is true. however, that will not happen until the platforms get raised. in other words, the vehicles will not become obsolete on the first day. it may be 6,8, 10 years before the platforms are actually raised. so therefore, the diesel vehicles will be able to operate during that time until the platforms are finally raised. and i agree with mr. couch, when he mentioned that cpuc needs to be addressed. however, not knowing what height we're going to be negotiating, it's kind of hard to approach them for that. so first we need to come up with the height and then start negotiations with the cpuc. >> supervisor kim has a question. >> my question is about the

50 vs. 25" and mixing them with in with the existing fleet and i heard of challenges and why isn't from your perspective you can bring in the 50" trains and still keep the current diesel fleet? >> well, >> well, there are many solutions available for a train to be able to address multiple -level platforms. one of them is the two doors that we have been hearing about, low door, high door and moveable steps, that the steps move to a higher platform and create steps for lower platform. >> i see. >> that is also a possibility. so it's a matter of maybe the right approach is to basically

ask the vendors to provide a solution for the problem. >> i see. >> we have this issue. we're going to have this height platform now, and we're going to need the chance to operate for so many years at this height and then go to this other height. what do you propose? and have the industry come up with an idea. what is best for them? and that would be part of the selection process. >> thank you so much. i did want to say, i looked through the ta report, that wasn't one of the suggestions. what i read the suggestion was looking to see how we can raise additional funds for them to completely replace their fleet all at once and keep the diesel trains, i think from san josé down to gilroy. and to have caltrains sell trains that they could sell, that they weren't able to use because they had replaced 100% of the fleet. >> correct. and we agree with you. >> actually, i'm quoting your report. >> that is the solution that

we proposed, that we think is the best solution. it's basically to go ahead and find the funding to help caltrain buy the whole fleet now, rather than just buying a portion of the fleet. because it becomes problematic for them to be operating two different types of fleets, two different types of vehicles. the maintenance, the operations, so it would simplify everything if they had the whole procurement now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i'm shirley johnson and i live in san francisco. i'm a frequent caltrain rider and i'm really thrilled to hear there is going to be level-boarding on both caltrain and high-speed rail. i bring on bike on board, so it's very important that the boarding is level and it's also important that the boarding be compatible. i think we have heard that over and over again. so basically, first of all, supervisor wiener, i would like to thanks

for your support of bikes on board and thank you, very much. i look forward to bring mig bringing my bike on board hsr as well. it's a very complicated argument and complicated situation and who makes the ultimate decision, the higher authority who has these groups work together to have compatible platforms? thank you. >> thank you. >> chair wiener, supervisors, i'm jim haas and i have been involved in one way or another with caltrain for 30 or more years. for much of that time the city of san francisco was kind of like a poor relative and made demands and wouldn't put up any money, but we're in a position through the sales tax and thanks to you all for prop a to have put money on the table and therefore i think we can ask and demand more things with more responsibility. i think the first thing we need

is a unified management for caltrain that focuses on the train and that the other activities that are currently taking management time running the san mateo buses are sent to another person. secondly, i think the city's participation in the caltrain board has to be upgraded and made more aggressive to make sure that our positions are well-known and that we succeed. thirdly, you have heard about the platform issue. i don't need to say anything more, except that i would note, if we end up with two different heights and platforms, i'm told at the millbrae station, the high-speed rail would have to build an underground tunnel at a cost $700 million. deep down a lot of administrators at high-speed rail and caltrain, they don't really, i think, have confidence that we're going to

get it downtown and they have backup plans for stations at 4th street and we need to make sure that we overcome them and one is the melaruse issue and i think we'll have to assume there will be a lawsuit, but we have to lean on the other developered not to participate. i have said that to one development group. >> thank you, mr. haas and the train will come downtown. i don't think it's worth having alternative plan because it's going to happen. any additional public comment on item no. 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> thank you, i did have one question for high-speed rail.

i think this is a question for all of the parties as well. as we look at a uniform boarding platform vehicle for both agencies, are we also discussing what the potential sources of funding to pay the difference in costs would be for caltrain? i think our last speaker brought up some of the additional costs that might occur for high-speed rail if we did got into the two-level platforms. >> yes. as casey pointed out we're talking amongst the nine funding partners, mtc, the counties, caltrans, et cetera and we're also looking at what the follow-on investments for future high-speed rail service in the corridor will require? and in order to get though that integrate rail service, there is more than some logic to expedite that investment, so we're addressing some of the issues, platform stations and

others that will add to the benefit of integrated rail service in the corridor, to allow us to address this issue directly. >> are there specific sources that we know we can look to? >> certainly the advent of cap and trade to look at the possibilities. that is what we're in the process of doing. >> thank you so much, and i know this will be ongoing dialogue and we're just one of the counties that are super interested in the alignment issue and it's a regional issue, so there are probably a number of different perspectivesfrom a variety of counties, but from san francisco, there is probably a unified position that we would like to see uniform boarding platforms for our vehicles, seeking the greatest alignment and hopefully the most affordable costs in the long-term for our system as we modernize. so i do want to appreciate all of the agencies.

it's a very challenging issue, and i think you brought up why technically why it's so challenging to move into kind of a unified system? but i just want to say that i'm very appreciative of the work that we're trying to see what is possible, instead of just outlining the challenges as to why we can't do it, but we're actually saying how can we make it happen and exploring the viability? i'm certainly happy of the commitment from our city in terms of hoping in the funding gap and electrification is a priority and there is a little urgency that caltrain has to move forward because you are already at capacity and congratulations on meeting those numbers. it's great that so many people are riding our public transportation system to get around. i'm hoping that we can make a motion to continue to the call of the chair. it would be, i think, a good use of our time to get an update in the next couple of months here in san francisco.

thank you. >> great. thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor kim has made a motion to continue item 2 to the call of the chair and we'll take that motion without objection. [ gavel ] >> thank you everyone. madame clerk, can you please call item no. 3. >> item no. 3 is ordinance approvion extension of moratorium in the south of market plan area. >> supervisor kim is the author of item no. 3. >> thank you. it's a continuation of the interim moratorium extension on production, distribution and repair conversion in the proposed central south of market plan area. it was introduced in september, but in the first vote, it was only able to toll for a certain number of days and this will will be able to continue it for the rest of the year. i do have some amendments -- minor amendments to introduce that the city attorney has distributed copies to committee members. but i'm happy to do that after

public comment. >> so we'll move to public comment. is there any public comment on item no. 3? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] >> thank you. so the amendment that i'm proposing one is on page 5. lines 25. the interim zoning moratorium shall remain in effect for 22 months and 15 days from termination date from ordinance 210-14 or until the date that permanent controls are adopted. and in effect to address the converse of pdr to a manner that better conserves neighborhood character in the identified area, whichever occurs first. so mr. givner, this is the only amendment that i see that you had state there had might be one other.

>> there is one other amendment, just cleaning up a typo on page 3. no need to read it into the record it's stated in the copy. >> this has been before the land use committee and full board and this is again just the final extension of the interim moratorium extension and i want to thank the committee for your support in september. >> great. thank you. okay. so we have an amendment proposed by supervisor kim. and we'll take that amendment without objection. [ gavel ] >> and then can i have a motion to forward item 3 to the full board with positive recommendations. >> so move >> that will be the order. madame clerk, could you call item no. 4. >> a resolution approving and authorizing an agreement with the real property conveyance of

land located at 600 7th street. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. so we do have mr. updike from the department of real estate and the mayor's office of housing and i believe this is the second land dedication for affordable housing that is the city is undergoing and this is for a parcel in district 6,600/7" street, affectionately known as the concourse public assembly site. mr. updike. >> thank you, supervisor system kim, chair, good afternoon.

to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirements through the dedication of land to yield a required number of housing units. in this case, the developer, which is archstone concourse llc, whose general partner is equity residential, plans to develop -- excuse me, 432 units at 801 brannan and 239 units at one henry adams. here are those two locations on the overhead. and elects to satisfy all of the inclusionary housing requirements at 100 adams and a portion of those at 801 brannan by dedicating to the city the roughly 3/4 of an acre site, which we through the mayor's office of housing. this property is valued at $24,750,000. transaction pursuant to the code provision occurs at $1.

again although i know you are very familiar with this site, there is a look at it in an aerial so the. 1 henry is just below the picture. and for better perspective which site the city is receiving as part of this, you can see this is a site plan, which shows on the right side of the plan the future housing to be located there. this gives you picture on how it is incorporated as part of the overall design plan. so the developer would deliver the property to the city after demolition, after remediation with certain curbside improvements with underground

utilities. pollution insurance will be maintained by the developer and deed restrictions on the two private development priorities ensures all buyers or tenants are notified of the future affordable housing housing and there are no supervisors when the mayor's office on housing moves in other words, adjacent to the project. all transaction costs are covered by the developer, along with costs and resources needed to subdivide the property that will create the affordable housing parcel to be delivered to the city. from the timeline perspective, we anticipate the city would take title to the property in 2017 after the 801 brannan project is complete. development of for us project would occur as funds are available. mayor's office of housing staff are work on thing funding issue stream now. all the requisite approvals are found in your packages and based on ceqa findings which

were referenced in the planning commission's motions and in the enabling resolution before you for consideration. of course, as you mentioned i'm joined today by mayor's office of housing staff, if you have any technical questions. any of us would be happy to answer. >> thank you, mr. updike. at this point, we'll open up item no. 4 for public comment . is there any public comment on item no. 4? seeing none, public comment on i. 4 item no. 4 is closed. >> i would like to make the motion and thank the department of real estate and mayor's office on housing and lydia is here, as well as our developer for making this part of the eastern neighborhoods plan a reality and certainly we know the price of land is incredibly expensive and that is only actually increasing over time.

so it's great to know to have site control to build affordable housing units in the future. i will make a motion to move forward with positive recommendations. >> thank you very much. we'll take that motion without objection. [ gavel ] >> madame clerk, will you please call item no. 5. >> item no. 5 is an ordinance amending the health code requirement of gas station bathroom. >> supervisor farrell is the author of item 5 and a representative from his office is here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. sorry mark farrell couldn't be here personally today. i will give you a brief overview and how it came to be. of our office announced a scholarship opportunity across the city, reimagine sf and it asked students to interact with policy areas that they care about and submit suggestions for new laws or provide

suggestions to update outdated laws. they did this on a new website that the mayor's office and our office helped to create. it launched last week and it's on our website that provides for that direct commenting on specific sections of the codes. the gas station bathroom ordinance stems correctly from the comment from a student at san francisco state who felt that the current requirement that gas restrooms provide separate facilitis for men and women. it's unanimously supported by the small business association and strikes it in the code of provision for separate facilities and updates what mark thought was an outdated section of the law. it will only apply to new gas

stations being proposed. the new law and scholarship opportunity was about encourage an often underheard voice with our city youth to participate in the process at city hall. showcasing how civic tools with participate our residents to interact with policymakers. we're a firm believer that technology and its tools can be a powerful mechanism to increase city engagement citywide and believe this law is a good example of that. i'm happy to answer your questions today and ask for your support. >> supervisor kim. >> i know this only applies to new operations and i didn't know we had an ordinance on this. so i'm reading this for the first time last night and says "all-times." that means when the gas station is open, that they must provide a bathroom? >> i might defer to the city

attorney, but i would assume so, yes. >> where would the enforcement lie for this legislation? it has been an issue at night when people are getting gas and pee in residential areas near gas stations. so would we be calling department of public health? >> deputy city attorney john givner. the ordinance doesn't provide for any particular department to enforce. it was adopted many years ago, which is probably what qualifis it as part of the clean-up project and was really related to fire code implementation as opposed to health implementation. >> i see. >> so the board could adopt an ordinance giving dph specifi enforcement authority.

it's not really clear what happens is a gas station is violating the obligation currently. >> would it be a substantive amendment to work on it this week before it comes to the full board on tuesday? as along as we're going pass this? >> yes, of course. i don't think the supervisor would have any problems to add any friendly amendments. >> in terms of the process-wise, if you wanted to just add a requirement that dph oversee and ensure compliance with this mandate, that would not be substantive you could do that at the board and still pass on first-read next tuesday. if you wanted to add in a penalty structure, that would require additional hearings at the board. >> i'm actually interested in both. i think at minimum, it would be great though have it clearly delineatedwhich department would be responsible for the enforcement of this measure? because it's certainly an issue today. i definitely support this.

i know in general, beyond kind of the burden to small businesses, this was certainly an issue when i was on the board of education many moving towards more unisex bathrooms to allow students that are more gender-questioning not to have to choose what bathroom they are utilizing and also the kind of peer pressure that comes with that. so i think this certainly makes sense for a number of different reasons and happy to support that and to work with your office on the follow-up pieces. >> of course, would be happy to. >> we could make that motion as an oral motion today, and then it would be drafted in time for the thursday board agenda, right? >> yes. you could make a motion to provide that dph as oversight authority today, yes. we could work that up for thursday. >> okay. >> if you wanted to add in penalties as i mentioned, that would require probably follow-up legislation.

>> i wanted to be deferential for the author, because it's something that just came up for me. i would like to propose the amendment to provide dph would be the enforcement mechanism for this legislation and i would like to work on a penalty phase and i would defer to the author to state this in committee or to pass it to the full board. >> we would be more than willing to work with you. we're not in any rush to pass this ordinance at the board and add many in some things that are more amenable to the full board. >> to make the amendment today, the non-substantive amendment today and work on the penalty phase. so the motion is an