the first draft has been completed, and is now being reviewed internally by the stakeholders working group. as a matter of fact, we have a meeting tomorrow to discuss this. and so we are hoping to have it ready for publication shortly. and the first is supporting caltrans. their service plan and analysis. this effort of the fast start -- will only work if we are working together, pushing in the same direction, and that is very important. the study i was just talking about, complete it, and work with others to develop this. that has already been done. the mayor had a meeting last week, including studies from san jose to discuss this concept and start building a consensus for it, and, of course, for the members. it is a bit of heavy lifting, but it is necessary in order to get everybody on the same page, and especially at the peninsula. there has been a lot of animosity. we will be as this will help bring a consensus hot and allows service, -- bring a consensus and allow service. it will provide service, early service, to the right the ship corridor. we believe it is more technical and

we were in discussions with various stakeholders on this issue as recently as this week.rward that reflected everything we have heard from the commission and planning staff and from numerous stakeholders and community members over the last three or four months, even up to nine months. i]briefly, since december, we he done considerable number of additional meetings and check- ins with a variety of stakeholders with the neighborhood network and spur to the chinatown community development center, which we have had numerous conversations with, and others. and we know that those efforts will continue no matter what you all do today. i want to reiterate our commitment to that. the letter we sent over last nighti] reflects some of what we heard again from the various stakeholders and yourselves over the last few months. i do have copies if anyone in the audience would like to have copies. i will set them here for anyone who would like one. i did want to note that i distributed this letter and the attached table to everyone i have been in contact with on this ordinance. i think t

there has been a lot of outreach and communication from different stakeholders.e's a big and diverse group of supporters. people who do not always agree on everything and people who i have been adversariwe have beene housing coalition and the trade council and the san francisco bicycle coalition and the mayor's office has indicated their support for the way it advances their goals and i think everyone was worried about with three development. we could advance a lot of those goals with the ordinance. san francisco architectural heritage has endorsed this ordinance. the small-business commission has endorsed provisions related to assign edge, related to small business, particularly the limited commercial use. i know there are a few projects waiting for this. they have been trapped, trying to move into a former commercial space in the mission district. they have not been able to do because of the cabinet -- because of the provisions put into the neighborhood. çitç is going to be a full calendar year before all of the pieces are signed into law, but we appreciate y

i was part of that working group, the stakeholder group that mr. boss mentioned. . as you saw in the presentation today, there are really serious implications for mission bay, depending on how these things are done. mission bay is already isolated by freeway, by water by the train tracks. and a year-and-a-half later, we do not see that anybody has looked at that were considered at in these fast track ideas. we would very much appreciate any potential solutions that you guys come up with, you bring back to us, to the stakeholder group, who are, as mr. boss said, on the ground. we really understand what the issues and implications are. we know that potential solutions, a short tunnel, a long tunnel, taking down 280, as possible solutions are going to be extremely expensive. but they are extremely important. and we would like to be at the table. as you move forward. mr. ram has the list of all the people who were involved in these earlier meetings, or i am sure mr. bawsca and provide them. -- mr. abbas can provide them. we have heard nothing. and we do not want you guy

the sponsor really look into a lot of concerns that this commission as well as individuals stakeholders had, and ultimately they have fallen into four general categories. first was the automatic increase that would have been over one year. if the legislation was originally written as 10 cents and then it would drive up to 25 cents, so the automatic 25 cents was removed. the second amendment was discussed by the board of supervisors, expanding by an additional three months of legislation to give an opportunity to dig even deeper prior to the legislation being enacted. the third item that was discussed and amended is a broader exemption with respect to bags could have direct contact with food. i think there was a lot of concern among stakeholders of supervisors said they wanted a clearer definition of those checkout lines were the single item is a food item there would not be a charge associated with that. if you go to a cookie store and you purchase three cookies, and there is a bag out of a point of sale, there is no 10 cent charge for that consumer, because it is items of food if you g

it is a delicate negotiation and it is important to hear from the stakeholders' involved and we thank you for undertaking this process. people move to san francisco because of the vibrant culture.

>> yes, and actually, we can develop them at the public advisory committee meetings, which stakeholders to go to those meetings, and they can develop the criteria for the evaluation of the system. >> so there is no criteria in place right now, but it needs to be developed? >> the questionnaire can be developed, but we have some internal criteria that we are looking at, and we developed as we were training to see on some test cases, but we have to see an actual production. >> i would like to see that added to the agenda for the next meeting, by virtue of how they could participate because they are the stakeholders, and they are the ones who want to at least the criteria being efficiency and the productivity of efficiency and their time when they come to process or have their permit process. >> we could certainly look into that. commissioner lee: i still think we should revise this document. if this is going to be sent to the mayor's office or the board of supervisors for review, they are going to want to take note that what this justification really is. if it just said for field inspecti

the whole focus was -- we also had neighborhood stakeholders, people who live there in that area. john ram put together a very good team with

i do not think we have done a good enough job internally in taking care of the stakeholders, the people that write the checks, the people back keep this department -- the people that pay your salary. i just do not think we have done a good enough job there. talk about inspectors in the field being busy -- if you do not have the permits approved, the inspectors in the field are not going to be busy. it all starts back essentially on the fifth floor, and that is what we're talking about today. it is great we are having this conversation. it is open, letting everybody know what we want here. commissioner lee: back to that, let's see if we can identify how many building inspector, electrical inspector, and plumbing inspectors will actually be helping out on the fifth floor. >> if you look at page 16 and 17 of the budget, the original, we are going to have one plumbing inspector on the fifth floor. we're going to have one -- well, that is -- i'm sorry? and then there is one of electrical that is going to be on the fifth floor. commissioner lee: these all say "for field inspection." >> there

this coupled with the interests of san francisco laid out in the fast project approach is all the stakeholders are sort of on a different pace. we cannot go too fast or we will lose the majority of what could be potential support for the project, but we also realize if we go to slow, there may be opportunities missed. so one of the things caltrain is focused on is the challenge of going through this planning process in a very thoughtful way, especially for our peninsula cities that are dealing with very hard issues and how this could impact their communities and figuring out how we can partner with high-speed rail and the cities that are ready to bring in early investment into our corridors without compromising the planning process. the answer is not in place yet. it is just a challenge we are dealing with, and i think what has helped with the dialogue and we will be forced into this conversation, but it is probably a good thing is high-speed rail has been reaching out to the bay area and the l.a. stakeholders, and they are committed to something they put in the business plan which was to say,

this information is critical for internal purposes and communicating to our various stakeholders what is required for the agency to provide services now and into the future for the next decade. our current facilities are spread out all over san francisco, ranging in age from more than one century, such as the overhead, 1893 lines for the muni, to a few years old, like the muni metro yard, which was built in 2008. after 24 years of land acquisition, planning, design, and funding challenges. under the jurisdiction of mta and under least prostitute -- properties, including transit enforcement for shops and accessible plans with non- revenue vehicles and towed cars. we have consolidated our administrative offices into six floors on one avenue. in review of our supply and demand, we estimated that it might take up to 40 acres to accommodate all of these needs, of which approximately 31.35 acres still need to be identified. the major drivers, now and in the future, are the transit needs for approximately 17.3 acres, 43% of the new demand, and for towed and impounded vehicles, which is about

it is a delicate negotiation and it is important to hear from the stakeholders' involved and we thank you for undertaking this process. people move to san francisco because of the vibrant culture. the economy has been hard on entertainment businesses. it is important to the city makes easier and not harder for these businesses to thrive. >> i've lived and owned property just off 11th street since 1968. whoever's plan must advocate a certain style of clubs, legally. they must be osha compliance workplaces. this impact of federal funding hall going in the san francisco. he may not propose any plan that produces so much noise out of love that the neighbors become disturbed. this is the only problem that causes them a disturbance to residents. they would bother almost no one. at that is, it is disturbing people a block away. you people are not allowed to advocate any plan that allows noncompliant workplaces. this is federal law, this is state law. federal funding depends on this. it is good for the employees, it won't hurt anybody, and it will calm the problems with the neighbors. >> i ha

it is a delicate negotiation and it is important to hear from the stakeholders' involved and we thankou for undertaking this process. people move to san francisco because of the vibrant culture. the economy has been hard on entertainment businesses. it is important to the city makes easier and not harder for these businesses to thrive. >> i've lived and owned property just off 11th

in some sense, our stakeholders are not just the city and county of san francisco, but obviously all the decisions in this city and the groups, the interests that they represent, our job is to make sure that we come to a balanced conclusion in terms of making sure that they are coming out in the balance for everyone. i think it should be given, but it is important to reiterate that in terms of how we want this commission to function and how closely the port works with me monique and her staff, going forward. i have just had a few months under my belt and i know that there is a lot more to learn, but i hope to learn from the stakeholders, staff, and fellow commissioners. i am honored and privileged to have this position going forward. thank you. ok, i guess that the next thing is that we are supposed to go through the consent calendar. >> item from the consent calendar, 8a -- request authorization to accept an expanded $1,121,795 in 2009 infrastructure protection program for security grant program funds from the department of homeland security for security improvements at the port of

so from that stakeholder involvement, we are going to create a strategy that will inform how we will proceed with the funding programs that help the residents. this particular slide is just an overview of being able to share you -- show you the site. right now, hunters view is under construction. the first units will come online between december and april of this year and into next year. our second sight is alex brignac -- alice griffith. that site will start construction in the next months. we're talking about rebuild protrero, and others are in the development planning. there is a very simple concept behind hope sf. we are at lower densities than other neighborhoods, so we were able to have this equal other neighborhoods, and that is how we were able to get net new housing and subsidize the public housing. four of the five active sites are in the southeast sector, so we cannot say enough of our dedication to that part of town, and it is very important for us to make sure that no one is displaced because we know that that part of town is where a lot of low-income and particularly af

we are looking forward to the meeting between community stakeholders and the police department, because we have a format to just really address these issues, and i really appreciate the responsiveness. >> thank you. i want to give the officer a chance to respond if you of anything you would like to close out with, and also see if the commissioners had any further questions and also ask you when the annual report is coming out, what the best time would be. i do not think we have seen an annual report for at least one year. >> the department would certainly not want to excuse -- as soon as we can resolve how we can get the incident report generated calls. as soon as we can get that together in a place where the language access officers gather the necessary data. by emily hoping this can be resolved very soon, very, very soon. in addition, it is inexcusable, as the deputy chief said it is inexcusable but this particular event occurred, but members of this department are bound by the department general orders, and there is absolutely no excuse for not following those department general orde

i have been trying to work with various stakeholders to come up with rules that balance the desire tog to start small businesses without the capital to go another route. we have a lot of immigrants that have food trucks in san francisco. they provide in terms of location' in food preferences. they also activates streets and public spaces. we should not be eliminating food trucks. it is about balance. balancing the needs of food trucks, brick and mortar restaurants schools, and consumers. i have been working with a number of different stakeholders on this issue and we are continuing to work. however, and mentioned these items today because of the recent developments in sacramento. i am introducing a resolution to put this on record opposing assembly bill 1678. 1678 is a piece of state legislation that would impose a requirement that no food trucks be permitted to be within 1,500 feet, three city blocks, of any high-school, middle school elementary school, public or private. while this is a well-intentioned bill, it would have a huge impact on san francisco. we have a map, if we can tur

we are working with other city agencies, and some of these have significance stakeholders in the area. rather than bringing this all together in one package, we are breaking it up into its four or five component parts, and we will be working sequentially that we have enough staff bandit to have in the process and develop a much more refined proposal which we will be coming back to you with, so rather than one big thing, we will see over the next six to nine months each piece coming, as it has been re- analyzed, we thought, and repackaged, so that will be coming back your way this year. an important milestone on a project that we were not leading but we were supporting and eagerly supportive of was the f- line streetcar. as you know, right now, it stops at fisherman's wharf, but there is a tunnel that goes under fort mason, and there was a bar mental impact analysis of that proposed extension -- there was an environmental impact analysis. this was a long debate, through the tunnel, ending up in the fort mason center. the final environmental impact statement was released last friday. th

we have been working with various stakeholders to make sure we try to get a reverse communities, and similar to how the department worked with consumers around the styrofoam ban, where we continue to work with businesses so they understand what these kinds of products are. we will be putting together opportunities and making those available to businesses so they understand what those requirements are. we did a lot of vendor ferriairs where we brought people to come in and talk to businesses to see there is so well so -- there is a wealth of inventory that meets the requirements, and we continue to do that here. four out reach, that is a cornerstone of what we do. we look at any legislation within environmental focus, and we are trying to create change. the only way to do that is through education. we feel the opportunity to continue to work with other merchants associations and other businesses in santa francisco really is the ability for us to change behavior. we can do that through out leash -- outreach. we see that as an opportunity for us. you have a tremendous wealth of data wit

the purpose of benefit corporation is to provide protection for corporations to consider stakeholders. they have one duty, to maximize shareholder profit. the free-market approach was taken to alter that, where a company could choose to be a benefit corporation and it would voluntarily have the choice to consider other issues such as society and the environment in addition to the shareholders. this provided the company's market distinction for being amongst the traditional corporations out there and help investors by identifying these new types of corporations. they could easily identify mission-oriented companies said they could apply mission- oriented capital to those companies. previously, as they invested in to a company, they claimed to have a particular mission. there is no recourse for the shareholder otherwise to sell his or her stock. the annual benefit report is produced not only for the shareholders, and i consider this a steak to work for doing these quantitative reports, the financial documents. a qualitative report is produced for the shareholders, as well as the public,

desire ability is a dubious distinction, depending on perspective, point of view, and the stakeholderou are in the process. i think that's a direction we should look at where it makes sense. there is a lot of work that has happened at this point and i think our staff is recommending the best that the word. i know a lot more work will happen and it is really hard as much as the planning commission is the ideal place to opine on this issue, the hard work is not happening. everyone has three minutes to speak and there's not a back- and-forth conversation. the true work at this point still needs to happen not in a more formal form but a more informal meeting with groups around the city that have a stake in this legislation more so than having in other people -- have another meeting here. we have to think about what we want to focus on for topics of conversation because i think that would be most constructive in bringing the legislation forward. if we don't have that, i don't know why we want to have another hearing in this body. commissioner fong: your comments lead right into my thoughts

upon completing the rflp process, we will be seeking input from both city departments and stakeholders all this information and get ready to release ahead and start implementation. our goal is to move expeditiously on this effort, and we hope to release the rflp in the next few weeks. and receive responses and hopefully have a selection and implementation beginning well in advance of 2012. while this process is complicated, we must also keep in mind that implementation of any changes could also be quite involved. if we consider or end up looking at moving upwards of 100 different checking accounts from one institution to another, it will be a long and complicated process that we want to be sure that we handle carefully and correctly. we have worked with a number of folks to bring social responsibility to the banking rfp. the tax collector's office has a long history of reaching out to the community and engaging in a number of financial education activities. we have launched a number of programs, he working families credit, the smart money network, the kindergarten to college program, a

there are members of the working group that are part of the stakeholder groups to complete this work. completing the fast start feasibility study, we tend to work with local interests and high-speed rail authorities to develop an implementation plan for fast start. working to promote consensus amongst san jose, san francisco, and other peninsula interests. in summarizing, saying in as much as san francisco supports a high-speed rail, in is generally supportive of the plan developed by the authority, we think that there are areas for improvement. the current plan provides service to san francisco until 2034. there is no service to trans day. they do not have a realistic funding plan. the fast start project has a new approach to chemlawn services quickly and provide service in high riders areas and we believe it is more financially feasible. we would be happy to take any questions. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. any additional comments? >> if i may, mr. chair, to sum up -- we are talking about a concept that can be four times cheaper, generating 40 times more riders ship, being

can bring in the vendor -- have they dopresident hechanova have they done anything regarding the stakeholders that come in and speak a different language like chinese, spanish? i see a lot of possible confusion. and have the address that at all? -- have they addressed that at all? >> we have people that speak burial -- various types of language that it bilingual pay. we have people available for bvarious languages. as much as possible. we will look at, and make sure there is siphonage and stuff and other languages. w-- signage and stuff in other languages. president hechanova: good luck with that. that was originally designed to work on one floor. now we're talking about four or five floores. >> we're only doing it on the fifth floor and sixth floor. president hechanova: another question regarding -- i would like the public to understand. the city grants program is that 1.7 million. can you give us insight on where that goes? >> sure. i have a slide that i wanted to show that gave the distribution of the funding. give you a background on how we got to where we are. we could put out an r.s.p.