Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors 42517  SFGTV  April 25, 2017 6:00pm-12:01am PDT

6:00 pm
to (inaudible) thank you.
6:01 pm
>> thank you, are there any other members of the public for general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and we are adjourned.
6:02 pm
>> [gavel] >> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, april 25, 2017. mdm. clerk please call roll call >> thank you read present, cohen, present, farrell, present, fewer present, kim, present, paskin-jordan present, ronen present, safai present,
6:03 pm
genji present, tang present, yee present. mme. pres. all members are present. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen please join us for the pledge of allegiance. >> [pledge of allegiance] b thank you everyone. mme. clerk any communications? >> i have none to report >> colleagues any changes to the march 14, 2017 meeting minutes? seeing none, is there a motion to approve those minutes? moved by supervisor farrell. seconded by supervisor tran view. colleagues can we take that without objection? without objection those meeting minutes will be passed after public comments. >> [gavel] >> mme. clerk please call the
6:04 pm
next item >> item number one to retroactively approve a grant agreement between the city and home bridge to provide in-home supportive services and provider skill the moment training and support and for the period to june 30, 2019 in the amount of approximately $67 million. >> supervisor peskin >> thank you for the one-week extension which provided me and my office at the opportunity to ask a number of questions of home bridge which have been asked and answered and am prepared to vote for the measure. >> thank you supervisor peskin mme. clerk please call the roll call >> item number one cohen aye farrell 21 fewer aye kim aye peskin aye, ronen aye, safai aye sheehy aye, tang aye. yee aye.
6:05 pm
breed aye. there are 11 tran market >> the resolutions adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> >> item number two and ordinance to amend the building and environment code for installation of electric vehicle charger infrastructure in new buildings or buildings undergoing major alterations and requirements for notification to building owners of residents and vcs. >> same house and call? without objection it's passed unanimously >> [gavel] >> item three resolution to adopt the city's tenure capital expenditure plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2027. >> same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> item number four resolution adopting the saddles five-year plan >> same house same call without objection resolution is adopted unanimously >> >> item number five a
6:06 pm
resolution for adopting the physical plan for san francisco >> same house same call adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> item six and ordinance to amend 266--10 authorizing the execution of taxable [inaudible] not to exceed $30 million >> same house same call? without objection the ordinances passed unanimously on the first reading >> [gavel] >> >> item seven resolution to retroactively approve the fifth amendment to the agreement betweenharris and associates inc. and the city for financial consulting in reimbursement and cost allocations in conjunction with mission bay development the community facilities district number four and six, exiting the term of the grid by three years and nine months to may 11 the community facilities district number four and six, exiting the term of the grid by three years and nine months to may 11, 2020 at no additional cost >> same house same call? without objection the
6:07 pm
resolution is adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> item me resolution to designate those agencies qualified to participate in the 2017 annual joint fundraising drive for officers and employees of the city. >> same house same call without objection it's adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> item non-resolution to approve the form and authorizing the distribution of a preliminary statement related to the execution and delivery of certificates of our participation in a principal aggregate amount not to exceed approximately $590 for the george r moss county convention center expansion project and authorizing the preparation execution and delivery of a final official statement and ratifying the approval of the terms and conditions of a previous ordinance and related matters. >> same house same call? without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> >> item number 10 resolution to actively authorize the department of health to accept and expend an $80,000 monetary gift from ms. molly flexner to
6:08 pm
the laguna honda hospital gift fund for the purchase of assistive technology women and services for the residents who are otherwise unable to obtain them. >> same house same call? without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >> [gavel]>> >> item 11 is an ordinance room in the planning code to make conforming changes with the new mandate for state law the requirements and procedures for authorizing the construction of accessory dwelling units and single-family homes to make the appropriate findings and determination. >> same house same call? without objection the ordinances passed unanimously on the first reading >> [gavel] >> item number 12 a resolution to reaffirm the board of supervisors support for urban agriculture and urging the evaluation and allocation of appropriate properties for urban agriculture. he was supervisor ronen >> yes. colleagues i'm proud to have assumed authorship of this ordinance from former district 11 supervisor john
6:09 pm
avalos.and supervisor avalos had introduced this resolution originally on the heels of the closure of little city garden district 11. it was a beloved favorite garden there was a national model for urban farming. and after the closure and the realization that in order to be able to sustain urban agriculture in the city, farmers really need stable use of land that can't be taken away when the farm is at its most productive state. we have a long history in the city of supporting urban agriculture. in 2009 former mayor gavin newsom signed executive order 903 which was the healthy and sustainable food for san francisco. in 2011 we modified the planning code to allow urban agriculture in all zones, and supported as recently as 2014 the creation of the state's first urban
6:10 pm
agricultural sensitive zone throughout the city to evaluate possible sites for urban agriculture. through the process legislative process, there has been some questions about competing priorities for land use such as housing. which, is a huge priority for me, but i do believe that urban agriculture is also a very important priority for the city and specifically, when there are areas of land that are not suitable for housing development that evaluating those for urban agriculture is something we should be doing. this resolution calls for the assessment of a limited number of suitable sites that do to develop and challenges have been rendered bacon or not use. the criteria for assessment include sites for flooding, limited access to egress, historical agricultural usage, and sites identified by the city where community is desirable for agriculture. i also passed out a number of
6:11 pm
couple on substantive amendments . specifically, on page 2, line 22, i wanted to include them in a public health and other cities departments as was the san francisco unified school district to evaluate possible sites that might fit the criteria for urban agriculture. on page 3, line 10 i want to clarify that i hope the multiple urban agricultural sites not just wondered farmer finally i want to thank supervisor cannot los for starting this. the process for this resolution caitlin galloway from the little city gardens, or and look for urban sf alliance. the greenhouse project and [inaudible] the cofounder of the greenhouse project. eliza get from spur and [inaudible] from sf cause. for working with me on the language for this resolution and for their work emphasizing and fighting for the importance of securing land for urban agriculture. thank
6:12 pm
you. >> thank you. supervisor ronen has made a motion to amend second by supervisor peskin colleagues can take the amendment without objection? without objection the moment pass. >> [gavel] >> supervisor safai >> thank you supervisor ronen for caring the spirit actually interacted with this particular farm over a number of years and they provided a tremendous amount of place or opportunity for people to organize and build community and i think that's an important aspect of this program. i am wondering if we can add a friendly commitment . to ask the department of public works, also, investigate there's a lot of unaccepted public right of ways or unaccepted streets that they have in their street parks program but some of the parcels are very large. we had one at the garden that we built it's usually half a city block it there are other areas in the city the not available based on the slope and the configuration
6:13 pm
maybe we can ask that a permanent public works to investigate that as well? but very supportive of this. please, add me as a cosponsor >> okay. so supervisor safai is there a specific amendment and maybe our deputy city attorney john kim can help us understand what it can be included as a friendly amendment. that's on substantive? >> it would essentially be in the area of lines 21-24 where they mention the names of the departments. we could just add the department of public works >> okay. supervisor safai has made an amendment to add that upon the public works. is there a second? second by supervisor ronen. colleagues can we take that moment without objection? without objection the moment passes. >> [gavel] >> on the item as amended colleagues can we take thatsame house same call? without objection the resolution is adopted as amended unanimously. >> [gavel]
6:14 pm
>> committee reports. >> items 17 and 18 were considered by the budget and finance subcommittee at a regular meeting on thursday, april 20. item 17 was recommended as amended with the new title. it's an ordinance to appropriate 122 million of sales from proceeds of property at approximately $322 million of proceeds from certificates of participation to fund the retirement and series 2001-a and 2007-8 certificate of participation and to fund the developing cost of the 1500 mission st. office building developments. technology and costs in 2016-17 >> mme. clerk does not require an amendment from the board? >> no. mdm. pres. that's actually done at the committee. great >> great. think can we take this item same house same call? without objection the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading began to >> >> item 18 is a resolution to
6:15 pm
authorize an application to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of mortgage credit certificates for an amount not to exceed $50 million to ask assist low in moderate income for some homebuyers in san francisco. >> same house same call? without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> colleagues, before we go to roll call for introductions we have three 2:30 pm special orders which we cannot-three 2:30 pm commendations which we cannot call until 2:30 pm. so i will interrupt roll call for introductions to go into our accommodations at 2:30 pm. without mme. clerk. >> percept to introduce new businesses supervisor cohen.
6:16 pm
>> thank you mme. clerk. i submit >> thank you supervisor supervisor farrell >> thank you mme. clerk. colleagues from over 2.5 years ago the sport through legislation i offered start and bows green finance sf piece financing program green finance sf is a program overseen by department of environment gives residence business favorable financing opportunities to pursue energy efficiency and water conservation upgrades to their property. the financing on this property sets clean energy, or pace, allows homeowners and businesses to pay for these new energy efficiency and water conservation upgrades to an annual additional assessment on the property tax bill. this excessive green finance sf ever since has been spoken for itself. just over two years approximately$7.2 million in new projects have been financed . at 167 residential properties across our city. we see in the equivalent of taking 1307 cars off the road for you year extra green finance sf. just like was promised when the program be started green finance sf is
6:17 pm
saving residences and businesses money on their monthly utility bills reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in creating new local jobs in the emerging clean energy sector. this program is done at no cost to the city. it's been a win-win for residents and businesses looking to save money and to the be environmentally conscious. with the success of our program and the success of patient financing throughout the state of california and our country right now, or pace providers have been looking to enter our local market to offer their services to residents and businesses. i think like all of us i believe more competition leads to lower prices more affordable terms for residents. so today the bill in the program's success in introducing a package apace policies that do three distinct things. first of all, it asked the board to authorize three new certified residential pace providers to enter our local market and participate in green finance sf. when we we started green finance sf two years ago we were the first locality in the state of california to allow more than one pace
6:18 pm
provider into our local program. like i said before multiple providers compete for businesses has been a success for residents and businesses and for my perspective the more providers the merrier. second, since the restart of green finance sf, our department of the interment has seen demand in the market for peace projects on small commercial buildings. the city runs an existing large commercial pace program for projects over $1 million. given the demand the second package of policies seeks to establish a new commercialgreen finance sf program for product between $50,000 and 1 million. more businesses are realizing it helps their bottom-line to be environment only conscious so i look forward to offering and working with a permanent the environment to allocate this business to new small business community across our city. lastly, i'm introducing legislation to ensure that pace providers offering services in our local market are adhering to strict consumer protection and data sharing standards. the association of bay area governments or a bag, recently created a bleaching regional
6:19 pm
collaborative research agreement with is that which is consumer protection standards and other best practices to follow residential pace providers. his last piece of legislation simply signs onto regional collaborative services agreement. with tremendous public and friends in congress doing everything in power to rollback environmental protections, and stick their heads in the sand regarding climate change, more than ever at the local level to keep pushing ahead with policies that can help the environment and mitigate the effects of climate change their payment of the interment has data that shows green finance sf over the past few years as a residences businesses to date a total of $3.70 on electric bills ,, three and $40,000 on gas bills, and will have saved $1.8 million million gallons of water over 25 years. additionally, the program has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 6000 metric tons, again the equivalent or 1300 cars off the road a year. the real result in real benefits
6:20 pm
varsity. look forward to the discussion ahead. expanding our green finance as a program and hope for everyone support when the time comes. the rest i submit >> thank you supervisor farrell. supervisor fewer >> thank you i want to recognize the san francisco land trust in small sites acquisition program denny's, richmond in surpassing 100 units acquired. and protected through the critically important program. this monad took part in an inspiring press, it's on fulton street to sublet the passing of that 100 unit market also marks the acquisition of the first site in the richmond district and the first on the west side of town. i would like to acknowledge mayor lee olson lee and his demented staff at the mayor's office of housing as well as the housing rights committee of san francisco for being the eyes and ears for this program in our district. i would also like to give a special shout out to deborah strohm one of the longtime tenants of the fulton street building who got the press process started bite dogging me , doggedly looking for assistance for family for other
6:21 pm
tenants of the guy to opportunity to meet her during my campaign and was able to connect her to the community land her determination resulted in a victory for san francisco tenants. i look forward to discussing the future of small sites program at the hearing i will be convening on may 10. the rest i submit b thank you supervisor fewer. supervisor kim . supervisor peskin. >> thank you mme. clerk. i will commit most of my stuff today but i do want to say in light of friday's blackout and fire at the substation that pres. breed and i will be introducing a hearing request about exactly what happened. what happened well, what happened did not very well including communication with many of the members of this body. i know i reached out to other members who had their districts or part of their districts blackout in the communication from pg&e was nonexistent and from the department of emergency
6:22 pm
management sorely lacking. so, pres. breed and i will be asking those questions and hopefully getting some answers and changing the protocols moving forward. the rest i will submit >> thank you supervisor. supervisor ronen >> thank you. today i'm introducing an ordinance to gather with major league that allows the city to formally accept 1515 s. van ness as a temporary gift from the lennar multifamily community. this will allow the city to use the site as a temporary navigation center focused on addressing the tenant and kim and crisis in the mission. as you are all aware the mission is one of the communities hit hardest by our citywide homeless crisis. the mission alone has around 300 people living on the street and a significant number of homeless individuals are currently living in tents on our sidewalks under extremely unsafe and unhealthy conditions and in a densely populated residential area. since i assumed office in january i've received daily calls and emails asked me to address the
6:23 pm
impairment and crisis animation i believe it it's my responsibility to take action in response to the request of my constituents have been begging for the city's help in addressing this issue. we are facing a public health crisis in the mission. when that severely harms homeless people, forced to sleep in unsafe conditions, and one that also negatively impacts house residence who are living near tent and caymans in front of their homes. this is why part of the settlement agreement between [inaudible] latino cultural district and the [inaudible] community if they stepped up and included the temporary use of the 1515 s. van ness site as a navigational center. i want to offer my sincere thank you to both organizations. for their willingness to think outside the box for stepping up to offer a true solution to this crisis. i also want to thank
6:24 pm
mayor lee for departing with me on this mission specific navigation center. from the moment that i approached mayor lee about this possibility at this site, he has stepped up along with all of his staff and department heads, mohammed new roof from dpw jeff kaczynski from the office of homelessness and supportive housing, and in the mayor's own staff jason la, this is really been a joint effort that has been a pleasure quite frankly. while this is only a temporary center in my district it'll be open for approximately nine months. i am looking for a more permanent site in our district and i'm constantly looking for sites to build long-term affordable and supportive housing. i want to acknowledge supervisor kim and supervisor cohen who have also welcomed navigation centers in their district. i really urge all my colleagues on the board to do the same. i believe that we can solve this homeless crisis if we work together to create dignified housing and
6:25 pm
shelter offered options. this really should be the responsibility that's taken on by the entire city. with the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor it supervisor safai >> submit >> supervisor sheehy >> i've one item for introduction. as many people know san francisco lost one of our heroes [inaudible] creator of the rainbow flag. so he worked-i worked with him along mayor brown to install the rainbow flag at market and castro. i think it's important that it's preserved-it's permanently preserved. after having a rather long conversation with kelly jones, other leaders in the community, including the head of the castro merchants in the cbd, we should landmark the rainbow flag so it is maintained and its
6:26 pm
present state. i am asking the city attorney to prepare a designation for so we can proceed with getting this going in time for pride month. for the remainder i submit >> thank you supervisor. supervisor tang >> submit >> supervisor yee >> submit >> supervisor breed >> all right. unless looks like were moving righ colleagues, last friday--today is supervisor 10 peskin said, he and i are introducing a hearing regarding the power outage that took place last week. last friday morning around 9 am the lights went out all over a huge part of our city. luckily, no injuries or damages were reported. power was in fully restored until 5 pm to some 88,000 pg&e customers who lost power due to equipment failure and fire at a pg&e
6:27 pm
electrical substation in the tenderloin. it could have been worse. but still, there was enough disruption and potential habit to cause major concern. at least 20 elevators were stuck with people inside of them. traffic was jammed for much of the city. businesses close. california pacific hospital in st. francis hospital lost power but remain open operating off backup generator some san francisco unified school district schools were affected but all remain open. yes it could have been worse. it could have been catastrophic. if we look at friday as a test of our city's response to a massive power outage, and how are agencies communicated in collaborated in an emergency, that had the potential to have serious public safety impacts, i would have to say that we failed. too little information was shared with too few city agencies. people were left stranded. officials were left flat-footed. the danger this poses to the city was unnecessary and unacceptable.
6:28 pm
today, as i said, i'm joined by supervisor 10 peskin in calling for a hearing into the causes and emergency response to massive power failure on april 21 to massive power failure on april 21, 2017 that impacted much of the city. we must determine whether existing strategies for agencies like the puc and public works fire department, the police department, mta, emergency management and of course pg&e among others to communicate and coordinate in response to public safety threats are actually appropriate. we must identify how they can be approved and while it was reassuring to hear that the fbi was monitoring last week's outage here in san francisco, which coincided with others across the country and that no criminal cause was suspected, it also underscores the frightening truth that our power grid is a potential target. our security and mitigation strategy must be
6:29 pm
finely honed in event of disruption. needless to say, without power population is vulnerable and public safety could be in jeopardy. we've got to easy this time but next him in mikey another story and we must do all we can to be proactive and be prepared. mdm. clerk, without it is now past 2:30 pm. we have three 2:30 pm special commendations. so at this time i would like to recognize the supervisor peskin to give the first accommodation of the day. >> thank you president breed could all be as quick as possible so all of the officers of the central station can go back out and keep district 3 and central station safe. today i have the pleasure of honoring- yet again this seems to happen every few months because of the incredible work of the officers of central station-now under the guidance of their new captain paul yep, and i think you all read about
6:30 pm
the sad saga of yet another auto burglary this one from a family that was visiting and as you all read, the cremated remains of a family member were taken from that automobile which was crushing to the family on wednesday, april 12 at a proximally 5 pm on the 500 block of beech street, remember to keep sf in your car. the luggage was stolen. along with that velvet bag containing those cremated remains. the victims filed a police report and met with officers who immediately launched an investigation and three days later, plainclothes officers from central working on a broader auto burglary of avon operation spotted a person and were able to locate the intact remains by questioning a person shortly thereafter, centrals
6:31 pm
investigation team led by lieut. valerie matthews contacted the victims was able to return those precious items to the family. this success story of course, occurs in the broader more troubling context of auto burglaries that i think have become epidemic in all of our neighborhoods. but even as a perpetrators of these crimes become more and more sophisticated, central station officers were able to make nine separate arrests in incidents leading up to and immediately preceding the success story that were highlighting today. incredible work by central station officers. i'm informed these types of cases are now being assigned to a special prosecutor in the das office who specializes in prosecuting auto burglaries in an effort to ensure our criminal justice system is taking these matters seriously in the beginning to the end of the process. so in recognition of that good work, we have deputy chief mike redman here. the captain of
6:32 pm
central station, sorry supervisor fewer, that i was able to steal your captain from richmond station.. paul yep, and i would like to take this moment to honor lieut. valerie matthews sgt. steve spagnolo, and officers wong, christiansen, reyes, mcauley, johnson,--in randolph for the work on the case and for your ongoing efforts for all of central stations on behalf of all central stations officers to effectively combat auto burglaries and crime in our neighborhood. why don't you come up, captain and say a few words on behalf of your officers thank you so much for the work you do day in and day out. [applause]. >> thank you supervisor. and supervisors. i really don't
6:33 pm
have a lot to add to what the supervisor said. he pretty much said it all. but i do want to thank the officers and lieut. matthews for their work day in and day out. i would hate to be an auto burglar in san francisco knowing that you are out there looking out for us. thank you so much. it's quite an honor. thank you. [applause]
6:34 pm
>> chief redman, did you want to say a few words as well? >> so supervisor peskin a thank you very much. to be your lot for central station so i appreciate that but to all the supervisors i know you give us a lot of support while the district station and is he the one thing i can say about central station is the work ethic that they showed on this case happens in many of the cases that happen in central,
6:35 pm
many of the cases that happens throughout san francisco. i remember on saturday getting the pin notifying me that the remains had been found. it's one of those things in law enforcement where you don't think whatever happened would have happened. due to the diligence of capt. yap, lieut. matthews, and all the officers back here, the sergeants and officers, they were able to come up with something that, i don't know full seat again in their careers but they really put a lot of work into it and i think made san francisco as a whole look great and the police department look like it so thank you for recognizing them. [applause]. >> thank you also much for your service to the city and please, join supervisor peskin outside the rotunda for a photograph at this time. thank you.okay. next, we have supervisor kim with the next commendation for the day.
6:36 pm
>> thank you president breed. i would like to bring up marcus player. [applause]. thank you mr. plater. you can come up to the microphone. so marcus plater joined our south of market community not long ago on january 3 of this year. beginning his job as a pitstop monitor at victoria park. our only multiuse park in the south of market. during my entire time on the board of supervisors despite newest parks in san francisco, it was one that we thought many complaints about from our president, families and betsy carmichael elementary school is not being a park that people felt safe to come to. despite the beautiful new playgrounds and baseball field,, and over
6:37 pm
the course of six years we spent a lot of time activating the park, developing a fence and jean friend rec center, of organizing movie nights and bind screens and projectors and yet, still we continue to get complaints both from the school and small businesses and residents that they still do not feel comfortable using this park at all times. i want to recognize and thank also public works department for working with our office to initiate some things we all call the pitstop program where in the tenderloin we begin to have monitored bath public restroom during the day that allowed residents, folks that don't have a home, to have a place to go with dignity and respect. also be able to deposit syringe needles, dog poop, amongst other things. this program was a huge success but it still took us some time to bring this to victoria park. we were finally able to win that at the
6:38 pm
beginning of this year. but what makes our pitstop work is the staffing and the people that monitor our pitstop program. very rarely but it does happen, does one individual have such a tremendous impact on a neighborhood and community in such a short period of time, and that is marcus plater. marcus, i just want to thank you . within a week of you being there our office was fielding all these positive phone calls. which we don't always get so, thank you. the people actually took time out to thank us for you being there. not just for the pitstop but particularly, you because of your energy, your enthusiasm, your deep passion for the neighborhood and community, her smile, how you went out of the way to get to know everyone betsy carmichael elementary school had actually stopped using the park despite being across the street and after you came along all the classrooms started using the playgrounds again. so
6:39 pm
i just want to thank you so much for your work. helping to make this really important park safer. also, wanted to mention that a few weeks ago marcus went above and beyond his duties when he noticed an individual that did not look well and was unresponsive to you before she entered the restroom. after she did, you took quick action and you discover that she had actually overdosed in the bathroom you quickly called 911 and stayed with her until medical aid arrived and because of you she is alive today. [applause]. marcus on top of all that you volunteered st. ann's music live. i don't know how you do this all but thank you for on top your job on the south of market volunteering in the
6:40 pm
tenderloin, helping to feed the needy. we also want to recognize you not just for your exemplary work saving a life, which is amazing not very many of us in this room can say that, but we also know you had to depart unexpectedly due to a family emergency. it's an immense loss for us but before that i want to make sure you had a moment to get recognized. thank you so much. [applause]. >> thank you. it's a pleasure. i could've stayed i would have stayed. i love the community. i just gave it my all. i was raised up to do the right thing and that's all it takes sometimes i'm glad to help that community and if i can do it again i would. thank you kemal. thank you, supervisors and especially to the community. all the help i had out there in doing that transformation of the park, which was a
6:41 pm
collaborative effort me in the community and a bunch of other people so i'm very grateful and thank you kemal. [applause]. >> we hope you come back am so sorry i also forgot to relieve knowledge and thank family services which ministers this program with our public works and of course recreation and park for this incredibly successful and for bringing marcus to us and hopefully you'll be coming back. [applause].
6:42 pm
>> congratulations again, marcus, and thank you for your service. thank you, to ms. miller and two hunters point family. thank you. with that, we will do our last commendation for the evening, or the afternoon. supervisor yee >> thank you president breed. this week as many of you know, marks the celebration of the week of the young child 2017 this is an annual recognition of early learning, young children. their teachers and families. in honor of the week of the young child i'm recognizing an individual with over 30 years six brains in the early learning care and education field as a classroom
6:43 pm
teacher, a program administrator, advocate, and a public policy analyst. on issues impacting young children and their families. graham dobson, please, come on up. [applause]. many of you know graham through his advocacy work . he is from his six years of eight as a coordinator of the child care planning and advisory council known as cpap. were, in his current role as a senior administrative analyst at the office of [inaudible]. after working for six years as a nursery and elementary school teacher in london, of all places, graham relocated to san francisco in 1990. where he worked at the tenderloin childcare center now known as
6:44 pm
the compass children's center. for 13 years graham worked as a teacher, assistant director, program director, and finally as a compass administrative coordinator. while there, the program was doubled in size and one of the programs he launched as at compass, was an extended -was extended hours for working families and parents attending school. graham is someone who commitment and quality of work is so dependable and consistent that he is often-he often goes unrecognized. graham is always clear and thoughtful in his responses and his consistency and his consistency -consistently calm demeanor and ability to build relationship and trust makes more of an impact than he realizes. today i am honoring graham for his work on the san francisco individualized county subsidize
6:45 pm
plan better known as the sf-pilot. let me give you a little background on this because it's really hard to understand what impact this has. this is a state program that provides funding for, actually, the majority of children that are low income are being served by the state funding in preschool. and some infants and toddlers. for years, even when i was in the field, and that was a long time ago about 35-40 years ago, we were fighting for things that never happened. which is that the reimbursement rate, the rate that the organizations get funding for is the same regardless for organizations in plumes county or something in the mountain were in san francisco. meaning
6:46 pm
that it doesn't go too far and people struggle and the organizations they get these contracts are really unstable because of the lack of funding. so for a few years graham led the way, the charge, with other people of course, but really it was graham's effort. through this pilot program, where san francisco actually had a different reimbursement rate. it's a little higher. still not enough but it's a little higher. so that was a pilot. he was just moving along and nothing happens. would even think any year now is can go back to where it was and people are going to struggle. no. instead of something else happened. not only was this group with graham leading it, able to get the state to make this more of a permanent programmer for reimbursement rate, something else happened.
6:47 pm
in these programs, children need to be, re-enrolled every year and it really makes an unstable for these families that are dependent on the service for the children so that they can go to school, where they can go to work. these are low income individuals. something a lot of times in san francisco changes to situation, so it makes it very difficult for them every year to figure out okay, is my child can be qualified to be in this program. what happened, what i saw, in my programs and many other programs was that the same children who can really benefit from the quality child development program may lose disability to continue with these programs because some changes the family situation. well, now, this less worry about that because it's
6:48 pm
not an annual recertification but it's a 24 month recertification process. meaning, by that time hopefully the child will be incurring a garden. so, this is a big deal for the stabilization of the family. a big deal for the stabilization of the programs. in a big deal for what kids can learn from these program. graham, you are the greatest. so i want to say as a city we will be able to ensure the stable enrollment because of you. the impact of these changes are far-reaching for cities lowest income families. although the recent approved changes in the pilot program was a community and group effort, including advocacy by c-pack the office of early care and education, including the recently retired deputy director michelle rutherford, the san francisco title v srr
6:49 pm
initiative, but when i asked everybody, well how was it done? every single person-i won't name names-but every one of them would name your name. graham dobson. it was you that was the heart of all that effort. graham, just because of your insight and experience we really rely upon development these recommendations based on this ability that you, really, your ability to analyze data, regulations and legislation and public policy and budget fiscal impacts regarding early care and education, having an impact not only at the state level but at my office works closely with you and we depend on your analysis for many of these things we try to do. so, today it is about you, graham. your work. you are impact. it has been so unappreciated by people
6:50 pm
outside of the field. you are cheering section, of course really appreciate you and i really appreciate you. [applause]. i would make sure everybody appreciates you, graham. you have the floor. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you supervisor trainee. thank you supervisors. the great honor. i really appreciate it. but as a former classroom teacher and a former director of a subsidize program in the tenderloin for many years i realized that that work we do it only makes a difference in terms of what's going on in the classrooms and going on in these programs. it's those teachers and those directors who are doing the day-to-day work in implementing these policy that make all the difference in the children's and families lives. so i think this shows goes as much to them as much to them. it would be a pilot if it they weren't doing
6:51 pm
the work with the children and families. i really appreciate being honored today. very humbled by. tank you very much, supervisors. [applause]
6:52 pm
>> congratulations, again, and thank you for your service. [applause] okay mdm. clerk will go back to our agenda. we were at roll call for introduction. >> mdm. pres.'s been seen know their names on the roster that concludes the introduction of new business >> okay. please, read public comment >> at this time the public may address the board for up to two minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the march 14 the board for up to two minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the march 14, 2017 minutes and items without reference to committee calendar. public comment is not allowed when an item has been previewed previously subje comment at a board committee. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify and if you would like to display a document on the
6:53 pm
overhead projector please, clearly states arch to sfgov tv and remove the document when you like to the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> thank you per speaker, please >> i have a document i want to play. >> sfgov tv, please. >> mr. johnson you want us to take another speaker and then give you time to set up so it doesn't cut into your time? [inaudible / off mic] it's ready to go? okay. >> possibly the most important of all human upheavals, the digital upheaval, more than a mere revolution this upheaval has transformed more and less times than anything or anybody in history. perhaps combined. the transformations are greater than ever. it has started to transform the world of commerce, finance, and value the way we could not imagine just five years ago. through the technology known as block were dlt for distributive ledger technology and its
6:54 pm
derivative crypto currencies the digital upheaval marches on relentlessly. this video is about a digital marketplace and its digital currency that is at the vanguard of this new epic of evil in these worlds. introducing [inaudible] and vicki the beginning of the fastest transformation of global commerce ever. first, some quick background. new digital or crypto currencies are being created to compete against old-style or fiat currency could control by central banks in each country or region. we know what that means. we, you and i, are not in control of our money. the banks and third parties are. the control over our lives doesn't end with banks. our ability to transact or trade with one another around the world is controlled by a myriad of third parties that intervene in our financial and commercial decisions at their whim. >> okay. i'm going to send the supervisors a complete copy so they can see it. i would like to give everybody this
6:55 pm
information. it is something i really feel the city, each supervisor, should be involved with. it can raise money for each community project and you could really do a whole lot so i want you guys to really take a look at the videos i send you a complete copy of them. it's what is coming to is the way monies going to be spent, so the city can really use it because we've got a lot of things that need fixing. later. >> did i just have two minutes or was i >> that concludes your common, sir. >> thank you next speaker, please.
6:56 pm
>> okay. david said what have i not done? is there not a cause and he turned from him toward [inaudible] and spoke after the same manner and the people answered him again after the former manner. when the words were heard which david spoke they rehearse them before saul, and he sent for him and you probably know the story of david and goliath. but it is interesting because thousand years later the lord jesus showed up and he was traced his lineage directly from david to the virgin mary and also through joseph. both were direct-directly connected with king david. even the blind men as he passed by said, jesus, son of david, have mercy on us. everybody knew the lineage was there but very few knew if any -they must been to the busy fishing or planting crops to study daniel nye but he gave the precise year when all this
6:57 pm
would take place. he ride the donkey into jerusalem he would get crucified and resurrected on a particular year. so he said the hour has come that the son of man should be glorified. verily verily, i say to you except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and i can it abides alone but if it dies it brings forth much fruit. he that loves his life shall lose it and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it in the life eternal. if any man serves me let him follow me. where i am, there shall also be my servant be. if any man serves me him will my father honor. now as my soul troubled and what shall i say, father? father, save me for this hour but for this cause, came i on to this hour. father, glorify thy name. he came to die for sinners and people say, well david one but jesus lost. wait a minute. three days later the word jesus raised. he said i am the resurrection and the lights.
6:58 pm
he that believes in me though he were dead he should live and he that lives and believes in me will never die. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. the true principle of management will be the perfecting of knowledge, of ultimate principles. television her personal life [inaudible] maintaining love and mercy. all this rest upon the world the true principle to be [inaudible] for the extension of true knowledge. having sensitivity and will of thoughts to maintain [inaudible] engaging one's personal life [inaudible] managing a relationship and making [inaudible] one should intend to manifest one sprite character for laughing at the people and retain a high state of virtue. both internal
6:59 pm
nurturing personal self mixture is called manifesting one sprite character and the external word of expanding one's in the natural origin of [inaudible] incapacity is called managing people. it seems ancient each person can perfect one's personal characterization [inaudible] pipeline true principle and supreme virtue for eternal destiny of the holy peace. which rises from the joy of having in knowing one's destiny and perfecting of knowledge of ultimate principal to maximize the capacity of one's nature. so having self loving compassion which will extend onto loving of the people. what would manage the people with great love and mercy for the coming [inaudible] in terms of civil justice and social prosperity for a strong and wealthy nation. spain >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors.
7:00 pm
members of the public. lewis dylan here for the center, for the preservation of urban justice. it was great to see the president of the board of supervisors this weekend at the dog park. she was amazing. the dogs were amazing. all the different breeds that were there including london breed. [laughing] anyway, i was going to say the city has gone to the dogs, but it really hasn't gone to the dogs. it's really gone to the gangster lawyers at that of taken over city hall and the corruption, henceforth. special interests, pay to play politics, basically pimping out the city has been the modus operandi for the past 8-10 years. it has completely
7:01 pm
changed the landscape of the city and just like the voters in the special grand jury civil grand jury, came to an agreement that we have to do something about it, and as a small business owner in the city, nothing could be better than to hear that good news coming down the pipeline. i really think san francisco can do a lot better. he used to be a world-class city. now, it is a tragedy as far as tourists getting their personal belongings stolen when they come into the city. the numbers are absolutely astounding. more than chicago and detroit combined. one in five tourists complaining about some sort of negative interaction when they come to visit the city. and tourism has been our backbone
7:02 pm
for decades. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> yesterday i was listening to the san francisco ethics commission and i'm bringing to the attention of the supervisors that advocates, those that attend the san francisco sunshine task force, and the ethics commission, we need to be included in the deliberations before any proposition is put, which deals with campaign financing, which involves some of you supervisors. you have done nefarious activities. and room 200, which is occupied by the mayor edwin lee. so, as a previous speaker spoke, we are
7:03 pm
being very tolerant, but we are also aware of how pressure is exerted to remove people from commissions and insert other people in, in a very very dubious manner. this is not san francisco this is not our how san franciscans do it and this is not san francisco. anyway, some of our advocates like to come here. some three weeks ago when we came some of our of us that we used some words that we don't want to use, but when a poet uses the letter foxtrot-word that brings home a message. about the utter corruption that is in the city. i'm not blaming all of you. i know some of you are okay. i know you personally. but, you know, corruption robs and you
7:04 pm
can see when the supervisors is missing in action while the deliberations are going on some supervisors are having sidebar conversations. that was not what san francisco used to be. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is alan benjamin i'm with the san francisco labor council. i have worked very proudly with the janitors union, local 87 of seiu. i'm here to commend the board particularly the board members with whom i've worked in the past in defense of immigrant rights. hillary ronen. safai, peskin. for the resolution that you will be discussing, resolution 24, on the issue of mayday. we hope very much hope,
7:05 pm
this will be adopted that you all will join us in the streets on monday, may 1, to send a clear signal that san francisco is going to remain a sanctuary city, to send a signal that we are going to continue to set the standard nationally for what it means to defend our immigrant sisters and brothers against the racist attacks we know that we are targeted and we will continue to be targeted by the trump administration. unfortunately tragic mistakes made by an individual were used . hopefully they will not happen again, but one never knows. to damage and to hurt the city and to criminalize were attempted to criminalize all of us. so i want to urge you to support resolution 24 and thank you and hope to see all of you with us in the
7:06 pm
streets on may 1. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> tom-bravo to new eviction. reprimands it's a start. bravo, for investigating sites, injection sites. bravo, single-payer statewide bravo, mothers and milk. we don't really want reforms. we want closer to what london breed, pres. breed said about me and
7:07 pm
visions. we envisioning our society. we need new vision. hopefully, part of that vision is closer to the reality of what's on the street and what is happening to us right after we need to address those items should we come to city hall here, and its goal fight city hall. that's the cliché. government is there but what happens if we work-us was a cooperative and if everybody that registered to vote was a member of this cooperative. would we make housing policy that 88% of the people that were part of this cooperative could not afford? that's how high was a one time, but we've evicted enough people and knew that your folks have moved in, so that limit has lowered now. we need a better vision. i want to-i could go on, but i want to
7:08 pm
add that 15 years ago martin luther king had 49 weeks left to live. robert kennedy was getting close to his last year in life. this will be a good time to go and check on your computer, what was happening for a week at a time, 50 years ago in 1967 or 68. it would be a good history lesson for the next couple of weeks. thank you. >> thank you any other members of the public would like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed >> [gavel] >> mdm. clerk please read the adoption without reference to committee. >> items 21 through 25 are being considered for adoption without committee reference. a single roll call they enact these items. if a matter >> roll call vote >> items 21 through 25, cohen
7:09 pm
>> items 21 through 25 >> adoption without reference to committee >> i like to sever item 22. mme. clerk, are we able to do that? >> yes. so on items 21 to 25-22, supervisor cohen aye farrell aye, fewer aye, kim aye peskin aye, ronen aye, safai aye, sheehy aye, tang aye, yee aye. breed aye. there are 1121 >> so those items are adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> mme. clerk, we need to go -is past 3 pm and will go to our 3 pm appeal. colleagues, we have before us an appeal that to determination exemption for environmental review for 958
7:10 pm
avenue in district 9. mme. clerk, please call items 13 through 16 >> items 13-16 are the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environment of quality act. issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department on march 28 mme. clerk, please call items 13 through 16 >> items 13-16 are the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environment of quality act. issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department on march 28, 2016 for proposed project located at 953 treat ave. to demolish the existing one story single family resident to construct two new four-story 40 foot tall residential buildings with three dwelling units for a total of six billing units on the project site. item 14 is a motion to affirm the planning departments determination. that this project is categorically exempt from further environment so item 15 is a motion to conditionally reversed that determination and spacing item 16 is to direct the preparation of finest. >> thank you. colleagues, but his hearing will be considering the adequacy, accuracy,
7:11 pm
proficiency and completeness of the planning determines and parental review determination for the proposed project at 953 treat ave. without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant where the appellant represented. up to two minutes for speaker in support of the appeal up to 10 minutes for presentation from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or the appellant presenters. colleagues, are there any objections in proceeding this way? seeing none, supervisor ronen, do you have any remarks? seeing none, with that we will ask the appellant, or the appellant represented to come forward. you have 10 minutes. >> thank you. we will be using
7:12 pm
the overhead. >> sfgov tv, please. >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is catherine petra and i'm an architectural historian. i practice in san francisco for the last 17 years. today i'm bringing before you an appeal of the categorical exemption of 953 treat ave. this is a pro bono effort i'm speaking on behalf of various neighbors and individuals who share my opinion and who also oppose the demolition of this building which was built in 1887, 130 years ago. we disagree with the planning department findings that it's not historic. starting with the good news, this is a pretty simple story. with just a few relevant points in a very reasonable resolution. this appeal is not an attempt to stop developments. this appeal is an opportunity for a better project, one that would satisfy multiple city goals by
7:13 pm
building an amount of housing equivalent to what is proposed, and one that would respect the city's preservation policies and goals as a eastern neighborhood plans and the proposed latino cultural district. as an aside, met with the developer. he asked me to withdraw this appeal. i said that i would if he would retain and incorporate the cottage into his project and that so far as we got. so, there are three key points that i will ask you to consider in the czar, that 953 treat is a story building. that there is a feasible and viable preservation alternative and that the city past and current planning effort in this area have been undertaken to protect buildings exactly like 953 treat that you see on the screen in front of you. for the next few minutes as i make these points, please, ask your self why should we tear down this cottage which provided housing for decades, survived the 1906 earthquake,
7:14 pm
has stood for 130 years and is a very convincing contributor to the historic character and streetscape in this neighborhood which is changing fast. so first point is that 953 is a historic building that was built in 1887 is a architectural merits. it's a good example of an italianate cottage. it's a modest small-scale worker housing that's characteristic of this part of the mission. the cottage has integrity and retains a large amount of original material, even the sponsors historic resource evaluation does not dispute this. it is rare. there are no other types of cottages like this in the area. it's architectural ornament and parapet it's the sod built right to the property line, it contributes to the visual diversity and historic character of the neighborhood and streetscape. it is also significant for its association with john center my mission district pioneer builder and businessman all parties agree
7:15 pm
about this. there is a point of contention. center did not build and he did not live there but his company owned it for 30 years and it's directly relevant that he owned it during the 1906 earthquake because he constructed the water system that saved this building and hundreds of others in the area at that time. these events were documented in the planning determines historic contact statement for the mission district and in his 1906 article from right after the earthquake. also, 953 treat is located within the boundaries of the eastern neighborhood mission area plan. it is specifies that maintaining the load to medium residential character of the area and 953 treat is located at the blue dot on this map right in the center of the neighborhood. the mission area plan also dedicates eight pages to historic preservation
7:16 pm
objectives and policy that encourages the protection preservation and reuse of historic properties. he notes that valuing historic character can preserve economic diversity by keeping affordable rehabilitated older buildings. 953 treat is exactly the type of building that all these planning efforts were meant to protect. the planning efforts also include the 2010 s. mission historic resource survey and other proposed latino cultural district. the 953 treat was determined to be a resource to the survey and was assigned to status of three-c-s meaning individually eligible as a historic resource good at that time, it also received a code of a seven-and meaning and required further research and this screenshot from the planning time and confirms of those status codes. i know this is a little bit difficult to grasp. the status codes and with a means, but basically in survey building can be given
7:17 pm
generally three evaluations. a3, meaning it is historical. a6, meaning it is not eligible as a historic research, and a seven meaning and needs more research it did not receive a second received a three and a seven requiring further research, and that research was provided to you an owner with a financial stake in the demolition. moving on, there's a preservation alternative. 953 treat is a small residence. it measures only 738 ft.2 24,000 square-foot lot. because of the amount of vacant and available -develop, the proposed project could easily be redesigned to incorporate 953 treat and while providing an equivalent amount of housing. it's relevant to note that an approved 2007 project to develop the lot would have retained a
7:18 pm
single-family dwelling for letting pdr use in the form of two new houses with four residential units above. the project was not built in 2008 was a tough time economically. but this illustrates a feasible and viable preservation alternative exists. in conclusion, we asked the board to reverse the determination that the proposed project at 953 treat is categorically exempt from further environmental review. you will hear other reasons why the building is not a resource, but legally, this board has discretion today to decide whether the cottage is demolished or not. we lose buildings in san francisco that add historic character every week. some people would say every day. by granting this appeal and affirming the historic status of 953 treat this board can assure the planning department were carefully considers the historic status of the cities resources and their merits without irrelevant consideration of project applicant desires. i urge you
7:19 pm
to grant that motion and happy to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you beck includes your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. now we will open up, see no questions at this time, we will open it up to public comments or any member of the-you have a question supervisor sheehy? >> sorry slow on the draw to. today. i was reading the packet last night i'm concerned about the process what got us here to i went to asked the planning firm and some questions. >> would you mind until we wait until we get to the planning determines presentation? thank you. with that i will open it up to public comments for those who are in support of the appeal.
7:20 pm
for those who are here in support of the appeal, you will have up to two minutes each. if there's anyone who is opposition of the appeal, there will be an opportunity to speak at a later time. for speaker, please. >> good afternoon pres. breed, members of the board. i am f joseph butler aii an architect with a 30-year-old practice in san francisco designing restoring and evaluating residential architecture. i testified today in support of the appeal and i agree with ms. -the 953 treat this and historic resource for the purposes of review under this california bar mental quality act. it is significant for its association with events, the 1906 earthquake and fire and for its association with john sent me also known as the father of the mission. 953 treat is a vernacular interpretation of the italianate style and maintains sufficient integrity over 130 years still conveys its significance. locator on a large lot 953 treat offers
7:21 pm
unique opportunity to both provide needed new housing will retain in the cottage as a tangible link to the history of the mission district role in san francisco's history. an earlier design by kennerly architecture which you saw shows that the site could be developed both as a preservation project and his new housing. if you would pay attention to the overhead, like 2694 mcallister, on the corner here, another vernacular building from 1886, new construction and preservation simultaneously provided new housing and maintained a piece of our rich history. the mcallister house as a preservation easement held by san francisco heritage and for new renovated housing units were placed on the site. to deny 953 treat as a historic resource is to lose an opportunity to move our city forward while respecting its past. i urge you to support the appeal and reverse the determination that the project is categorically exempt. thank
7:22 pm
you. >> thank you very much. >> mdm. pres. >> supervisor peskin >> i would like to asked that speaker a question. mr. butler, as i recall you have submitted testimony to this body in the past. i just want to, for the record remember-have you confirm if my recollection is correct, that you have represented that your background qualifies you pursuant to the secretary of interior standards to render expert advice as to the historic character of buildings true, or not you? >> in fact the planning to garment of san francisco has accepted my experience and educational qualifications to make evaluations of historic buildings is defined by ceqa. >> thank you mr. butler >> so true. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. mina ms. allen martinez. i'm and also an
7:23 pm
architect not quite as long as job at 29 years. in business on my own. i also served on the [inaudible] and historic preservation commission for four years. i just find it really almost unbelievable that 130-year-old building would get categorical exemption just on the face of what i it means is it doesn't need further and bimetal review and i find that really hard to understand. the initial determination of the planet barman that was currently withdrawn under unclear circumstances, was a three cs which means appears eligible for california register as an individual poverty to survey and it seems to me the appropriate evaluation. the one that it had at some point. how that disappeared, i don't know. we don't know. to go back to the mission area plan that took so
7:24 pm
many-will basically close to a decade to do, he does say, as area changes and develops historic features and properties that define it should not be lost or diminished. this new construction should be [inaudible] missions historic contract. this is the oldest house in that area from looking at the street. it would really be sad if that piece of the really old history disappeared in that area. to me, it's kind of an example could we publish be looking at a residential pdr program. it's worked so well in commercial districts. it seems to me this a perfect example where a residential transfer to vomit rights program might be of use. using the air rights above the small cottage. thanks. >> mr. martinez >> supervisor tim peskin spews can i asked the same question? i assume as a historic preservation commissioner for four years, and as a member of
7:25 pm
the predecessor body and giving your 29 years of architectural experience, that you're qualified for by secretary of interior standards bs and i did hold that chair on the historic preservation commission as a historic preservation architect. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. spell my name is luke dishon. i just want to say i working on neighborhood. i just-i see that building almost every day and to me it's worth saving and restoring. it's a building that should not be demolished i can never get back. if we demolish it we can never get it back. it's one of a few piece of property in san francisco or make san francisco feel unique and not homogenous.
7:26 pm
we do not need to tear it down and there's enough land on the property where 80% is available , more than 80% is available, to be built for more units and we can keep the cottage, restore it and keep it as affordable housing. that's all i've got to say about that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is veronica erickson and i was a tenant at 953 treat. when i would live there it was very affordable and this running was really nice. i like the college cottage. i oppose the demolition but i think if we can come up with a different way to have them billed but keep the house, i think that would be the best route to go. affordability we live there and it was so affordable and we were just starting out, and so i do want
7:27 pm
to appeal. i support the appeal. i oppose the demolition but if we can come up with a good agreement i think i would be the best for everybody. that's it. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. pres. breed and members of the board of supervisors. my name is courtney kroeger. i'm a former vice president of the historic preservation commission. i was on the landmark board before the pit historic preservation for the city of san jose and a longtime staff member in the san francisco office of national trust for historic preservation. i'm here in support of the appeal for 953 treats. i believe the bulk of the evidence supporting the claim that the building is individually eligible for the california register under criteria one my and criteria to for historical events and for its association. with john senter. i think you can make a determination under the secretary standards. it's not
7:28 pm
my aim to stop the current proposal, but rather to encourage retention and reuse of 953 in consideration of new construction adjacent to it. there's an opportunity here to do both. 953 treat as we heard is 130 years old. the solid integrity that is-it's not been subject to changes over time that substantially alter this character. it is intact and it's an important link to the history of the neighborhood and the city. we are reminded on an all too regular basis how much we are losing of san francisco's history and its fabric. here, we have a small opportunity to retain it while encouraging new construction as well. 953 treat could continue as a reminder of the area's history as enrichment to the streetscape and maybe even enliven new housing developments. i urge you to grant the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> mdm. pres. i got the last beaker question?
7:29 pm
>> supervisor tim peskin >> relative to what you've seen in this case that the planning to permit initially made a determination that it was eligible and subsequently found that it was ineligible in your professional experience as a preservation officer for the city of san jose or near other professional expands, can you help us understand, once that determination is made, how does a get on made, short of the house losing some of its architectural integrity? >> i guess my answer to that would be you look to a survey, which the mission survey of 2010 provided for this area. as an objective study of what other resources and [inaudible] so going forward for the development, you have objective information about what is historic and what is in historic. so you can help development occurred. i would look to a survey that has an objective basis like that 2010
7:30 pm
survey first from our determination of significance. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor peskin. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon could mike buehler on behalf of san francisco heritage. san francisco heritage is the citywide preservation advocacy and education organization and we are currently partnering with san francisco latino historical society on the first ever citywide latino historic context statement. with particular emphasis on the resources within the latino cultural district. 953 treat ave. is located within the boundaries of the district. it's an increasingly rare example 19th-century worker housing in this particular neighborhood. according to the board of supervisors resolution approving the cultural district in 2014 it demarcates the area
7:31 pm
with the greatest concentration of latino cultural limericks businesses institutions, festivals, and festival routes. the latino presence and events described in the resolution date back to 1821. 953 treat has been witness to the ways of migration settlement at the moment that transformed and she does neighborhood overtime. despite the highly sensitive nature of the latino cultural district it's noteworthy that the multitude of historic resources evaluations planning to permit reports, rebuttals, and peer reviews produce for this appeal do not directly reference of the cultural district or the projects potential impact on the latino cultural district. this seems like a glaring disconnect and it highlights the needs fully to integrate the cultural district in ceqa reviews and other land-use decision-making in the neighborhood. i believe when the primary land-use goals to merge from the committee process to follow the adoption of the board's resolution is to ensure new development is responsive to and reflective of the latino cultural district.
7:32 pm
in heritage's view of the prior develop plan for this parcel demonstrating how 953 treat can be incorporated into a new project illustrates the path forward for the latino cultural district. the path that balances the districts historic character in the intent demand for housing in the mission dish. projects within the district >> thank you, sir. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon pres. breed and members of the board. i'm susan grant holly. i'm a preservation lawyer working with ceqa and i've heard statewide for decades now with historic resource. i am here on my own. as someone who works in resides in san francisco much of the time and just to talk a little bit about the legal basis for this appeal. the categorical exemption before you-i'm not here to tell this board that it must find that this is a mandatory historic resource, but the evidence is extremely strong that it qualifies as a
7:33 pm
discretionary resource. it is without some ceqa review there's no obligation for the city to even consider the very feasible alternatives that would allow this particular important building to be saved. it embodies energy. it embodies character of the community america speak to the historic qualifications because i don't have that expertise, but there is manifest evidence before you that in fact, supports a discretionary finding in this board is required to make a discretionary finding as to whether or not this categorical exemption could go forward. categorical exemptions are supposed to be for projects with no possible significant impact and there's an exception for historic resource. here, this board's obligation would be to look to see whether in fact the evidence supports exercising your discussion to find that this is a historic resource and in the area for 130 years and certainly, during
7:34 pm
the latino cultural district being considered now, this is a resource that is part of that district. it was part of the community experience and growth, and to allow the push for development to lose this kind of a resource when there is an alternative, is certainly against the letter and spirit of ceqa. i ask you support the appeal. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> tom gilbert. not all intakes are inside museums. this house was built when van gogh was painting his paintings. you might say if you put it's irreplaceable. i don't think we need housing that bad to throw
7:35 pm
away and destroy our gems. that is basically a reality on the ground. also, this space above the house and around the house is part of the gem. is part of the park. of what san francisco really was once. you are not going to be able to find out. you have to protect what you can protect. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is closed >> [gavel] >> the planning to ferment for the presentation will have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon pres. breed and members of the board. my name is tina came am a senior preservation planner for the planning department. with me today is join everett senior environment so planner project planner, and preservation
7:36 pm
staff. the item before you is in an appeal of a categorical exemption for the project at 953 treat ave. the project is to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct six new dwelling units. the conditional use authorization for the project was heard and approved earlier this year by the planning commission. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the permits determination that the project is exempt from environmental review, or to overturn the determination and return the project to the apartment for additional environment to review. the guidelines under the california bar mental quality act, or ceqa, provides a list of classes of projects that are been determined not to have a impact on the environment. they are there for exempt from ceqa review specifically class one allows for the demolition of a single-family residence in
7:37 pm
class iii allows for the construction but to six new dwelling units in urbanized areas. as you've heard the appellant concerns can be grouped into three main areas. one, they do have an identified 953 treat as a historic resource in a survey completed in 2011 and then reversed their findings with a current evaluation in 2016. two, that 953 treat is a historic resource for being a good example of a simple vernacular working cottage. three, that 953 treat is a historic resource for the association with john center. the planning department conducted a detailed and thorough analysis and concluded that 953 treat is not a historic resource. here, to present the findings of jeff-preservation staff. >> good afternoon pres. breed and members of the board justin-preservation planner. the appellant has raised three main issues with regard to the historic resource status of 953 tree. the first issue is with
7:38 pm
related to survey results of the south omission historic resources survey. the appellant states that berman identified 953 treat as a historic resource in the survey in 2010 and then reversed the findings with the current environment so evaluation in 2016. as indicated in the permits response the city has never evaluated the property being eligible for lifting the california register. through the environmental evaluation application process for the proposed project we identified an error in our planning database. the database for the subject property reference to different survey status codes. three and seven. properties with a status code of three means there eligible for listing in the california register, whereas properties with a status code of seven needs further evaluation is needed. based upon the survey results that were adopted by the historic preservation commission 2011 subject property was not evaluated in the status code of three was in error. the department has never
7:39 pm
found the property to be eligible for listing in the california register was no switching of status codes from three from 3 to 7. as part of the existing invar mental review process the proposed demolition required historic resource evaluation of the property the subject property being more than 45 years of age was considered a potential historic resource. to aid in the historic resource determination quote by consultant was required to prepare a historic resource evaluation also known as hre. as part of the evaluation methodology distribute not only considered significance for the design and architecture but also associations significant events and persons. the subject party does not meet any of these criteria. in reviewing the information provided to us by the appellant about mr. john center, that apartment still concludes the subject property does not meet any of the criteria and is not eligible for listing in the california registry. as such the property is not a historic resource under ceqa. the second issue is
7:40 pm
with regard to the property significance under criteria one for events. the appellant states that 953 treat is a good example of simple vernacular work cottage in the mission that survived the 1906 earthquake and fire. the apartment does not find the subject property is eligible under criteria one is there's many better examples of vernacular worker housing that typifies the features and characteristics of an entire late style of building in the mission district. as part of our evaluation that apartment examine other simple vernacular worker housing in the style and did a comparative study with the subject property. in the permits response included a sampling of some of the simple worker cottages that are more representative of the style. these buildings have their original configuration and material and follow a more rhythmic demonstration pattern along the primary façade. 953 treat ave. was modified resulting in the building for doubling its size and set drastic changes to the front elevation. the building is also covered in shingles which is seeing none, cynthia tony sal
7:41 pm
have painted siding. the building also has an irregular window pattern which is a departure since buildings of this type have a more regular window pattern and entry design. 953 treat does not have a [inaudible] with two adjoining windows. in fact my the entrance for 953 treat is actually located on the side of the building and does not face the street. in comparison with other properties in the mission district of the same type cmliii treat is to altered and does not exhibit the features and characteristics but italianate style building. it is not a good example. therefore 953 treat do not qualify a historic resource under criteria one for events. the third issue is with regard to significance between spews meta-present can you stop the time? >> can you pause the time supervisor-supervisor tim baskin spews i know you want me to reserve my comment until the end but there's something does not make any sense whatsoever that if you're arguing the building is not historic,
7:42 pm
whether under whatever criteria you choose, it's loss of integrity is not important. you can only use the integrity argument if the building is or may be historic. so why you are arguing the loss of historic integrity to a building that you are saying is not historic makes absolutely no sense to the supervisor. that's all i wanted to say >> okay. thank you. continue with your presentation, or you can also respond to that at the end. >> i will continue and respond to that at the injured >> okay. >> actually can we get >> just to be clear with these hearings, please come allow the presentation to finish and afterwards ask her questions. thank you. please. >> the third issue with regard to the connection between john center and 953 treat. the
7:43 pm
appellant states 953 treat is significant under criteria to for persons because it was owned by john center was on the john center waterworks that was responsible for saving hundreds of buildings the mission district during the 1906 earthquake and fire. the national park service provides guidelines for stylish and significant based upon associations with important persons and subunits properties must represent the person's productive life. an example of the historic resource significant under criteria to for persons is the harvey milk in the shop at sub 535 catch up to the property was edified as a historic resource for its associate with a productive life of harvey milk when operated both as a camera store and the campaign headquarters for his four campaigns for public office. this property was not merely associate with the individual but directly related to his constituents. according to the national park service some association by themselves are not sufficient to qualify a property is an important representation of a person's historic significance. this includes ownership and other tangential relationships.
7:44 pm
the planning department does not find there are sufficient ties between john center 953 treat such that will be eligible for its association with him as an important person because has no direct connection with his productive life. john center never lived in 953 treat. he did not build 953 treat. where did he operate his waterworks company out of 953 treat. the fact the property was purchased by john center in 1894 is not remarkable given the fact that he owned vast amounts of real estate in the mission and south of market area. what the planets from it does not refute the fact that john center was important individual there's no established connection such that 953 treat would be significant for its association with him or his waterworks. other properties in the mission have been identified for their significance and surviving the 1906 earthquake and fire. however they are located directly along the fire line. included in the department's response is a map of the mission district during the
7:45 pm
1906 five. the map indicates the location of the historic district which has been identified as being eligible for listing in the california register due to the fact it was directly on the 1906 fire line. the 15 buildings within this historic district are mealy jason to john center's waterworks. he contributed to stopping fires and saving properties as a result. on the other hand, was located in the mission, 953 treat is more than seven blocks away from the waterworks were near the fire line the fact that 952 treat was once owned by john center, he is not enough to establish the significance. in conclusion, that apartment is not find the appellant has presented any substantial evidence such that a finance of no historic research would be overturned. although the department respects the professional judgment of kathleen petrin, no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument has been provided to refute the planning comments determination that i 53 treat ave. is not eligible for listing in the california register under any criteria and is therefore not a historic resource under ceqa. the
7:46 pm
department therefore recommends that the board uphold the categorical examiner exemption determination and deny the appeal of the ceqa determination. >> are there any other comments for the presentation for the planning department before we get into questions from the board? that conclude your presentation? okay. supervisor peskin had a specific question please, answer it at this time. >> tina tam for the planning to burn the integrity examination with a direct response to the appeal and the concerns by the appellant that the property is not significant under criterion one it's not example of a simple vernacular working cottage. 953 treat does not house the same quality that you see in the italianate style integrity was not the base of why the property is not significant but it's simply not the best example were a good
7:47 pm
example of what we call the italianate style working cottage in the mission. >> supervisor peskin. any other questions? >> i have plenty but i will defer to supervisor ronen >> okay. supervisor ronen >> i will follow that line of questioning. now i understand that provided in the record examples of this particular vernacular italianate style that you think are better examples of that style. but you do admit that this is that particular style, which is particular to that period of his history and significant historically. is that correct? yes that's correct. when we look at these parties we do evaluate them in relationship to other similar building types. to determine which ones would be considered significant and which ones are not. >> okay. so you might say
7:48 pm
there are other examples in the city at large of this particular style that are more perfectly the style but this particular cottage is this style that's historically significant? >> i would say based on the alteration that had taken place to the existing structure, it's not a good example of this style. >> well, packets back to supervisor 10 peskin's point. that wasn't my question and my question is in about the alteration. it's about whether or not you determine that this particular cottage is of that style, which in and of itself that style is sick historically significant. >> the mere fact this is built the italian style building does not simply qualify this as a historic resource. we can call you tony sabol and historic
7:49 pm
resources. we have to pick and choose and make sure we have the best examples that typifies this particular style of architecture. when we are evaluating this property in comparison to the other buildings at the same style, during the same period, this building does not have the same features but it is not of the same characteristics. that describes what we believe is the italianate style. it doesn't have a window pattern could it doesn't have the material. it doesn't have the same sort of entry design and sequence of the other ones that are your typical italianate style buildings in san francisco. too much of a departure. >> okay. outages note there were several experts today that disagreed with that but i'll move on. next question about how , during the south mission survey the planning department -i'm confused. clearly, on your website i've seen the screenprint which i understand
7:50 pm
the designation was change the day after the planning commission's hearing, but up until then, on the planning website this particular property was listed as a potential historical with a three-cs listing is that correct? >> the planning to varmint website indicates to survey statuses. did not only say the property is a status of throughput it's at a status of a three and a seven. it also indicated in the website to ask whoever's looking at this to check with the planning department to verify any information regarding the historic site of the party so it's a both a three and a seven. >> okay. but that significant. i'm confused. during your presentation you mention that this property was never assessed
7:51 pm
for its historic nature during the south mission study? >> that is correct. a seven status code means that further information is required. for a determination of historic resources >> but it had both a three and 70 how could it have received this three status if it's never been studied? >> so the official findings that were approved by the historic preservation commission in 2007 show a status of 7 million further evaluation is required >> but the website showed a three. how would that three get inputted into the website had it not been evaluated? >> there was an error in the website. we need to go back to is the actual survey was adopted by the historic preservation commission. the actual resolution that went along with a survey that survey indicated that no previous evaluation was done for the
7:52 pm
property. that the seven status is a correct status for the property. >> so how are properties chosen for review? this is a property that was built in 1887. it's over 130 years old. you are surveying the area and there wouldn't have been a review of a 137-year-old building which is relatively rare in the area. that seems odd. what was the point in the survey in the first place if you're not can review a 130-year-old building? >> there are a number of properties in our survey that never had a final determination. that's not that unusual. we try to cover as many, if not all the properties in a survey area. typically, for these very large sites, if there is additional information that is not available at the time the survey was being done, that's when we reserve the status code of seven, which means go back
7:53 pm
and do more evaluation when the time comes, and in this case, this is what we are doing for the property. >> okay. you can certainly see the optics here. you did a survey of the area to determine which buildings were potential historical research. this is a 130-year-old building that has a distinctive style in the neighborhood. it was built in 1887, but you are saying it was included in the survey, get the planning commission website said not only was included but it received a potential historic designation and then you said was an error which was corrected the day after the planning commission. the whole thing just doesn't smell right. i just want to make a point but i'll move on. i know my colleagues have some additional questions about that. my last question, ms. petrin said that there were no other cottages
7:54 pm
like this of this particular vernacular italianate style in the area. is that true? have you researched that area how many other properties of this type are-you know within the immediate surrounding area any latino cultural district as a whole? >> one of the examples that we gave is two blocks away. i believe it's a 700 address around treat avenue. in the mission survey,. i think it was 3800 properties that were surveyed as part of that survey. out of them, i think 400 were identified as being of the italianate style and been eligible for listing in the california register. during that survey they also identified historic districts. better eligible for listing in the california register. i mean the purpose of these historic resources surveys is to get a better understanding of an
7:55 pm
entire area. >> okay. my question again was are there other similar cottages of this particular italianate vernacular style surrounding area and in the latino cultural district? i'm not sure you answer my question. >> yes., there are. >> okay. in the immediate area because ms. petrin said there were no other cottages of this type in the area of? i know you mentioned one, but-it would be helpful to know what we are talking about. in terms of what potential historic resource we could lose if this project would go forward with that would mean for the neighborhood.
7:56 pm
>> there are a number of this particular style of buildings in the vicinity. one that was included in your packet is 724 treat ave. this happens to be one that is actually determined as a historic resources on the survey but there certainly many more within the survey area. hundreds. i think it was just mentioned and then there are many more with the historic district as well. so possibly, i am guessing, double that amount of italianate style buildings that are considered historical resources in the mission. >> okay. that did not answer my question but i think you don't know in the immediate area. sorry. one last question. my office is working with latino community in the mission on a application to california
7:57 pm
registry to create another historic district and recognize the latino history in that neighborhood. which is incredibly rich and wondering if the paint apartment did any research on this particular site to determine whether or not it was a contributor to that potential historic district? >> the latino cultural district is not historic resources under ceqa. we do note there are a number of scenes identified in this study and in looking at the scenes and the importance of the latino cultural heritage the occupancy the use of the building, are not significant under any of those teams and we don't believe there's any sort of association with this property, with any importance to this latino culture. the
7:58 pm
occupancies are listed in the historically evaluation. there's no evidence to that has led us to believe to believe there's any connection to this property with the cultural significance >> i sought out list but he did not-did you specifically research the question of whether or not this particular property was a contributor at all to the latino history of that neighborhood? >> yes. we did. >> okay. i have no further questions. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. pres. ms. campbell i miss the name of your colleague? >> justin grubbing >> justin maybe you can help me out a little bit here. are you looking at this pursuant to the criteria under the california registers. is that
7:59 pm
what i heard you say? is this california registry >> correct >> but you don't have under ceqa limit yourself to the california register criteria, do you? >> that's the basis for determining whether or not something is considered a historic resource under spacecraft is eligible for listing under the california register >> that's not what ceqa says. ceqa actually gives you and for that matter this board who can make an independent determination based on the expert testimony that we have received in that i've established that we have received, but section 2.108 4.1 of the ceqa, and i quote, says the fact that resource is not listed in were determined to be eligible for listing in the california register of historical resources is not, shall not, preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be a
8:00 pm
historical resource. so you actually have that latitude. you do not have to limit yourself to the california registry courage. having said that, argue, or is staff do you have an expiration as to why the earlier entitlement for this project required the retention of the 738 ft.2 cottage? >> tina tam for the planning department. i believe the earlier project proposal came in as a project that retains the building there was also another project i think this dates back to 2005 that showed a demolition. it's with the proposal, how the proposal was sent to the planning department. [inaudible]. you simply the will of the applicant at the time. in regards to the ceqa
8:01 pm
guidelines the definition of a historic resource, under ceqa, i'm going to defer the question to the city attorney. >> i didn't asked the city attorney but if the city attorney wants to discuss the last sentence of section 21084.1, the deputy city attorney is welcome to do that if that's the will of my colleagues. go ahead ms. byrne. >> apologies. >> deputy city attorney milo byrne. thank you. yes, the speaker guidelines and sql ceqa statute itself states the project is not previously have
8:02 pm
to have been a property. as i previously have been listed on the california registered or determined eligible in a formal survey. or, listing on a registered however, once a project comes before the city the california register a criteria are the criteria that are applied to the determine if something is potentially eligible for listing. so really, with that ceqa guideline is getting at is saying that the survey doesn't have to of done before the planning commission actually get the project in front of them. once a plan to berman has that project these are the criteria that are applied and that can be found in ceqa these are the criteria that are applied and that can be found in ceqa guidelines ♪1506.453 when a building is not a property or other structure has not previously been listed or previously been determined eligible then generally, dvd agency determination first of all must be supported by substantial evidence, but also it's generally considered a resource by the lead agency if
8:03 pm
it meets the criteria for listing on the california register of historical resources. on the guidelines actually goand set forth the criteria. thank you. >> supervisor peskin >> thank you mdm. pres. let me just kind of throughout a number of things. one is-and this goes back to before the easter neighborhoods planning effort was fully underway. this was actually referenced by mr. martinez at the hearing on 2675. street. that was the fact that, as dean macros in the planning department and this board in two mayoral administrations were embarking on and continuing the easter neighborhoods planning process,
8:04 pm
this board of supervisors actually previous board of supervisors that had the pleasure of sitting on, appropriated a rather enormous amount of money to the planning department so that every single one of these historic properties would be surveyed. i find it hard to believe,, and troubling, that the evidence in the record would appear that this property was reviewed,, was found to have a three cs designation which when a project applicant came in and wants to demolish it was conveniently found to be an error. it raises the question of, why we give you all of that money for a survey that was not complete, or maybe was complete that you're changing after the fact. i mean, this is a pretty terrible precedent relative to the preservation of historic buildings if these designations can be changed after the fact. in this particular instance, i mean, this case where there can
8:05 pm
actually be development of additional units, and preservation of what i believe, i think we've had expert testimony from a former historic preservation commission members, from experts in the field, from the san jose historic historic preservation ofc. i mean it's a remarkable precedent to just be able to say, no. and in this instance we can retain the historic resource and have additional housing. i just am flabbergasted particular windows a previous project on this site that preserve the resource and biltmore on-site housing. i just kind of blown away by you guys. but i guess that's not really a question just to come in. i will say this. we really need to get away from having project applicant's higher there hr, er historic resource evaluation
8:06 pm
preparers because you know what they say. the designation and appraisal business of mai stands for? his post to stand for member appraisal institute but some people say it stands for made as instructed and the reason i tell you that is you can go out and pay some of these folks. some of them are more and some less reputable to come up with a report that you can now respectfully read from and say it's not a historic resource even though it was a three--cs up until the day your commission granted a conditional use. so obviously we will hear from the project sponsor, the real party and interest, but i'm prepared based after i hear all the evidence, and of course will defer to the district supervisor, but i'm prepared to reverse the categorical exemption determination. >> thank you supervisor peskin.
8:07 pm
supervisor kim. >> i just had a few follow-up questions. i never pretend to understand or be an expert on historical designation or resource. it's an area i've always found a bit confounding. i'm listening to the planning department today and one of the things i feel like i heard over and over from supervisor rubbing. is that correct >> grubbing >> also from his tam. you have found better examples of this from of this type of single-family working residences that i guess typical of the mission in the late 1800s.. so, i guess that begs the question of when you make these determinations, is it sort of a beauty contest or suggest an objective set of criteria? if there are several hundred of them do you always just pick the best representation, or is there actually kind of a standard objective criteria by which
8:08 pm
building is deemed historical resource or historically significant? that can go to either ms. tam or mr. grubbing. >> i mean we do have professional qualifications standards used to review and identify properties that would be considered historical resources. i would say it's not a beauty contest. it's about looking at the history of the property in relationship to the history of the neighborhood along with understanding the general buildings in the area. >> so if in several hundred of them are representative of this type of architecture that esteem historically significant or historic resource, then recommend let's say there's 400, do you then actually said you identified 400 as eligible. you move forward with all 400,
8:09 pm
regardless of the number? >> depending on the site of the survey area that is correct. >> so is not a matter of you just always want to pick the best of the group to move forward? >> no. that's not true >> okay. >> no. that's not true >> okay. i guess what if there's only a few? let's say many of these were lost in the fire, earthquake in 973 was one of three remaining that's at all representative.. with the historic preservation staff and commission think differently about this house? even with the alterations and kind of imperfect kind of details? >> no. it was still use the same standards for review of the property >> if it was the only one? if it was not a perfect example of
8:10 pm
this line it would not be recommended? even if it was the only example remaining? >> that's correct >> okay. >> that's correct >> okay. it's not so it's not the number of buildings that were recommended? >> no. >> okay. i had a question for you mention the fire line that i do not understand without exactly was. >> yes. so in the packet we did present-we have the location where the 1906 fire the extent of the boundary of the fire. that is the fire line. properties that are- >> could you demarcated for me? >> yes. can we go to the overhead? so in red, that's where the extent of the 1906 fire was.
8:11 pm
>> okay. i'm in a try to put up on my ipad but i can't see what you're showing on the screen. can you just name the boundary lines? >> i mean it's difficult to describe. >> roughly? on the left with street is that? is that fulsome? >> dolores. >> that's dolores, okay >> and 20th. to the south. been to the states howard and then up into someone. >> so this area was deemed as more historically significant for the houses are deemed are more historically significant because of its relationship to this fire? >> no. that boundary indicates all properties would've been demolished and burned down. >> i'm sorry. okay. so these-this is the neighborhood of which those types of housing are no longer i guess standing because they were destroyed? >> that's correct. the historic district has been identified which is outlined in
8:12 pm
purple is significant because it's directly on that fire line. so it survived the fire but the properties across the street did not. >> why does that matter, it's proximity to the fire line? why does it make more historically significant just because it's across the street versus seven blocks away as you said 973 tree is? >> because the actual delineation of which property survived the 1906 earthquake in which properties didn't we determined to be kind of a significant way to look at properties within the mission. >> why? >> because it reflects--i mean specific periods of time that would be important that survived the 1906 earthquake and fire. >> okay. i'm struggling to understand that. so it's by
8:13 pm
fortune. if 973 treat happen to be across the street we would consider to be more historically significant because it survived because it's only across the street from the fire? versus seven blocks away from the fire? that feels kind of like block.. that some houses are deemed more historically significant. i guess of course the luck is always in play because like you said where someone lives is in some ways luck, to but i guess i'm not understanding this fire line proximity is something that's historically significant. >> so part of this significance for these properties that we surviving they were on the same block as john centers water work. we would water that would've saved these properties from being burned down. in looking at the history of the extent of the 1906 earthquake and fire looked at historic figures that would have been important in where they defined the fire line. so for example
8:14 pm
john senter was determined that he was able to use his water work to combat the 1906 earthquake and fire. so the distinct boundaries of the fire line sort of tell the history of the 1906 fire. >> okay. if john centers water touched your house you are historically significant but of john senter invested money in buying the property is not historically significant? >> that's correct it needs to be a more direct connection instantly owning a property. >> so >> do you need a minute supervisor kim? >> i think that's ridiculous. but i just don't understand the distinction. his water touched her house and now you're significant but he bought your property and it's not significant. maybe i'm missing
8:15 pm
something. i just don't know if that's a good argument. let me say this. no need to respond. i don't know if that's a good reason to articulate why one house is determined significant and one is in. this one have been closer to the fire line it would've been deemed significant because of its proximity to the fire. versus i think just simply the fact that the house is representative of this type of housing that had been historically built in the late 1800s. so i mean i think that should be kind of the dividing line.. surviving houses, not whether they were close to the fire. i guess the point is that we lost a lot of these type of housing to a number of circumstances whether it was the fire, the earthquake would just simply demolition before or change of use. it shouldn't be because it
8:16 pm
was close to the line of the fire. i just don't see that as a good argument.okay. moving on from that, i do want to say i do understand the significance of the new development that is being brought before us. i understand six family units is important for the neighborhood. there is no displacement of tenants on the site. from a layperson's perspective, and honestly, from initial first look at this project it didn't make sense to save the single-family residence in comparison to having six, two, and four bedroom units coming into a neighborhood where there clearly isn't enough housing. i get that, but i think that's not the question that is before us today. not do we prefer six family units be built on the site versus saving this one single-family residence. that doesn't house anybody. i mean, the question before us today is whether this exemption should be upheld or not. i think i'm
8:17 pm
struggling based on some of the reasons that the historic preservation staff has been provided in terms of how to distinguish this from some of the other houses in the area. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor tang >> thank you. i think one of the other criteria planning department is looking at is aside from the architecture of the building, but also the buildings association with a person of importance or significance in our past john senter being that person. i guess building on supervisor jenkins question, he was certainly the owner of 953 treat but my understanding he owns a lot of buildings. i'm wondering if you tell us how many buildings he owned in the city? >> tina tam for the planning to burn. based upon articles
8:18 pm
and the [inaudible] for mr. john senter it appeared he owned many if not hundreds of properties in the south of market area. >> okay. hundreds. in terms of diving a little deeper how it is planning staff evaluates the association of a person with a building, and that significance, does that person have to live there? is ownership simply enough? is the fact that he owned hundreds of buildings in the city something that you factored into your decision? i want to get a better understanding of that particular evaluation. >> yes. there is a national register bulletin number 32 which specifically talks about evaluating properties for significance with important individuals. it does state specifically that mere ownership does not imply significance or a significant connection. >> about the fact-did you factor in young hundreds of
8:19 pm
buildings or was that i criteria at all? >> we looked into the fact we had a large amount of real estate in the area. >> it but i guess it sounds like because he didn't operate mr. senter didn't operate his water comedy out of this building and he didn't live there he that's what you based on-or, i guess you decided it wasn't that important and association with mr. senter? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> thank you supervisor trying to get see no other questions we will now go to the presentation for the project sponsor.. or, the representative.he will have up to 10 minutes.
8:20 pm
>> hello. pres. breed and board of supervisors. my name is shoddy o'connor emma the project sponsor of 953 treat >> can you please speak into the microphone. >> i apologize on the project sponsor 953 treat ave. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. this is the property in question. i would like to start by shedding light to the reason why [inaudible] opposing this president ernest and jim hunter with the previous owners of 953 treat. they had the property in the family since 1954. in 2005 they were the project sponsor which pursued a historic
8:21 pm
intervention in order to demo 953 treat and build a 9-10 year building. i apologize. these prevent planet bowman found the building to be not historically resource. ernest has brother, jim did not see eye to eye on the project did not follow through on the project and subsequent project ideas. the brothers had a falling out and really speak to each other. anymore. we purchased the property in march 2015 to where we might be in the middle of a family dispute. ernest hines currently owns the commercial building next door engagements between and mike buehler services to preserve the building in december 2015 on the notes to my team. unbeknownst to my team. if you see here there's a email with ernest hines or catherine between and mike buehler raises
8:22 pm
the question of ernest hines or really want to preserve the building why did he sell it or file it for historic exemption when he owned it in 2005 since december 2015 my team sat down with a real neighbors 953 treat ave. to discuss what they would like to see built in their backyard. they emphatically wanted to see the pump approximately 800 ft.2 structure that occupied half the lot be removed and family orientated units with parking built. we were diligent with a planning deferment and the neighbors to design a plan that all could support. i was notified by the planning deferment in december 2016 the list of oppositions which included catherine trends name. this was after a year of working with the neighborhood and this was the first time we were aware of any opposition. it was later found out during
8:23 pm
my outreach the list consists of ernest heiser's commercial tenants. many of which wrote the planning department that they do not oppose the project and did not know they were being conveyed and is opposite to reach out to ms. tran to address her concerns she did, to convey them or me to discuss. is not until a month ago after a unanimous decision by the well-respected planning commission which he agreed with the planning deferment's determination the building was not historic not a historic resources and approved the demo permit that catherine pridgen finally want to me. i agreed to meet with her she asked me to throw away two years and thousands of hours of work by the neighbors with the planning department and my team try to find a way to retain the structure. that has been deemed not to be historically resource twice by the planning department, once in 2005 recently last year and also by the top historical preservation in the city could fortify the request to be untimely and
8:24 pm
unfair and enormous waste of precious city resources. 953 treat-avenue has been renewed for historic significance numerous times since 2000 all determination states not a historic resource. this includes two peer reviews lastly performed by caring company [inaudible] both 2005 and 2006 planning deferment determination and all catherine pridgen's claims. if you look at this chart i created, it gives you an idea of the history and how much it's been reviewed. april 28, 2005 jane hines her previous owner family owned since 1954 they history major at uc berkeley includes beef and focus curriculum gave
8:25 pm
it a not historic resource. september 15, 2005 san francisco planning department research by wenzel hastings currently the historic charleston foundation director preservation and museums reviewed by mark wheeler and curran as a planning manager not historically so. april 27, 2015 [inaudible] in existence for 40+ years and won countless preservation awards including just recently william c ralston award from the san francisco museum of historical society in recognition of decades of committed and talented architectural work towards preservation of the bay area. not a historic resource. march 28, 2017-2016 san francisco planning deferment research by justin grubbing who previously worked at should tell inc. historic preservation firm with 20 years of expense and reviewed by team tina tam for over six years. not a historic reason april 18 just last week
8:26 pm
2017 tim kelly consulting get their fill peer-reviewed tim kelly served five terms as the president of the san francisco landmarks board. not a historic respect april 20, 2000 and carrion company did a full peer review principal nancy goldenberg has over 30 years of professional architectural historian experience music currently serves on the board of sf heritage. also on the san francisco limericks preservation advisory board that not a historic risa. also, the planning commission in february 16, 2000 well-respected commissioners like catherine moore, pres. rich hillis and agreed with the determination the property is not a historic risa. the demo permit was given a unanimous approval. none of these professionals take the jobs and the reputations lately. i don't set up resident that would allow more of these appeals to be filed putting a strain on the time and resources the planning department and planning commission in the sport of supervisor. this is a
8:27 pm
map of 953 treat ave. the immediate area. now many projects throughout the city are met with a large neighbor opposition. this is not one of those projects. we took the time to listen to the neighbors and instead of building a bunch of one-bedroom units. we designed a wonderful six unit family friendly building that fits the neighborhood demographics. the large support from the 18 immediate long-term neighbors 953 treat is rarely seen. as you can see from the map i put dots for everybody that signed a letter of support. we took a lot of time meeting with the neighbors after we found out that this-when we got a report saying it was not a historic but we do not hear from any opposition at all about this possibly being historical until catherine patron submitted her
8:28 pm
opposition one-week-or a couple weeks before the planning commission hearing which was about two months ago. so the entire time we were under the impression this was not historical we were doing all the right things with neighborhood support and doing a responsible project here and it is really painful to see this is where we are going. it's really tough. this decision before you should not be made lightly. as to long years of work in countless number of hours have gone into this amazing project. as each individual supervisor support the talented hard-working time at the planning department the well-respected planning commission, top of most rapid of preservationist in san francisco and the real neighbors who live on treat avenue and reject this misrepresented appeal. i think you so much for your time. i hope i was right. that's all
8:29 pm
for me. thank you >> thank you very much but supervisor kim do you have a question? >> yes. a quick follow-up questioning by the way it's very impressive you have support in the neighbors in the area for project like this. neighborhoods we typically have opposition from the resident. i just want appreciate your working to outreach. i know about difficult. i just had two quick questions. i do not understand what you are implying in the beginning of your introduction about ms. padron's relationship to the family that owned [inaudible] >> corrected jim and ernest hines her previously on the building and ernest hines are was the one that engaged mike buehler and catherine for trying to preserve this building. is also the owner of the commercial building next door 2953 treat ave. >> i seek him after he sold the property to you he then went- >> right. the brothers had a falling out and they split the assets so jim hines are 953
8:30 pm
treat ave. and ernest hines are kept the commercial building next door which actually luke the chunnel works and. that spoke earlier. jim hines are sold the property to us and i did not know all this >> i understand if you're one brother sold you the property and the other brother went out to try to find maybe oppositional information information >> correct. i don't know if you saw the email but mike buehler and ernie hines are on >> i'd a hard time seeing anything. sorry these are not great screen. it is not your fault. my second question you had mentioned thatthere's recently two peer reviews done >> correct. >> just out of curiosity with a paid? >> well, yes. >> you went out and found two other- >> so yes. i went off the san francisco planning departments approved list and i called-i
8:31 pm
asked around for the most reputable firms in the city and they said will you already have one of them which is page and turnbull and-company is really good kelly consulting is really good. so i called him and asked wayne what was going on and sent them asked him if they would do a peer review. >> thank you >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor peskin >> just relative to supervisor jenkins comments i want to stay for the record the representation made by the appellant that the appellant had brought this forward is a pro bono matter. i'm happy to ask the appellant if that is a true statement but that was the appellant's statement as to mr. buehler, he is executive director of a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve and enhance historic resource in the city and county of san francisco. so
8:32 pm
it doesn't seem too nefarious to me but i just want to say those two things for the record. >> thank you. thank you very much. at this time, if there's any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal, you will have up to two minutes. per speaker, please. first speaker, please. >> hello. i'm jeff dixon architect for the proposed project at 953 tree. catherine patron has raised the question is there no good development that retains the existing building. she knows as well as enemy this building is not actually historically rated. she's just trying to tug at your heart strings. i understand why. in truth, the building the existing building art by 70% of the lot and if we go to the overhead here? i
8:33 pm
have represented that the current footprint of the existing building in red overlaid over the development. this retaining of the existing building would eliminate the proposed building are developed basically to billions on one lot. it would eliminate the south building and substantially reduce the size of the north building. we have studied retention options and they do not meet the neighbors directives or the city's goals. the planning commission has been very firm in their mandate for family-friendly housing and for maximizing density density is reflected in both the unit count and the number of beds essentially how many people can be housed on the site. the space for the new buildingis highly compromised by the retention of the existing structure. after required setbacks for rating windows other clearances the new building would actually yield about 700 ft.2 net residential space per floor. with bike
8:34 pm
storage and garbage and things on the ground floor. that would result in three one-bedroom apartments. our proof project has six units totaling 16 bedrooms. this would be four units totaling five bedrooms. we could house 20 people, 30 people this development would house 5-10 people it's really a terrible plan and total misrepresentation of the kind of project to say there's a compromise here. there's actually no compromise that involves retaining the building. thank you. >> just to be clear, for members of the public would like to speak, this is for anyone who is in opposition of the appeal only. you basically support the project >> correct. president. the board of supervisors, this is san francisco come on kid anything goes. nothing matters. the fact that it's historical,
8:35 pm
well it's paid to play politics. you hire the right people, you get what you want done who cares about the big picture here. the fact that something is historical that experts agree it's historical we just keep throwing money at the project you keepfavoring the people working in the planning department giving them gifts >> sir, excuse me were pausing your time. are you to speak in support of the project were in opposition of the project? >> in support of the project. >> thank you. >> i know it may seem a little overwhelming to you but in support of the project. anything goes and nothing matters in san francisco. there is no more properties like that and it's historical and so forth. those things don't matter.. that's not san
8:36 pm
francisco values. san francisco values are completely different than that. this is the time of the low man. where anything goes. you can, ultimately throw enough money at a project which we've done you can expect to get the categorical exemption to be continued. because this is san francisco. you pay to play and you can get what you want regardless of the facts because the planning department are part of the problem. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is christina dyke's senior architectural historian of page in turn will either master's degree in architectural history and i meet with the sec. of interior standards professional
8:37 pm
qualifications for architectural historian. i agree with and support all the findings of the planning department is made in their categorical exemption appeal response. i am here to defend the findings that we made in our historic resource evaluation as we prepare the hre in april 2015 at the conclusion of our report was at the cottage was not individually significant or eligible for lifting in the listing in the california register. to qualify a little bit of the dual historic resource status codes, three cs and seven n early in our report scoping process in 2015. i have an email communication specifically about this. if you dig into the actual south mission survey findings on the planet from its website, not the property information map, it's clear the building was never found to be individually significant. i also reviewed the property information map and cemented a letter to the planning commission on february
8:38 pm
3. it was dated february 3 planning to the commission hearing that only listed the seven. it was dated february 3 planning to the commission hearing that only listed the 7n so i like to refute the claim that the information on the property information map was updated after the planning commission hearing. the appeal letter notes former property owner john senter and john sensor company was a major landowner that installed the water supply system the preventive destruction of portion of the mission district from the 1906 earthquake and fires. while john senter may be locally significant for this feat the cottage at 953 treat is not individually significant direct association with this act. the fire was halted at 20th st. a few blocks north from 953 tree. senter was not the first owner of the property and never lived at the property during the time his company only. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
8:39 pm
>> good afternoon. my name is ruth todd. on the preservation planner and preservation architect and principal at paige and turnbull. i leave the cultural resources studio which is composed of eight historians architectural historians, and preservation planners and three offices throughout california. for almost 45 years in business we have evaluated thousands of buildings to determine their significance as historic resource. sometimes there historic resources. sometimes they are not historic resources. being 130 years old is not a criteria for significance. when we do our work, we are not advocates a preservation and we are not advocates of development. in fact, for this particular project we knew nothing about the proposed project when we made our findings. we are objective historians making professional and qualified findings regarding our built environment. it is easier to do
8:40 pm
our job now that was 45 years ago. the city has sponsored surveys and contact statements that serve as useful tools for our determinations and findings. over the last 45 years there have been very clear national and state guidance and criteria and bulletins that guide our decisions. we review our work in-house and as the applicant stayed, two of our peer competitors support our findings. we do not feel that the appellant has provided significant evidence in support of the claims that this property is a historic recent. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is [inaudible] architectural historian at-comedy in architectural and preservation from that has been in existence since 1983. while we were engaged to conduct a peer
8:41 pm
review of this historic resource evaluation for the subject property. we looked at the memo from 2005 page and turbo report of 2015 planning department review of 2016 and [inaudible] letter dated 2017. the three documents have concluded that the property doesn't possess historical significance while a fourth one found it to be at we conducted an independent and unbiased peer review of these evaluations and we agree with the planning departments and page intervals conclusions the property doesn't have historic significance. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. good afternoon. >> >> good afternoon. ims donald [inaudible] i live directly across the street from the project it on our side of the street there are six buildings and i have the signatures of all the buildings owners and
8:42 pm
tenants long-term tenants that live in these buildings. i've lived on this block like i said 40 years. 19 years across the street and i moved to the west side of the street which is directly across about 20 years ago i raise my children on this block. i've had grandchildren born on this block. we're definitely in favor having his billing knockdown and the building is a bit in terrible condition for the last 30 fears that i can remember i've never seen any great influence made to it. it's very shoddy construction. nothing to write home about older buildings within two blocks of that building from the 1860s. their older italianate style buildingstwo blocks away also. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is lauren siegel and i live at 924 >> hello. my name is lauren siegel and i live at 924 treat ave. we have been in having a conversation with the developer for over the past two years as far as i've lived at our home,
8:43 pm
that building has been in complete disrepair. i don't even think you could save it. i would love, love, to see other families in the neighborhood that we love in our choosing to raise our children. i really hope you guys think about that. there is a children's park right across the street that i think would be lovely for families. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is zachary siegel. i was actually raised here in san francisco. i live it 9243 treat with our away form that were lacing our family here on treat street. i think it is the building itself i lived there for six years good so i haven't have the history that don does, but it's basically been vacant.. i don't know what it has to do with the historical status but i think that it is bright
8:44 pm
essentially. it's beyond repair. there's nothing going on therethat has anything of value. to the point of supervisor kim, when you're said you're surprised the neighbors all came together on this, that should be assigned. this building is not good. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the project? seeing none, public comment is closed >> [gavel] >> all right we have the appellant's you will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you supervise. you've heard a lot of information. there's a lot to say. i could use a lot more than three minutes to clarify things that you've heard i'm not going to do that get back to him and to get to my last-minute because
8:45 pm
i'd like her to make a particular point. basically, i just wanted to refute a couple of quick things for clarity. the reason i got involved in this project is that ernest hunter, former owner called heritage asking for help in saving the building. my dealer at heritage call me. heritage was never engaged. i did talk to ernie hines are about working on this project. that's how i became aware of it. but he is not my client and i been doing this on a totally pro bono effort for months and months. i am sympathetic to the developers frustration with the timing and i have to bring that back to the planning department because article 31 of the administrative code was recently-in the last few years amended in a does not allow the appeal of a-the appeal on bringing out is not even allowed to be brought forward until the first approval action of the project. that means that
8:46 pm
a developer develops his project and is very far along and at that first moment that first action taken by the planning commission is the first time someone can appeal it. that is advantageous disadvantageous to the developer and people who care about historic reservation and want to bring an appeal. the developer and i spoke about that and greed about that but just a little bit of time and i really want to just ask you what i asked you at the start of this hearing. is, have you asked yourselves, why we should tear down this cottage that stood for 130 years? we have a great opportunity and as you can see, there's a vacant space that can be developed. a lot of times we see historic buildings being torn down. they don't have the advantage of being on such a large lot. there is no option for keeping the building and adding new housing like we
8:47 pm
have here. so i do think there's a win-win. taking a broader view i think it's important to note the immediate surroundings have many historic buildings there's market rate housing that's coming online and that's all the more important to balance old and new and achieve visual diversity to maintain the historic character of the area while adding new development and finally, we are asking you to reverse the exemption and note that ceqa review which is wilbur asking for, we are asking for environmental review, will provide an objective review of project alternatives so that may refute some of the architects claims if it's feasible or not. i'm going to give my last time to susan verna holly. >> thank you i'm sorry your time is up. okay. with that this hearing has been held and is now closed. >> [gavel] >> this matter is in the hands of the board. all right,
8:48 pm
supervisor ronen. >> colleagues, i really struggled a lot with this appeal. i read every single document in the record and usually when i do that i have a strong lean one way or another coming into the hearing and i really do not have that in this appeal. to me, it was a close case coming in but i have to say, after the additional evidence additional experts i heard i do think that additional environment to review is important and necessary in this case. i will explain why. i really want to thank the may neighbors who came out and testified and i understand what it's like when there's ablated property on your street and what that does to a neighborhood. but there is
8:49 pm
a very viable development that can happen at this site that would provide sort of the twin goals that we have as a city, which is building warehousing and more family housing and preserving a very unique historic building. i'm compelled by the appellant's argument and the additional experts that come in spoke today that there is not opportunities like this left in a city where there's really a confluence of things going on here with this particular site. it is 130-year-old building.. it is of this particular style which i'm learning it on brando historic preservation but i'm learning this vernacular style is a very simple architectural style. that was generally occupied by working-class folksand so it was probably in the 1800s occupied, or throughout the history, when
8:50 pm
the neighborhood was primarily irishby irish working-class folks and then at some point could have been a significant to the latino community. fortunately, there's not enough historic review here for us to know fully the history of this particular building. it also was associated with this historic figure in the mission, john center. it was owned by john center and while this property wasn't on the fire line itself, it was saved by the fact that mr. senter built this water works project in the neighborhood which saved this house and many others in the neighborhood and that is significant. so it's a very unique particular style that is 130-year-old building owned by a man that basically built this system at save this property
8:51 pm
during the earthquake and fire in the confluence of those different factors, i think are significant. it's not just ivan is not important but i think because i'm not in our textual strain but today we heard from at least four architectural historians that said that is a significant site and i was compelled by that testimony. i'm very troubled, as well by the whole history of this designation, that was designated in the planning department records as three--cs. the fact that it wasn't-whether it was designated at one time three-cs and that was it a mistake or wasn't ever reviewed as part of the south mission survey, i'm troubled on both sides. i believe that would suggest that there is in a process that we have in place that is truly objective and not tied to a
8:52 pm
particular developers desire to make a profit of a particular site. i would be remiss if i did not set a precedent here that required proper environmental review when there is substantial evidence like there is here that this is a historic acid. so with that, colleagues, i will make a motion to approve item 15 and 16 and table item 14. >> okay. supervisor ronen has made a motion to approve item 15 and 16 and table 14. is there a second? second by supervisor peskin supervisor kim >> i just want to reiterate a point that supervisor peskin had made earlier that i think at some point it would be good to review the process by which historical review is done by consultants. i don't have an issue with the fact that the
8:53 pm
developer paid for the consultants that i do think that there is an inherent bias when the developer pays for and picks the consultant. even if the consultant actually gave a good objective review, it just shines-it throws a little doubt about the bias because i just don't know how often i've seen a consultant actually give a final summary that was in opposition to what the developer would like to see. actually, if we got one that was evidently picked by the planning department i would actually have a lot more faith in the evaluation that was brought before us. it's unfortunate because this could've been a very good evaluation. this is something that didn't just come up for this project but it's come up for several other projects in the past i do want to clarify my point about ownership versus water. i'm not saying that any
8:54 pm
home that's owned by john center should be considered historical resource. i just have trouble that with the concept that the historic preservation commission would say that his water touching housing makes you eligible for historical resource but ownership does. i don't really see the distinction and then the crying brings me to her supervisor ronen is.he doesn't seem to be a good set of objective criteria by which we determine kind of what's historical resource and what's not. i do want to say this a very hard one for me. this was 7-0 at the planning commission which says a lot to me. i appreciate the staff's presentation on how the detail deviate from what most of the other houses that are along this lineage i guess. would like to be good so i understand why this is a difficult decision before the board today. but my point is kind of an
8:55 pm
overall systematic issue. i think we need to reevaluate and of how consultants are picked because it just impacts my ability to make what i think is a fair determination of this project. but i do want to say i want to appreciate that volker did a lot of work and good did good development. it appears to be a very good development for the neighbor that's been brought forward. before us. >> thank you supervisor 10 can. supervisor tang b thank you. i definitely understand all the concerns were raised by supervisor ronen supervisor kim and so forth and generally like to do for the district supervisor but here were not opining whether we think the project should be built or not. were planning about whether we agree with this exemption that was granted and so i think i do deviate a bit from the comments stated earlier. mostly because again i'm not a historic preservation specialist by any means and i know there's plenty of you out there who are in our
8:56 pm
audience today. some of you of which have differing opinions, but just in terms of my assessment of the situation looking at the existing building 9533, how it was expanded, how it has shingles versus the painted wood siding, the window pattern, the fact that it was one of the hundreds of buildings owned by mr. senter, although he is a significant in our history, but this was just one of again the many buildings he owned, the fact that the company that mr. senter on was not operate out of this building, he did not live there, the fact that there have been many different reviews since 2005, not just by the company that was hired by the developer but several different entities including our own planning department, so
8:57 pm
for me, this was also difficult to, but i think that just based on some of those facts i just stated i would actually uphold the planning department's decision today. >> thank you supervisor tang. supervisor ronen. >> thank you i just want to make a couple of points. supervisor tang i wasn't opining on whether the project should be built or not. i really hoped that if my colleagues agree with me and meet some additional environment will review that environment additional review will happen and the project will be built here with the appropriate treatment of this potentially historic resource. i will also forgot to mention in my comments that my understanding in talking to the different parties was that this building was occupied by a tenant as recently as two years ago. so when the architect was comparing the number of bedrooms between the different options he wasn't including this property that's currently there. that could easily be renovated and occupied again.
8:58 pm
it's existing housing that wouldn't require a delay in terms of being placed on the rental or purchase market. i want to make the point that i would love to see a developing happen at this site.. i hope that it does. and i hope that after there is appropriate amount of environmental review that if it's found to be a historic building that it is incorporated into a project. >> thank you supervisor ronen. supervisor tang >> thank you. i apologize if i came off in a way that i insinuated some about the district supervisor what i meant what i know for public purposes, we tend to confuse sometimes what were exactly voted on so i just want to make clear so it's public where opining on whether the category exemption to be upheld or not. secondly, just one other point i want to make was in this letter from ms. petrin that the
8:59 pm
cottage at 953 treat built in 1887 predates the birth of latino social and cultural movements that occurred in this part of the mission district between 1950-2070 and so i know there was a study that should be done for the latino cultural district but i think even ms. petrin acknowledges that this building in particular predates the birth of that. again just another factor as to why i would agree with the planning department's decision today. >> thank you supervisor tang.supervisor peskin >> just to be clear, the categorical exemption under the californian varmint equality act is by definition a statement that this project could not in any way impact environment. as a matter fact that there needs to be no review. when we hear from the type of experts, the preservation officer of san jose, from former commissioner
9:00 pm
martinez, that, to me is substantial evidence in the record from experts that gives us enough information that we can rely on. for those reasons, i will be voting with supervisor ronen. her aunt that many buildings left that are 130 years old while this has nothing to do with ceqa, as you heard from when the previous tenants, this is affordable housing. it's affordable by design. it 738 ft.2. they can be incorporated into the subject was incorporated in a previous plan. that can happen again. this is i think a profoundly a statement by this board of supervisors that we can build, that we can continue to have housing built in san francisco and retained the fabric of our neighborhoods. if it was a case that we could prove that in this is that this case. >> thank you supervisor peskin supervisor yee >> thank you president lee.
9:01 pm
this is really a tough one for myself also.i would like to ask the planning staffclarification question. when you mentioned that there's literally hundreds of theseexamples of italian style, is there any overlap or the person that we're talking about--what is the person's name? john senter. you mention he owes means had other parties is there overlap where he owned another italian style building that is over 100 years? i am just curious.
9:02 pm
>> tina tam for the planning department. it is our professional expert opinion the question about how many properties owned by john senter and how many are still in existence in the mission or any parts of the city, john senter was an investor in his company owned many properties throughout the city. john senter is an individual whose important for owning and using his waterworks company during the fire to save a large part of the mission. what is relevantthe properties that we know our historic resource are the ones that he saved that are located directly near his waterworks company. those properties have already been identified in our survey. >> that's on my question. with them asking you if it's relevant or not. i'm asking you a straightforward question. if you don't have the answer you don't have the answer. i just asked you, this is relevant to
9:03 pm
me, >> we did do a small sort of reconnaissance survey of the properties in the immediate vicinity of this property we were able to find two properties that were previously owned by john senter. >> are these two buildings italian style? >> yes. one of them is in the italianate style. >> okay. thank you for the information >> thank you i just want to say since there's no other names on the roster i tend to agree with my colleague supervisor tang in many instances i try to show respect and support to the district supervisor and their desire to make a specific decision that impacts their district but in this particular case unfortunately supervisor ronen on not be able to support you. with that seen no other names on the roster, mme. clerk, on the motion which was seconded to overturn the appeal
9:04 pm
please call roll call >> cohen nay farrell nay fewer nay,, kim aye, peskin aye, ronen aye, safai nay, sheehy aye, tang nay, yee gentoo breed nay there are four twin one and 710 to nay. >> okay. the motion fails. >> [gavel] >> with that would someone like to make an alternative motion? supervisor tending >> thank you i'll make a motion to move forward item 14 and file item 15 and 16.
9:05 pm
>> supervisor tang has made a motion to approve item 14 and table 15 and six and is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. mme. clerk, on the motion, please, roll call >> cohen aye farrell aye fewer aye kim nay peskin nay ronen nay safai aye sheehy nay, tang aye yee aye breed aye. there are seven aye and for nay. >> item 14 is approved and i am 15 in 16 our table. >> [gavel] >> mme. clerk let's go to >> item 22
9:06 pm
>> yes. >> >> item 22 is a resolution to urge the office of the treas. and tax collector to convene a municipal public bank task force to increase transparency and equity across the cities financial functions. >> supervisor trenton san francisco >> thank you very much pretty quickly the item before us as the office of the treasure to convene a task force six point a possibility of pulling together a municipal public bank. the task force will of course be committed to the public process. it is going to be bringing the city,, the treasure, the san francisco residents together to have a substantive conversation about finances and towards implementation developing an implementation plan for financial transparency empowerment and innovation. in
9:07 pm
our city. i've done a little bit of work with the office of the city treasure as well as a host of advocates in particular, to the city-office of the treasure, we will be leaning on some of their insights as well as financial experts and the public that we can glean from it we want to push our city not just-our city to not just talk about ideals and principles but to ensure were putting our money where our mouth is. so colleagues, i have circulated a amendment to the initial resolution to reflect very thoughtful impact,, very thoughtful input, from one of my cosponsors legal sponsor, supervisor fewer to ensure that our task force strikes the right balance ensuring we are incorporating the citizens advocacy and that
9:08 pm
voice innovation and the demands of its be fans making an investment program. the a moment can be found on page 3, line 23-25 and page 4, line 7-12. i believe that supervisor fewer has a few remarks i think she may have a few questions as well she like to raise. thank you >> supervisor cohen before we move forward with the mm and, by the substantive or nonsupportive amendments? spews of their nonsubstantive armaments >> okay. supervisor trenton has made a motion to amend and it's the second circulated copy . supervisor cohen has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor gentry. supervisor trenton >> thank you. i also want to knowledge the cosponsors on this initiative. supervisor fewer, supervisor brandon
9:09 pm
ronen entergy spews college, take that without objection? without objection humans passed unanimously >> [gavel] >> supervisor fewer >> it's my pleasure to work closely with my colleague supervisor leah cohen to advance idea of a public bank in san francisco and aligned with cities like oakland santa fe and so many others do we know the situation of san francisco municipal bank is a significant undertaking but we are ready for the challenge. as we san francisco policymakers discuss issues of affordable housing relevant and financing divestment from corporate banks, financing pipelines and fossil fuels, addressing the cannabis industry unmet banking needs, while ensuring low income communities and committees of color have access to capital, all roads point to the creation of a municipal bank. there is no social justice without economic justice. i know that the taxpayers of san francisco want to see their tax dollars invested in ways that reflect their vows could a public bank
9:10 pm
has been discussed for many years in san francisco. but the time is now to act. i look forward to continuing to work with supervisor cohen's office the treasure's office and others as we pass force gets off the ground and i'm hopeful the budget and legislative analyst updated municipal banking report completed next month can help inform the initial task force discussion. thank you very much >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster mme. clerk on the item please call roll call >> item number 22 as amended cohen aye, farrell 21 fewer 10 one, kim kim tran 110 peskin absent, ronen, aye safai aye sheehy aye, tang aye, yee aye breed aye. there are 10 aye >> the resolution as amended is adopted unanimously >> [gavel] >> mme. clerk please, read the
9:11 pm
in memoriam. >> i have no in the mornings to report >> okay. colleagues this brings us to the end of our agenda. adam clerk is there any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you everyone. >> [gavel] >> [adjournment] >> >> >>
9:12 pm
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local biz and challenges the san franciscans to do their shop and dine in the 49 within the by supporting the
9:13 pm
services we help san francisco remain unique and successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine in the 49 san francisco owes itch of the charm to the many neighborhoods people coma greet and meet it has an personality these neighborhoods are economic engine seeing the changes is a big deal to me especially being a san francisco native and it is important to support the local businesses but also a lot to over here it is nice not to have to go downtown i think that is very important 0 for us to circulate our dollars the community before we bring them outside of the community for the time we have one dollars in the community is the better
9:14 pm
off we are it is about economic empowerment by apron ingress the businesses that are here. >> shopping local cuts down the cyber foot you'll find cookies and being transported the world where everything is manufactured and put on the assembly line having something local is meaning more the more we support our local businesses the more i can walk down to where i need to be. >> bridges contingency bye like west portal it is about city and
9:15 pm
san francisco may have a big name but a small city and a lot of small communities shop and dine in the 49 highlighted that and reminded people come outburst and i love that about this city i'll always be a >> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, april 25th, 2017 i am the chair of the ta, aaron peskin. and mr. clerk, could you call the roll? >> breed? >> present. >> cohen? >> present. >> farrell? >> absent.
9:16 pm
>> fewer? >> absent. >> kim. >> absent. >> peskin. >> present. >> rohnen. >> absent, safahir. tang, present. >> yee, is absent. we have a quorum, commissioner would like to make a motion to excuse commissioners farrell, ronen yee and fewer. motion made by commissioner safahi, is there a second for that >> seconded by breed. without objection >> this has been a big month, with the passage, that will provide, 52 million for the road
9:17 pm
transit and biking and walking facilities through a combination of gas, and diesel fuel, taxes and the vehicle fee increase, and truck weight restoration and we join with the cities and counties up and down the state for thanking the senator, and assembly man, phraser from the transportation committees in the legislature as well as governor brown for the leadership in getting this across the finish line, we also want to thank our own assembly members, and senator weiner who pushed for and obtained increased transit funding levels within the bill for the city and county of san francisco where we are expected to receive, 72 million per year for road maintenance and transit capitol and operating expenses and we can also compete for the other discretionary pots of money. and while that money is focused on system rehabilitation, and we need additional resource to address our growing pains and in
9:18 pm
that regard our attention has returned to regional measure three. and i look forward to working with assembly member, and senator beal and their colleagues, as we have the conversation with rn 3, we want to address the transportation needs for access across the city. as is evident from the continuing saga of the cal train, electric indication project. and for the recent events with senator and congress woman and mayor lee and the business community, which has become very clear that we cannot count on washington, d.c. to fund the most important infrastructure projects in our region. and that is why mayor lee, president breed and i have set up a transportation, 2045, traffic force to identify the transportation needs, gaps and revenue options over the next quarter century, with the
9:19 pm
state's leadership and partnership as well as input from all of you, and the t2045 task force i know that we can may progress, and cleaning the air and reinvesting in the transit and road infrainstruct turn, and we will convene the next meeting before may 22nd and all of you are welcome to attend. and finally, last but not least, join me in offering an early congratulations to our staff, particularly eric, and for delivering the island, vista project, point, project, which will open next week, at the western terminus of the oakland bay bridge, and thank you commissioner kim for doing the honors next tuesday as we complete this for cyclists and pedestrians across the region and with that up date, icon include my remarks. mr. stamos. >> public comment on item two? >> public comment on item two? >> seeing none, public comment
9:20 pm
is closed. >> three, executive's director's report, this is an information item. >> good morning, tang, the executive director. just to build on the chair's remarks there is a hand out with my report on the desk and available to the public on the website. that details the sb1 funding package by the subaccount that will total up to the 73 million a year that chair mentioned. additionally at the state level, i want to report that last night the assembly member with the automated speed enforcement fade to make it out of the transportation committee and it had passed the privacy committee last week and that has been turned into a two year bill as we understand it and the author we believe intends to continue working with the folks on that over the next few years. and in terms of some updates, and public workshops i just wanted to call attention to the cal trans, disit four, bicycle plan workshop that is held in san francisco on tuesday, may ninth at 375, beal street and for those of you who can't
9:21 pm
attend the meeting cal train will continue to collect the inpoo ut on-line and look for the district four, cal transbike. and bike to work on may eleventh, and energying stations across the city, and it is a fun week and we look forward to participating and continuing to support that. but the downtown, ferry terminal, south basin, improvement project will be breaking ground as well, thursday the may eleventh and the transportation, authority is providing some funding and today's board action for the 73 million dollar project, this will allow for the first major ferry terminal expansion, since 2003. so congratulations to the port of san francisco and that, and the water emergency transportation authority. quick up date on the neighborhood transportation, and group one, with the study focused and ready for approval coming to you next month as well as the district four project,
9:22 pm
and district six projects and district four and in district, six, the sfmta, will be completing the construction of a raised crosswalk in early may, and we continue to also work on projects and plans, in districts three, four, 8 and 10, and 11, and given the heiigh, demand we are looking to try to augment those types of planning and project funds for the next cycle in the coming year. on balboa, state farm, and it has been received for the 1.le million dollars in the prop k, supported planning and construction funds for the sfmta and they have completed the wide area of safety, and accessibility and transit and landscaping improvements at balboa, we are one of the busiest in the region, there are sidewalks on gene va and
9:23 pm
relocation on the media on the avenue and with the water wise landscaping and pedestrian, scale light and flashing beacons and at the i280 off-ramp and the relocation of the polls, that have impeded the pedestrian access to the station there is a host of additional work and a lot of needs at this location and we want to support that in the community and the commissioner safai and his leader hip to improve the area as we improve for the development in the upper yard housing project and with that, icon include my remarks. >> thank you, is there any public comment on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. any questions from commissioners? seeing none, next item please. >> the consent agenda, items four through 12, comprise the agenda of these items 5 to 11 were approved on the first appearance on the april 11th, and for the final approval, they are considered routine and they are not planning to present.
9:24 pm
any of the items removed and considered separately. >> i would sever, item 7 and on the balance of the calendar a roll call please? >> on the -- a motion? >> override. >> this body needs a motion. >> is there a motion to approve the agenda, made by sheey and seconded by safai and on that, item a roll call please? >> breed? >> aye. >> commissioner co-hen? >> aye. >> peskin? >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> sheehy. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> those items are finally approved. and could you call item number seven? >> [final approval] allocate $5,464,675 in prop k funds, with conditions, for the downtown extension including $4,549,675 for preliminary engineering and $915,000 for a tunneling options engineering study, and appropriate $200,000 for oversight of the downtown extension, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules.
9:25 pm
>> is there a representative of the tjpa here? good morning, commissioner, yes, the executive director of the power authority. >> good morning, and so i just wanted to ask one question, in the intervening couple of weeks since we last heard this, i just wanted to make sure that the tjpa and the planning department are on the same page or getting on the same page as it relates to environmental strategy >> we will always be on the same page, we nr discussions on how to address the planning department's comments on the sequa and we are engaged with that, and we will find a solution and move forward in collaboration with the planning departments. >> so as the specifically when
9:26 pm
you move forward with the strategy, you will not be asking your pjpa board for an approval of it at the same time? >> it depends on the document. >> i understand that, and what i am asking is that the language that you guys put in the sequa strategy, included an approval by your board and i want to make sure that the representations that you made to us at the last meeting that we were not going to predetermine the discussion that we have to make the decision that we have to make later this year as it relates to the alignments that you are not seeking approval of this alignment as part of the strategy from the board? >> until we address the xhept
9:27 pm
comments that are satisfaction. we will not be taking the action on the documents. >> so let me just say that about that. >> we have been dinking around with this for a bunch of months and so i am intending to vote for this. but let me be very clear that to the extent there is any discord ans to the agency that you represent and the planning as to the environmental strategy and the issues that you are asking about, we can come back and put the breaks on this five and a half million bucks at any time, i hope that you get on the same page quickly and, with that on this item, a motion to approve the item made by commissioner safai and seconded by sheehy, and we have a different house so could you please call the roll welcome commissioner kim. >> on item 7, breed. >> aye. >> commissioner coen? >> aye. >> commissioner kim? >> aye. >> peskin.
9:28 pm
>> aye. >> commissioner safai? >> aye. >> commissioner sheehy. >> aye. >> tang? >> aye. >> item is approved. >> that is finally passed. >> okay, next item please, >> item, 13. >> we will have a presentation from logan from the ta and daniel harris from the sfmta and kate and this will be a pretty quick, note. planning director with mtc, i would like to recognize commissioner kim who are here in the meeting room and i am going to give a quick overview of the planned bay, which is known as the 2040, this is the second regional transportation plan here in the bay area to include
9:29 pm
a sustainable community strategy that establishes the 24 year, vision for how the region can grow and the transportation investments can support that growth. we have seen a half million jobs in the region and some of that is coming back from the recession. but only 65,000 housing units. and one house for every 8 jobs created. this has created pressure on the system particularly on the rail system as well as the free what i and the cal train, and bart rider ship are way up in con jected delay on the transportation system in general, and the worker has increased dramatically and, in terms of the plan itself, we have had two rounds of out reach
9:30 pm
to date. we are in the draft eir, plan stage, both of them released . 46 percent of the new house olds forecasted for the region, will be in the three largest cities, and a third will be in the communities in each side of the bay and the remainder in the inland coastal delta communities. recognized by the region and such of the city of san francisco is a priority development area, and 77 percent of the housing growth will be in the pda, going forward to 2040.
9:31 pm
in terms of job, the big cities in large, and the majority of the growth will be in the priority development areas, in san francisco, the draft plans gross in divisions 138,000 new households and 296,000 new jobs. here in san francisco, mr. are many projects that you can see on the screen here, moving forward, and sfmta fleet expansions and better market streets are just a few of the projects included in the plan.
9:32 pm
the plan is measured against. and when we look at the draft plan, there are five targets that we have achieved with this draft plan and there are four that are moving in the right direction but we have fallen short of the target and we have four that we are moving in the wrong direction on. and it is notable and it is caught the eye of many that before removing the wrong direction on to the large extent related to housing and equity and get back to the challenge of the housing and the long term affordable crisis in the region. so the plan itself can be right on-line, and this is largely a plan that is right on-line and we are not producing a lot of glossy copies this time around and it has five sections. and the bay area today really
9:33 pm
gets to this over arching housing issue which is an issue at the commission, relative to virtually every issue, including transportation issues over the past two years, 2, 3, 4, are really the guts of the plan, and describing what it is, and how we forecast the growth for the future for the region, and how the growth is distributed. and section four, gets into the strategies, to support the infrastructure investments and the funding for the investments and how the plan performs, and section five, is an action plan to address some of those issues where the region and the plan is off trajectory.
9:34 pm
transportation funding with the housing out comes we think that while there will be much discussion about that, they may offer some direction for how we might want to move in the future.
9:35 pm
shrinking of the middle wage jobdz jobs and it is focused on the good moving industries and the freight related industries, and the jobs related to the production and distribution that will provide a pathway for middle waged jobs and particularly for the residents of the bay area who do not have a college degree.
9:36 pm
in the direct more resources for the resilient housing in related infrastructure. >> and we were having a lot of meetings around the region. briefings such as this and we are working on the community organizations that are engaging with communities of color and disadvantaged populations. and we have three public hearings coming on the draft plan and the draft eir and we have nine open houses that will be including here in san francisco, on may, 24th. and again, the plan can be viewed on-line, we welcome comments, and we don't know the way to get 7 and a half million people to a series of public meet sxgz so we encourage people to go on-line and provide comments on that and with that i will conclude and happy to answer any of the questions that you may have.
9:37 pm
any members of the public that would like to comment? my name is tara and i am concerned about the people in my neighborhood and the guatemalas are driving their cars and it does not seem safe and i wonder what the protocol was. one was driving on the other side of the road and one was crossing a walk while i was walking. >> this is the hearing on plan bay area, if you have comments about that, if not, we can have one of the staff talk to you about the issues relative to the neighborhood. but it does not sound like you are commenting on the item that is before us right now. >> i would like to talk to
9:38 pm
someone please. >> we will have one of our staff come over and talk to you. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the p you believe that would like to testify? on item number 13. seeing none, public comment is closed. and i want to thank you for your work on the plan. and look forward to our continued invoftment, and the involvement of our staff. and madam, do you have anything to add? >> mtc staff and the staff and we are working for the last few years and acknowledge our commissioners, and commissioner kim to the mtc and the commissioner nick who is in the audience as well, to the mtc and look forward to building on the action plans for house and resil ans and infrastructure and the rest as regional measure three, clabive effort. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> colleagues, i know that many of you need to scoot to another event. and to that end, i am going to
9:39 pm
ask unfortunately and please accept my apologies, that we continue the hearing on high speed rail my profound apologies to the high speed rail presenter. but, i know that many people have got to be out of here in a few minutes. let me ask colleagues, what is your timing? >> i know that commissioner safai has to leave i know that commissioner sheehy has to leave and that will bring us down to five which is not a quorum. because we have a couple of sick commissioners. >> how long will this presentation take? >> chair commissioners, ben, northern california, regional director for the high speed rail, i can dispense with the presentation, you all should have copies of the presentation in your packet, we are in the
9:40 pm
midst of envier menially clearing. >> why don't we just call item 14. >> okay. >> up date on the california high speed rail, this is an information item. >> the floor is yours, thank you for your understanding and patience. >> thank you, my great pleasure. mr. chair, commissioners, and director chang, let me just say that we are in the midst of clearing the section from the transbay transit center in san francisco, to ultimately connecting to the construction that is currently under way in the central valley and 119 miles of construction, over 3 billion dollars of investment in the central valley that is currently under construction on it's way to delivering the first high speed section in the united states to california, and we are working with the ta staff and the city of san francisco, and the staff with the transbay powers authority staff on insuring that the high speed rail system gets to the transbay transit center in a way that
9:41 pm
works for the city and is encompasses all of the priorities and values that the city has in developing, and this sort of a transportation system and insures that it serves san francisco for generations to come. >> we are schedule for the current environmental review. which we are in tmidst of, extends this year through roughly the end of summer, 2018, and we expect to have a preliminary preferred alternative in the cal train, corridor where the system will be running in a blended configuration with the commuter trains and then a separate high speed system from san jose to merced and we expect to have that preferred direction in august of this year. we will have a draft environmental document, available for public comment, by the end of this year. and as i mentioned we hope to have the complete environmental review, done by late summer, 2018. and that is a very brief summary and i am happy to answer any questions that you might have.
9:42 pm
>> thank you for that very compacted up date. are there any questions from commissioners? >> seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. and good luck. >> thank you. >> with that is there any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any general public comment? >> >> good morning, andrew yip, (inaudible) the leaders intent to (inaudible) thank you.
9:43 pm
9:44 pm
>> thank you, are there any other members of the public for general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and we are adjourne
9:45 pm
9:46 pm
9:47 pm
>> my name is holly i'm been in enterprise software training for 10 years that expired film and art and voice-over week work and all kinds of work. >> i'm jane a program director for the state of california i have the privilege of working on
9:48 pm
special technology projects for the depth of the technology a passion for helping people and a passion for doing work that makes a difference and makes me feel good at night and i think about what i did today and helping every single person in the city as. >> a technology professional a need for more women and more women in leadership roles the diversity and the leadership pipeline is an area that needs a little bit of love. >> a lot of love. >> a whole lost love. >> i'll contribute for the change for women's equality by showing up and demonstrating that the face of success schizophrenia came come in a variety of corresponds. >> they're a lot of roadblocks for san francisco when it comes
9:49 pm
to our proposition and finding a play for information that has how to start and grow management so we started to build the san francisco business portal not just consults or the taxpayers and voters they're actually customers we are the government serving the consumers in our neighborhood i point to at least one best that i personally touched with one way or another and makes me feel good about the projects like the business portal and in embarking on this new exciting journey of finding better and efficient ways to deliver services to san franciscans i sit through a lot of senior management meetings i'm the only woman in the room i know that
9:50 pm
our c i o is tried to recruit for women and a male dominated environment. >> i've felt unbounded and inspired to pursue a lot of things over time i recognize to be cricked in ways i didn't anticipate you know i've followed the calling but now put me in a position to spend most of my time doing things i love this is the whole point; right? you ought to feel inspired in our work and found opportunities to have you're work put you in service for others and happy doing what you're spending so much time. >> my father was a journalist lift and my mom a teacher when
9:51 pm
we finally decided to give up their lives because of me and now i actually get to serve the city and county of san francisco it makes me feel really, really good not this didn't happen overnight i've worked my entire life to get to this point and much more to learn and i have a lot of changes ahead. >> really think about what moves you what you're pat's about and trust that you are sufficient and enough where you are to begin and then is her that you are being tenacious about getting to the next place in the evolution but by all means start with you are and know that's enou
9:52 pm >> neighborhoods and san francisco as exists and fascist as the people that i think inhabitable habit them the bay area continues to change for the better as new start up businesses with local restaurants and nonprofit as the collaborative spaces the community appeal is growing too. >> what anchors me to the community i serve is a terminal connection
9:53 pm
this is the main artery of the southeast neighborhood that goes around visitacion valley and straight down past the ball park and into the south of market this corridor the hub of all activity happening in san francisco. >> i'm barbara garcia of the wines in the bayview before opening the speculation we were part of bayview and doing the opera house every thursday i met local people putting their wares out into the community barbara is an work of a symbol how the neighborhood it changing in a a positive way literally homemade wine that is sold in the community and organized businesses both old and new businesses coming together to
9:54 pm
revitalizes this is a yoga studio i actually think be able a part of community going on in the bayview i wanted to have a business on third street and to be actually doing that with the support of community. >> how everybody reasons together to move each other forward a wonderful run for everybody out here. >> they're hiring locally and selling locally. >> it feels like a community effort. >> i was i think the weather is beautiful that is what we can capture the real vibe of san francisco i love it i can go ongoing and i love it i can go ongoing and on and on about the life in the
9:55 pm
- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars.
9:56 pm
- our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.
9:57 pm
>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the
9:58 pm
club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique
9:59 pm
tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower
10:00 pm
program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. >> good afternoon let you call the tuesday, april 25, 2017, of the sfpuc to order madam secretary. >> commissioner president commissioner courtney and commissioner caen and commissioner vietor are expected shortly we have quorum commissioners you have the minutes of the april 11th meeting any additions or correction. >> so moved. >> and any public comment on the minutes seeing none.
10:01 pm
>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > all in favor, say i. > theiness are approved general public comment address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. i have one speaker request from mr. da costa. >> commissioners welcome. >> in 199 of you all created the san francisco public utilities commission by a mayor named willie brown so many of you are know a lot about how that was created and what's the purpose of this commission. >> yesterday, i was paying attention to the deliberation at the ethics commission
10:02 pm
and this city and more room 200 as done great disservice to our city and it so happens that one of the 10 california's reaches out to the san francisco public utilities commission i'm not going to name names i use my first amendment rights to mention the names but it is shocking that in the year 2017 the sfpuc the commissioners, other sponsors who have to regulate look the other way so i attended a board of supervisors meeting i think
10:03 pm
about i missed the last one i missed your meeting the last one 3 weeks ago two advocates were pissed off with the board of supervisors because they're at the board of supervisors including one item that is legislated to the sfpuc millions of dollars are extended because of no due diligence simply you need a checklist if you have the checklist before you and go by the checklist you'll not make such mistakes it is being made injecting for people at home don't dr. time to come here and do want to come here the people how will tree address they having to be educated on issues i i don't want to come here i see that on
10:04 pm
television but what i'm going to say is this go before the board of supervisors. >> talking about the ethics commission and those deliberations but i'm going to try to use what in the federal system the rico act for the deliberations here thank you very much. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners you have communication that has been provided to you and also to the public any questions or comments on that communication any public comment on the communication items okay. seeing none we'll move on to other commission business commissioners? >> and then move on to the
10:05 pm
quarterly general manager completely. >> first item i'd like to call up an update on the cleanpowe f cleanpowersf. >> welcome. >> thank you good afternoon barbara hale i have two items to report on for cleanpowersf enforcement and some other mishmash of other sponsors activities on the enforcement we're successfully serving our customers about 80 thousand accounts enrolled our opt out is 3.3 percent overall we have received more updates to supergreen since we last spoke it increased from 2000 plus customers human resources supergreen 2.1 percent of customer base is pretty good our tatter is 5 percent so 2.9 and
10:06 pm
continuing in the may enrollment activities we had intent to enroll one thousand plus customers that is three hundred and 85 that signed up ahead of time want to be in supergreen 6 hundred and 97. to be in green and auto rolling the customers we're serving our he noivengsz have gone out 2.2 percent opting out out and special workshops that are targeted for the net energy metered customers have more be complicated bills we're tagging a drilled down and held the first of two workshops on april 20th at hayes valley
10:07 pm
clubhouse people state and my clients spent half an hour answering questions a number of people that signed up for sfpuc that was good the next is april 29th at the eureka valencia rec center if you want to know about the snepz program in terms of other activities we had a number of all the out of office meeting met with san francisco state university wanted to go over he our views on none bypassable charges where we have alignment and we are hearing that pg&e and the two other utilities will will be making a filing at the cpuc today to change the message for
10:08 pm
recovery those above market coverage to the cpuc and called the portfolio adjustment mechanism the pam so stay tuned we'll looking that carefully that will be a big item that we'll be engaged in we also participated at the hearing in sacramento on sp senator bradford's bill would have required our integrated resource plan our plans how to serve our load to be reviewed and approved at the cpuc so we had expressed concern and opposition to that bill and joined with cal and were successful in getting senator bradford to remove that in the bill have not seen it in print
10:09 pm
but progressing 2409s legislative process expect to see it in print soon and we'll breathe a say of relief and received new data from pg&e that describes our customers you know our folks that are enrolled including the folks that are enrolled so we get that update annually and we're factoring that update into the poolroom analysis for the gross plan and bringing that to you the full plan not just the presentation as a communication item for the next commission he meeting and also bring a couple of agenda items i want to briefly talk about those bringing the bawsca time extension to the next commission meeting the business practice policy and in
10:10 pm
particular the resetting of renewable goals to 50 percent by 2020 that was talked about mayor ed lee made a nice announcement on earth day i hope you saw the press it was annoyed to see us providing those benefits for san francisco with that, i'll close and ask if there is any questions. >> commissioner. >> another lafco joint meeting it seems like it modest makes sense for the supervisors if we're seeing on mou. >> we don't have one calendar i'll be happy to work with the commission secretary and with the lafco executive director to establish that if this is what the commission wants. >> through the chair i feel perhaps i'm not sure we want to talk about what is on the agenda
10:11 pm
but seems like with cleanpowersf rolling out san francisco government audit & oversight commission citywide the late development to get on the on the same page. >> let's look at the agenda and do a joint meeting or structure that meeting in a way it is simile formation an easier way to look at that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you and for public comment on this item eric brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners eric brooks sf green party/our city/sf clean energy advocates. so first on specific things in the report yes sb 618 had a major problem but still another problem in sb 618 but staff is
10:12 pm
aware of we need to push on the author of that bill it is that still has language in it similar to language that was attempted to be put in the big clean energy bill a few years ago that talks about cost shifting from to existing pg&e customers based on building new renewables and having new renewables plans that is opening of the door for pg&e to come up with more excuses so we need to participation it that bill and expecting that bill will be brought back towards the end of the session with amendments that make it bad again, we need to stay on top that i if hear staff mentioned
10:13 pm
if you devolve me pg&e is also proposing something that was proposed several years ago when san joaquin tried to launch their bond the programs need to set aside in case of failure not $100,000 as now but tens of million dollars and over one hundred millions if they adopt that that policy is pushed by the moply and if they adopt that policy that will be a death for the choices in california and might effect us so if they keep on heading in that direction and on cleanpowersf in general want to reiterate what we're saying at the last meeting we've made a lot of progress but the fact we're not lined up to enroll all
10:14 pm
the customers by 2018 the fact that we are project by project 2020 to get to 50 percent basic green product everyone is doing that and the fact we have it project moving forward because our brothers and sisters in labor were assured we'll do a local buy out and putting people to origin with the build out that kind of job creation and getting us on track to stop antarctica and the iceland from metaling we need a job and build out plan by 2018. >> along those lines thank you mr. brooks and to commissioner vietors request when you start
10:15 pm
to talk about the issues we've made this progress when you got into them you can dive deep into the the build outs and the candidates made to the workforce i don't know we can have a line item with lafco and really drill down as far as we want to go i'll i want to put that out there and say probably have to be a joined meeting with that board. >> thank you and mr. da costa. >> way back in the year 2000 we first started having our meeting linked to the community 2002 we attended many meetings in sacramento
10:16 pm
in today's world i don't think that any progressive person forward thinking person who doesn't want clean solo that we want to embrace it what i find difficult is why you commissioners don't have a birds eye view of that never once do you all mention the rico act and how hydro electrical is come to be and how it is used today with the clean energy even though the word clean is used this energy
10:17 pm
that sfpuc is providing is not really clean and i don't want to go into that today it is not dirty but not, clean what i want to talk about connected to the point about our infrastructure recently 90 thousand customers were impacted in a blackout how does that impact what sfpuc is providing and the details of it if you want to learn more about that i'll sit down and discuss that with you, we had that problem at the presidio that substation failing and catching on fire whatever now in the marketing some of the
10:18 pm
speakers stated we haven't reached a benchmark and the novices in that area and maybe we can tweak our system and finally dealing with a monster at pg&e i'd like a tally of all the times pg&e and you all have gone to bat meaning a lawsuit and that's choose one hundred how many pg&e has won and how many you have won thank you very much i'm not going on to the board of supervisors. >> additional public comment. >> thank you jed if 350 sf i guess i want to start by
10:19 pm
pointing out something that happened this past week the bay area water supply & conservation agency set out a carbon free 50 in the bayview and 085 control measures they'll take over to push in that direction that is something we've been hidden valley involved in for four or five years it is called spare the air-cool assignment and again, the air district it finding the regulatory air agencies part of that will be regulation for them and spreading best practices around from jurisdictions all over the bay and again, setting high standards based on things happening in the bay area and using this district to spread that information and the standards as rapidly and expeditiously to get us to that goal i wish i had the grafted
10:20 pm
but they'll be short of 2020 extraordinarily short in 2030 and short in 2050 given everything we've read about in the paper and giving us a feeling of superiority over the disaster in the country we need to lgbt and look at the data and look at how far we to go the air district recognized we have that they're looking everything both in the authority and also in power given that i'll highlight for you that cleanpowersf and moving to 100 percent renewable energy is the sooner we can do that the sooner to focus on decartoonish the sproi the sooner we can focus on fully electrifying
10:21 pm
transportation those things can happen until we replace the foul and if we have community choice programs in other jurisdictions that are already more renewable than we are we need to match that and they'll need to match us we'll be basically meeting the highest standards that are feasible in the bay area to be where we need to go to that end really, really encourage it staff and the commission to the a lot into rolling the rest of the decide into by the end of 2018 we heard in lafco that is feasible we're taking a two year pause in from the 15 percent and looking at the rest of city and given where we need to get to move as quickly as possible thank you very much. >> and official public comment. >> hi good afternoon. i'm
10:22 pm
melissa a conservatism coordinator with the sierra club and echo two two speakers were talking about i want to urge urge the commission to support a faster gross timeline and recommended to local development of local resources we need a citywide build out plan for this and this will definitely accelerate our energy goal so asking to for you to support improperly san francisco customers by 2018 and making the basic green service available also thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is elaine with 350 san one of the things
10:23 pm
that we do is myself and volunteers from the community go out on sunday streets and street fairs and other things and sign people up for supergreen and i would urge you all to go beyond the 5 percent supergreen and 50 percent of renewable energy you can do better and people in the community they're behind you i think i understand the reasons for being a little bit conservative and not moving faster i think san francisco is the place so you know let's move on and let me say step back and think had is the lynch pin for everything we need to do 100 percent renewable energy then have electrical vehicles and plug them in their 100 percent renewable when you change out your house from gas heat and gas
10:24 pm
water heat and you change that to protect that's 100 percent renewable and any industrial processes in the sfifksz become 100 percent renewable that's the vision we need to go fast i'll encourage you to continue this but move up the pace and go for 100 percent renewable no reason not to if not enough on the market start building up you built san francisco already thank you. >> thank you. >> yes, sir. >> my name is david i'm speaking as a resident of san francisco for climatic change i - i'm sorry oh, do you want me to repeat what i said anyways, the reason i want to speak because of my concern of climatic change i want to see cleanpowersf implemented as
10:25 pm
quickly as possible thank you. >> thank you >> good afternoon commissioners brewing president of hate asbury not going to repeat by the way, to booster that in our the neighborhood we've promoted cleanpowersf to all the members to enroll earlier but still want to know when the full enrollment will happen that is possible we've seen it coming on with point communities and other districts i think that is feasible we can do it i'll support with my colleagues that we do our best to enroll everybody by 2018 thank you. >> great. >> jason fried, executive director. once again thank you to the staff they worked with cal cpuc
10:26 pm
to get the change that no longer makes it did bill that once was i know there are concerns but not as it was and the staff leadership was vital in that concurring and get proper credit for that and not planning on talking about it butt joint meeting i'll be happy to bring that but make sure the mou is not waiting for a joint meeting steps in the process that needs that to be approved before the end of fiscal year so doing that at the next meeting will be important to move forward correctly please keep that moving forward and i'll be happy to work with our staff to figure out a joint schedule but tuesday is the board of supervisors meeting but i'll be happy to make that happen and finally as the other folks said moving forward this as quickly as possible it important and looking forward to working with
10:27 pm
all of you to make sure that happens and in terms of scheduling a joint meeting i think if you can work with between our staff substantive agenda. >> i'll be happy to and make sure that is worthwhile. >> commissioner courtney it is a defied to have that done and also commissioner vietor is right new commissioners you only recognize one the commissioners from the last time we met it is good to get that joint back together and working towards the final push for cleanpowersf citywide and i don't mean to go to - go to back slash and enroll today.
10:28 pm
>> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> mr. kelly. >> so the next item i have up is green infrastructure update tommy is not oh, there you are you want to do the interrogation. >> good afternoon, commissioners tommy general manager for wastewater we're here today excited to give you the latest update on the projects and here to present to you i want to recognize the fact they've been working diligently for the last ten years (calling names) they're working hard and not the easiest thing to do to change out the green and the happy medium to provide our citizens and rate repairs the best rates here's my colleague for the update. >> thanks tommy good
10:29 pm
afternoon, everybody my name is sarah i'm here to present the green infrastructure update if i can get the slides up great. >> all right. so today we are going to go over the green infrastructure effort the agency has been talking about and the rate allocation and the ssip early implementations and give you a flavor for what you'll see in the collection plan coit in july for the citing strategy but before we dive into the meat of presentation i want to step back and reiterate our definition of green infrastructure because it has changed since the last time we present and the reason we now place a greater emphasis on including flood resiliency and
10:30 pm
multiple purpose design in the definition that reads green infrastructure is a even though is of engineer and tools it slow down criterion and route the stormwater for the sewer system >> and so the reason we want to use the green infrastructure as part of portfolio to reduce the stormwater into the system and promote infiltration and non-popular use for the sf goals and in addition to revitalizing the water shed function want to provide the community benefits that are part of green infrastructure called the habitat so after seven years of implementation i want to give you a snapshot of what we are with the stormwater management ordinance that was the update
10:31 pm
the commission asked for to this .305 projects when completed those projects will manage over 100 percent million gallons of stormwater if 25 acres that is kwiend saucer and almost 200 and 20 acres will be separated sewer area and found that the ordinance has been a good catalyst for. >> an array of technologies as you can see on this slide the conform we're getting from the ordinance and, of course, a lot of development is happening in the channel basin and interesting to note in this very dense inner proposed had been successfully designed so for the green infrastructure then commissioners asked about a staffing update how we are implementing this program and
10:32 pm
the team really want to thank the commission for their leadership in this area with new staff we've be able to improve the level of services inform fulfillment staff and plus the support and those staff do project tracking project review and critically technical sups so every team subject to the ordinance recognizing those are new technologies and folks need technical assistants to get to the process the next steps staffing to build out the intersection to make sure the stormwater function continues in the future and investigating a project review team to assist with supporting the staff for this program. >> the other ask i building was about s mo innovation we
10:33 pm
found that is exciting is that each project is really used a combination of argue and automobile urban design to have the design solutions on the site so this is a been existing to see the ordinance is also earned new market in this area we've heard from the private sector green infrastructure is new and has to be planned and designed, built think maintained so individuals fulfilling all of those functions and hearing if the design and community that the ordinance as pressed them to integrate their designs early in the process instead of moving forward that is existing and another area is in main streaming harvesting this was
10:34 pm
unusual and over 70 projects that have selected this technology as part of the their inclines strategies it upped the number of harvesting we're seeing in the city and lastly just initiative design and from in the public realm that is really benefiting our neighborhood and some of the great designs we're seeing coming out of ordinance that is all from compliance with that is happening in hayes valley and now - the next tool we've been using ask the water shed stewardship grant program a small grant program running for 8 years and brand one $.8 million over time and funded the surface green water harvest and structure and engages how the green infrastructure fits
10:35 pm
into their neighborhood that's a great program we've learned as the stormwater cost allocation this level of investment is not adequate to compare with that so we'll think about that moving forward what we envision for the grant program in the future and to that point the other place that the action has been investing in studying as you may know i think you got a presentation from finance how to effectively allocate stormwater related cost of combined services to customers and this is really interval to what we're doing that the infrastructure as well because it will bring in new customers who have to a date not paid for their stormwater serves and have a grant program to help to less on the impact to customers
10:36 pm
and so the to date our early implementation projects one in each water shed we have really used those as a learning opportunity and goal to delve into the maintenance and intersection and learn about that it is a great catalytic to get ready for the next phase of it and the status update for the e ic in that table you have a handout with more information about the it but we currently are 4 projects under construction two in the ward one another 95 percent and one in conceptual design as you may know our commitment to build and monitor those projects so that the monitor are relatives can for the green infrastructure we'll be reporting out in the summer about the first round of
10:37 pm
monitoring results that is exciting and then quick shot of some of the completed facilities out open sunset boulevard by your attention in the ground retention in the ground the grant, the s mo and grant study we've gone over and want to have my colleague talk about what you'll get moving forward that was informed by the efforts to date within the correction system plan that is made up of the elements the team has been working hard to prioritize the projects you'll see that plan today we'll go over the green infrastructure elements you'll see coming down out of that and, of course, all our going once, going twice infrastructure effort within the goals and levels of service that was set forth prior the relevant one
10:38 pm
forces the green extra to manage the stormwater and minimize flooding to develop the projects for the urban water shed and design for the green infrastructure informed by the e i ps. >> so what you'll see coming out in the clorox for the plan is outlined here i want to take you through each of the tools and provide an example so you know where we're headed with those levels of service in mind we created these sets of projects the first one is the regional stormwater capture at golden gate park and creek floodable spaces that's all in the area of capital and have a
10:39 pm
grant program with the upcoming stormwater cost allocation and finally we're proposing a training and technical assistance program recognizing that is a heavy lift for the technology so out there educating sole practitioners to get high results for the fleet of steams strategies to reduce the cost to reduce the costs by the late increases. >> use capital to manage the instrument and reduces the flooding and pair that with the programmatic approach so the capital and programmatic goals we're looking forward to and i mentioned we want to bring all the lessons learned to bear on this next effort so this next we want to go quickly through what we've learned and explain how it
10:40 pm
is moving forward in our next set of tools i think as you've heard cost is a champ we learned that the e i p are expensive and in response the team applied a cost threshold to the projects you'll see coming down in the plan and kind of a decision tool to share when should the agency make the decisions how that is cost effective to spend open infrastructure and - so we're only investing when we know we can manage a significant amount of acre using the green infrastructure and the second challenge because green infrastructure is on the surface that is by nature an interagency collaboration and it is now so the process is not standard for
10:41 pm
everybody so we need to work hard to propose new partnering straenlts that draws on the strength and be more specific about roles and responsibility to so we have worked to create and green infrastructure specific project development process that all the agencies can use the third challenge we had was just the lack of experience across the city a deep learning across the city family and amongst the contractor that was expected the cities across the country have empowered when they started they're green infrastructure project that's fine and move through the learn curve so in response we have created and launched clean programs and lots materials to bring the practice up and then monitoring data when we
10:42 pm
started know we had no green infrastructure monitoring data for san francisco that's what the e i p will address and lastly flood resilience we started doing project selection by the resilience was not a criteria in the urban water shed and now specifically targeting flood resilience areas all right. >> what do how mean by flood resilience. >> meaning i think in sfechz presentation i'm not sure tests last commission i believe you spoke about the different problem areas across the country u across the city the drainage problems and what we tried to do now we have it complete we tried to do-si-do spatial planning if we are proposing an infrastructure we will place it in a flood resilience area along with the gray to get the largest
10:43 pm
performance as possible. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> the first tool we're doing to capital is regional stormwater at parks the notion we will articulate the large land areas of parks they're great opportunity and not just manage the stormwater from the site but try to manage the stormwater from surrounding areas tomato misses the acres we're managing and prioritize capture and use to align with the sf goals. >> and those photos are examples how this is implemented in other places this is a capturing the place for 2 million gallons to irrigate all the fields are great pay their fair share really responding to drought, etc. >> the next tool is stormwater
10:44 pm
management on puc parcels something on our own parcels have a high degree of controls to demonstrate new technologies and learn about the infrastructure approaches and maximize the benefits on our own parcels this photo is for reno where d.c. water has a green roof on top of one of their reservoirs for example, and the next tool is incredible spaces you'll see these in the collection plan the idea the daytime creek and have open spaces that will allow for co-beneficial uses during dry weather and also keep stormwater out of sewer system we'll uses streets and parcels for the stormwater. >> and then the last capital tool you'll see in the
10:45 pm
collection plan is the streetscape plan a practice for the sfpuc to respond to the streetscape stunt many, many opportunity but we want to do is have a process that allows the public works to adhesive which ones are in fact, the opportunities we don't want to participate indiscriminatory we want to be specific and this tool each dollar goes further and enforce strict performance criteria for this project. >> so the next tool is green infrastructure grants and as you may know this allows us to loefrnl the activities of other sponsors private parcels take up the most area in san francisco so we need to have a smart tool for integrating the green
10:46 pm
infrastructure into the parcels and capital lee alone will not allow us to leverage all of that in those tools we'll a effectively increase - some example of what this would allow us to do will address the customers impacted by the stormwater late allocations an important pay their fair share with that as that process moves forward and incentiveize public and private line up on the screen side of the room and in addition benefit because the maintenance responsibility lies with the property owner and the puc can have an inspection function to make sure that the performance is done as the project stages that is an example of a grant in new york city as an active urban roof.
10:47 pm
>> and then finally sanctions we think that in order to have these initiatives be successful we need a stormwater technical assistant program and ♪ area we'll envision services that foster excellence in green infrastructure and inspection and maintenance and those services need to merge engineering with this this is the vantage of green infrastructure over other technologies and been active as you can see our guidebook and want to pair those were technical systems and talks >> and this slide shows some of the other materials we have created over time so with this whole fleet testify projects that you have eaten in
10:48 pm
the project so far we've deployed them what can you get i'm quickly go through the slides that will show the gallons removed why action excess and time moving forward. >> so you'll see i'm not sure you can see on the genie the color is not coming up but in our handout the first sliver is the perform we've got out of stormwater project that has been approved to date and if you project this stormwater management until three 2 getting the 3 hundreds million gallons per year and add ♪ sliver that is the early implementation project and then all of the tools i described you'll see in the clorox plan and so if we do all
10:49 pm
of that we can rove half a billion gallons by three 2 with the substantive goal a 5 percent of all the stormwater that lands in san francisco and we also feel like it represents a difference sit down of stools we have capital and programmatic, as well but clearly at the end of this we'll continue to manage the portfolio we wanted to con the course lists this we've been asked what the the long term goal for infrastructure we projected that performance forward along with the stormwater management to see where we can get to if we continue with the stormwater management ordinance that is currently a threshold and add the performance if the collection system plan we're getting close to 8 hundred
10:50 pm
million gallons a year removed and beyond that if you mix a strategy portfolio of regulatory strategies you can believe we can get to one billion gladdens by 2050 on poor with other sponsors and managing 10 percent of all the stormwater plans in the city so we feel this is a good long term goal and vision to help us dive our effort over time and that's the end of presentation i'd like to take questions if you have them >> thank you yes. >> i have a couple of questions so you had a existence up in the beginning does it say anything about the multiple additional benefits beyond the
10:51 pm
stormwater management i'm wondering why this is i know there is all kinds of data with the water around job creation, around the unification can you refer to a little bit later it that something not measured or not in the definition i know some of that unite not be necessary for the board of public works. >> that's a great point it is a message behind the definition to say what this actually means within the definition you'll see the word sustainable we didn't go into this in presentation but have several slides what is the sustainable effort mean that's where you get the checklist, if you will, if you meet this definition if this meets all the multiple benefits that's where
10:52 pm
the priortion happens all the metrics are embedded in the urban water shed and in the pb l tool with the. >> (speaking chinese.) and traffic calming all are embedded within the definition and the tools for the project selection. >> so when you report back on the monitoring of the e i p in the summer will you have that for the economic benefit biological benefits. >> we can make a note the current presentation is focusing primarily on stormwater management performance. >> i wanted to be clear the main reason we're doing it that so manage stormwater. >> right. >> so we look at the triple bottom line if it is not stormwater then the question
10:53 pm
will we are doing it i think that will be probably not high on the priority list that's why we're looking at the triple bottom line and have all the other factors we'll definitely be you know open to you know track all of that stuff i don't know how to track it but for us we want to make sure when we spend money on green infrastructure we want to make sure that it is performing you know an effort of removing stormwater out of system that is what the engineering side is looking at because you want san francisco make sure and also the placement of where you can place to get the biggest ban for your buck and he's done a great job in working with the collection folks that layers the green and some areas green infrastructure
10:54 pm
is better than that gray and gray is better than green and yeah. i've been reading and understand there are a lot of additional benefits from an economic perspective in beautifying the city i don't know how to prior i's we want to monitored but things of interest to this commission around job creation, around economic benefits of interest to the citywide but what are those things we'll be monitoring that's the promise of green infrastructure. >> well, let me give you an example of water management the biggest way to reduce the amount of you know water out of the system but what we're doing is requiring property owners to do
10:55 pm
it i don't know how you define the jobs other than the jobs to inspect it we can anticipate what what the jobs to go to identify been talking to staff we talk about green infrastructure at least he i'd like to get away from on the puc talking about that we want the whole city when they build something green infrastructure is a way to incorporate and change the mindset of folks in san francisco about when necessary build something i'm trying to get away from green infrastructure police or the only agency that is doing green infrastructure we've been trying to make a way when you have a project or d c w that's our components they're looking us to pay to contribute to their projects we're trying to
10:56 pm
leverage the whole city and all the work they're doing that's a step in the right direction we're looking at other things 5 thousand above construction 5 thousand appealing feet we'll be looking at maybe reducing that to capture for projects we're looking at ways we can leverage more but it all comes to make sure performance is one of the core but also measure the other benefits and just to clarify quickly with that with projects selection all of the projects that are selected must meet the level of service but then when the benefits come in say you with the projects equal in performance and they have to perform for the agencies to invest which ones give us those multiple benefits and help
10:57 pm
the projects rise to the top so those are substantive in the ways they differentiate equal, if you will, for performance. >> i think that makes the case to go citywide maybe selected bans the criteria but it is also created jobs and recertification program and done the ground water recharge i'll urge that to happen. >> we can track those. >> and i don't see - i appreciate the long term thinking i'm sort of there but really dollars attached it that i know at one point talking about 4 do hundred million range is it fair to say put out there i'm wondering too get to those numbers that are put out there
10:58 pm
to i'd like to have you come back and said what that will cost to - we like those kinds of savings billion by one 50 this would be amazing and how it fits in with the whatnot and other benefits that we can release. >> we can definitely come back on that number but i will say by the stormwater ordinance it really requires you know developers to do that as part of their projects for us the monitoring costs for us a way to get other people body in on the project and not paying for on our projects so we identified i think 4 hundred over $400 million of green infrastructure what we're doing we're using criteria to denominator where the best places to use green infrastructure or green and gray
10:59 pm
infrastructure to maximize you know the removal of stormwater and give us the benefits for the community and that's part of the plan that we talked about the collection plan that we're going to roll out so it is about the same dollar value still that is coming in more it could be less but within that range so - and it is very good. >> it won't be until july sorry i have a couple of more and i remember there was an issue last year maybe around the budget for the review process for the stormwater new buildings and i think that the staff we approved two any positions that came in for a total of 4 but didn't see that in here i'm
11:00 pm
wondering how the backlog part in response to the boogy think that the team is facing in reviewing the designs and plans and the technology and i didn't see all that staffed up kind of want to hear from this is an issue to be thinking about. >> first of all, i want to thank the sf i p team awhile we were undergo that process and the additional ftes the level of services is much better we were out 13. >> now between 4 and 7 weeks which compared to the other agencies is wonderful i'm not sure how how many calls we've been getting from developers but our goal is 4 weeks this is a
11:01 pm
huge help the extra person. >> okay. i would encourage you and the manager to let us know in the backlog for the guidelines those regulations what we can do with that. >> i want to pointed out that's one off the recommendations to have - yeah. >> cover that. >> yeah. yeah, because we'll have a sustainable amount of money the projects will cover the status like we do in other parts of when we do water hook ups we charge to perform the work we are trying to do the same thing and last. >> last question i think someone respond to the muni mailbox i'm not that's a great question but where the developers put green rooftop -
11:02 pm
i'm wondering if any projections on who when a that reduces. >> there has been and we've been working closely with the city family the interesting thing u78 u as you may know it was a rooftop ordinance but rolled into the solar ordinance which makes that more difficult to predict what that will do for green infrastructure the developer can choose whether to do solar or a green roof so not a mandated green roof ordinance as before and called the better roof ordinance it has multiple uses and so staff looked at that and saw currently the stormwater management ordinance is the preliminary drive for the ordinance in san francisco and moving forward additional projects that can be captured by the better roof ordinance that
11:03 pm
we didn't capture otherwise but marginally there it but it is a super strong driver for solar with that said, when we move forward with the stormwater cost allocation that could provide a financial incentive for developers to choose to do a green roof instead of solar to comply we can do either we'll be tracking that as it move forward but the driver will not be super strong until the stormwater allocation is completed. >> i'd like to hear back it from you especially for the long term vision of how that can be because there is a lot of buzz out there around greening up the roofs not only from stormwater retention but also for multiple benefits as well. >> this is an interesting
11:04 pm
question so we have multiple incentive programs and multiple interests how will we choose to incentive individual landlords green roof as opposed to solar. >> they can co-exist we can do both don't have to expedite with each other. >> it you choose solar we have a program that will help other set but don't have anything for the green roofs so if we have a stormwater fee it is an incentive so you choose that we're trying to balance the two to maximize if you build and comply with the watering if you don't do it on the roof you have to do it somewhere else. >> commissioner courtney. >> i want to echo what the commission said it is a great
11:05 pm
report i did have the pleasure of hearing more about this may be a couple of years again in philadelphia i understand the impact that we're looking for with respect to the grant piece i'd like to hear a little bit more about that and how it connects to jobs. >> uh-huh. >> what kind of funding we're talking about the thing that concerns me the most not the private land but the public land and when you are talking about granting and i think to commissioner vietors point we'll end up creating jobs directly or indirectly and sometimes, the indirectly piece that kind of captures my eye so i just wanted to have a drill down on that and finally if we're going to be independent on that kind of of an arrangement to contemplate
11:06 pm
what happens with folks do deliver what happens when we have those arrangements and understanding we pay and then that didn't happen will we sue you know 39 or 59 different parties i think it is not fair to you right here, right now to comment but i need more information on that particular piece specifically the maintenance i think when you grant money your granting it to people that are thinking about stuff or talking about stuff or doing stuff i'm concerned about the doing stuff piece but thank you. >> we'll definitely explain how all the documentations we use for the stormwater management ordinance is informing the grant program in terms of maintenance agreement and all the contracting, etc. that is a template. >> also say that if someone
11:07 pm
didn't comply there is an enforcement piece, too, and just to throw out there the point we have grants encourage people on their properties doing it instead of us building something so there is a balance but love to - we've had a lot of conversation about that. >> and what about studying ground water impacts two things not only the ground water basins in parts of the city where we have problems with too much ground water but folks should i be comfortable if i have one of the projects uphill from my house. >> yes. you should be in the projects selection tools we have we incorporate all of the technical factors as much as slope and even with the s mo a
11:08 pm
tech sign off and costs we can delve into that that protect the adjacent property and understand what the facility is doing is the goal to infiltrate or the design. >> thank you. >> yep. >> commissioners anything else any public comment on this item. >> yes. mr. brooks. >> good afternoon. again commissioners eric brooks sf green party/our city/sf clean energy advocates. so i want to speak to this item and the general manager's report in general the to this item i keep on repeating this but we're projecting up to 2050 coping a belittle gallons of water out of
11:09 pm
wastewater or the stormwater system part of that picture is to keep human watermelon from getting into that system in the in the first place i've mentioned before, no flush toilets if you're going to do long term projections how to save one billion gallons the time to do test pilots of no flush toilets to see what works again theoretically if we searched every toilet to that we'll safe 5 billion gallons of water a year not going two the joint stormwater and sewer system it is time to get off the dime and do test pilots that would be great it to have our staff plug that into this matrix
11:10 pm
of stuff on general manager report in general it is crucial that we get a report on at the time are tech on treasure island you've noticed treasure island items on the agenda i can't stripped but that is bigger than the items i indicated before at the time are tech has been doing clean up work for the navy in the bayview hunters point and in the bayview hunters point because that is tech filed with the federal government transfers of land were at the time atetrod on the groups met with the epa about this the response from the
11:11 pm
epa was because treasure island is technically not a superfund site we don't have jurisdiction we need your staff to reach out to the navy and the treasure island development authority and the substance control i think the answers in the navy won't be helpful but the point we need to figure out who's going on and figure out a way for us to halt the transfers and work on treasure island so when you have workers to work on those systems you'll set up for treasure island not imposed to radiation and commissioner vice-president kwon you showed interest brother that would be great if i may to follow up on this and see if we can get a report from staff had is done with tetro tech on treasure island. >> thank you. any other public comment we have a request
11:12 pm
from ms. firearm wants to talk about the earlier item on now is your chance. >> thank you for the opportunity to give comments on cleanpowersf. >> thank you okay. >> as a c 40 city san francisco as designated as one the urban leaders san francisco is one of the 90 cities in the world that are going to save the world from climate change and san francisco we understand the importance of accelerated conversion of cleanpowersf is an important path to fulfilling our c 40 robots bay area, bay area water supply & conservation agency and california's only compliment
11:13 pm
goals that why not enroll cleanpowersf sooner than 2019 and for clean energy enroll three hundred residents speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department la valencia they've enrolled in the 100 percent energy as a default i talked to the gentleman on the phone and said quite a success in potrero valencia have 95 percent sticking with the 100 percent green option so very few opts out so i ask you to accelerate the basic clean energy and fund for aggressive problems of supergreen the current supergreen enrollment of 2 point 5 percent is willfully
11:14 pm
inadequate in a city that could a afford 40 percent and more please speed up the conversion to clean energy for the sake of our children and grandchildren and for the sack sake of our planet. >> mr. kelly. >> i thought something else was coming up were will that that concluded my report. >> any other sponsors public comment on the general manager's report all right. thank you all next item is the bawsca update. >> good afternoon commissioner president and commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak today and first, i have a couple of remarks but the bawsca board is considering the budget
11:15 pm
at the next meeting in may included in that budget is there level of activity in the water reliability work and actions to respond to the governors actions for that i will come to you after my meeting in may and give us an update i think you'll find that interesting and helpful to understand so my remarks i want to focus on long term water supply restrict as you may know the california san francisco state resources control board stated it's intent to adopt a plan when has stream flow requirements on the lever that will reduce the water available to san francisco regional system for residents and businesses in the san mateo and santa clara county and use that to protect the wildlife in the river those changes can
11:16 pm
force the reliable conspiracy from 1.8 million residents and agencies that bawsca represents as i mentioned before bawsca supports the objectives at the stat board but can't support the details of proposed plan for the river there better ways to reach the goals and the state board should use the best technology bawsca constituents have reduces their water use to 56 gallons per person on a residential basis one of the lost levels and ready to do their fair share and puc and bawsca have designs to expand the populations water supply reliability bawsca be strongly supports negotiated settle aeshlts for this issue
11:17 pm
bawsca member agencies and retail customers the puc which supplies the water is required by the decade old court decision and a agreement to provide one and 84 million gallons a day and san francisco is required by the state legislation to submit and report to the legislature quote describing the progress made in the previous calendar years on securing supplemental supplies of water during dry years unquote the problem the puc reports show slow progress with no water supplies coming on line until 2019 this has to change we must find replacement water to provide the bawsca constituents when needed the puc must continue to meet the water
11:18 pm
supply obligations in 2002 san francisco was fourth or foshsz to repair and rebuild the antiquated system now it must supply bawsca constituents with water to regardless of anticipated state legislation that will reduce their water supply bawsca is prepared to seek help in the legislature but bawsca prefers to continue it's effort with the puc, with staff and others to address those critical issues this results with the puc philosophically it's water requirements that concludes my remarks take any questions and we have copies. >> question has bawsca as a whole addressed the issue of timing for development of additional water supplies right
11:19 pm
now an example we spent a lot of money for the one and 20 there is a match of demand and revenues can you address that have you addressed that. >> no, we have not we've been talking about with the agencies recognizing that there is some significance here you know that really depends on how quickly everyone rebound with the new plan projections those significantly will chance the results on when that extra supply is needed but i think our history has shown us that these projects take decades and so certainly within a couple of decades for me there is a long path to getting forward between today to have a point to
11:20 pm
saying are we ready to make that decision on a viable project that's the gap we're seeing. >> as we do the water supply assessments we did the water reliability planning there was a match of demand growth and supply growth through the forecast period as you recall so those identified projects will keep pace with the projected demand. >> correct the issue is that if the state board proposal comes out that is the triggering next step you're absolutely correct within the understanding of the if i go back two years and know what the plan and where we're going in an
11:21 pm
appropriate spot we're now looking at a state entity possibly adopting a plan or intending to adopt a plan we anticipate that and jump up our level of planning to deal with that. >> yeah. that is certainly the most go thing and this agency is committed to meeting the obligations both in conceptual and our plan regrets that i have a hard minded figuring out what the state boards action may or may not do but legislation that need to be done i suggest at the state board rather than this body. >> can i ask a question. >> sure. >> so i guess the way i'm thinking that is that no matter if the state imposes nothing on us you're looking at our agency
11:22 pm
to supply a what is comparably the good, the bad, and the ugly and make sure we have a situation where the state others alternatives. >> correct. >> and that's we've discussed that before i think one of the things that is clear about the state where had proposed action that hit word to be implemented as intended it would cost us we'll have to do a lot of development with the obligations. >> i agree 100 percent and the concern i have is that we need to because this is a significant step and anticipated impact from the state board we need to significantly there the puc and needs to significant focus on how we ramp up, if you will, to daed deal with the next
11:23 pm
increment issue to examine the projects to get to a conversation do we want to make that investment but right now i'm not sure we're prepared to do that or thinking about that at that point. >> thank you, commissioners any other questions. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> okay any public comment on item is bawsca report? seeing none, next item is consent calendar >> item 9 calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. commissioners any items you want removed from the consent calendar any members of the public that wants on item removed from the
11:24 pm
consent calendar seeing none, can i have a motion. >> >> been seconded. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? the consent calendar is adopted that brings us to items 10 and 11 item he 10. >> authors the general manager to increase the in any way, shape, or form commercial notes program from $500 million to $750 million and agreements including the agreements in the principle amount not to exceed one hundred and fifty with bank of america and not to exceed one hundred millions with sumitomo mitsui banking corporation and improve the former of agreement. >> commissioners be eric sandler cfo can i have the slides please.
11:25 pm
so the the item before you is may thank you perf the the item before you is an authorization of the increase for the paper program for wastewater enterprise and actions associated with doing that before i get into the shorted presentation we utilize the water for the water and wairmentd capital plan improvement program before we issue the bonds to fund it inexceptionally duration construction and the paper program for contracts to enter into long term contracts for construction. >> so currently we have a $500 million c p for the wastewater 61 million dollars of that program of the commercial paper has been issued and the balance of this used to authors
11:26 pm
and certify contracts bank facilities supporting that in 3-d currently and essentially we're about to enter into a series of large contractors to support the cooperation of it we need to increase the capacity of the program and the proposed there from 5 hundred to $750 million consistent with the 2017 capital financing plan we provided you in september and moving forward this transaction and we are and allows us to continue to implement ssip on a timely basis. >> the contracts that support of commercial paper program are two credit facility agreements so commercial paper is actually
11:27 pm
supposed sports by letters of credit from banks 0 investors have a bank that will pay that short term borrowing commercial paper is a note that is issued and mauchts mat turns from one day and the credit the investor pays is the bank facility not the puc and dealer agreements which we have with the various dealer with the issuance of commercial be paper over time those are the contracts that are the form of those are in the agenda items for your approval again, the documents that are include the pay agreement are the u.s. bank a trustee agreement and reimbursement agreement with hmo and bank of
11:28 pm
america and credits with those the fee agreements which aligns the cost of credit facilities in the form of the agreement and finally the offering memoranda the disclose documents the investor is facing. >> you asked to talk about the security we explain in terms of discharging our disclosure obligation and as i mentioned unlike the long-term rain water the paper is with the credit backing is the bank credit facility the offering memorandum describes terms of the issuing
11:29 pm
and the agreement in details with the bank that supports the program now the bank documents themselves with the banks contain representation of warranty and we've worked with the city attorney's office to make sure that the commission represents are warden squared away those recommendations the amendments need for authorized and hopefully signing the comes at a time are the legally authorized to sign them and material obligation and that the financial statements we provide which are financial represent materially the enterprise and no material adverse change in the finances of the commission. >> so the requested action again to approve the expansion
11:30 pm
of the watering cpr from 5 hundred to $750 million, to direct us to submit the directed information to the board of supervisors and to approve that relates to the cpr program i'm i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners any questions. >> there is a motion that has been seconded and any public comment on this item. >> seeing none. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? that item passes. >> item 11. >> approve the conditions and authors the general manager to execute the second amendment for the real property date 2010 between the city and county of san francisco ac with the puc and in the peninsula open space district. >> thank you, mr. carolyn and
11:31 pm
deputy director manager we are exchanging the easements and finish off the easement. >> i'd like to move the item. >> there is a motion that has been seconded any comments from the commissions any public comment on this item? seeing none. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? none opposed item 11 carries item 12. >> item 12 declaring with the approximate $3,000 square feet parcel under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public works with the lots parcel lot i'm sorry requested the sfpuc to approve the terms and conditions and authors it with george birmingham to sell the adjacent square feet parcel in the sfpuc
11:32 pm
for a compliance sell of $1 million plus approving the terms and conditions and authors the board of supervisors and mayor to approve the parcels subject to the terms of purchase agreement. >> thank you mr. carlin. >> again, i have a map that actually is kind of hard from the agenda items to see all the paralyzes but those are small parcels will 35 or 34 hundred square feet and the sfpuc is selling a parcel as well if you have a second this is by mr. birmingham and did several with mr. birmingham with the homeland security association and we'll have everything signed and delivered for one million dollars. >> so moved. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded any other comments
11:33 pm
from the >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? none owned and operated item 12 carries item 13. >> authors the memorandum of understanding for the treasure island agree for wastewater treatment facilities serve treasure island and yerba buena island. >> mr. carlin once again dated back to 2011 you approved that between the city and developer we left the question for how to provide the w5ir789 services we've decided to lowest recommend we god go ahead and build that water facility on treasure island to allow us to move ahead with that project. >> thank you so moved. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? no. >> item 13 carries and item
11:34 pm
14. >> authors the memorandum of understanding between the transportation authority with the sfpuc san francisco san francisco municipal transportation agency and sfpuc with the future maintenance responsibility for public improvement be constructed at the treasure island community development. >> so once again that is a moa that allows us to lay out our responsibility and this infrastructure maybe into less property we want to make sure who coordinates that we have a thorough understanding of that with the developer. >> thank you, commissioners. >> so moved. >> second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded any other questions or comments seeing none. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? item 14 carries item 15 sets the
11:35 pm
record for the longest agenda. >> adopt the findings prudent to the california environmental quality act approve wastewater i'm sorry water segregation ab for funded projects c e w-7 thirty that 54 about the pipeline replacement and authorize the general manager or his needs to inclement that substitute the approval of the board of supervisors. >> good morning, commissioners and commissioner president this item to adopt the ceqa findings and authorize that for the purpose of allows h allowing us to enter into negotiation for temporary easements necessary for the pipeline. >> thank you, commissioners. >> there is a motion that has been seconded any
11:36 pm
any public comment on this item? >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? item 15 carries. >> items 16. >> 16 for preconstruction and construction services and award contract in the amount of $15 million plus to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bird ab construction. >> thank you commissioners any questions, comments. >> i'll move that. >> there is a motion that has been seconded on this item? >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? item 16 carries. >> item 17 and 18 we'll act on that individually i understand you have one presentation that covers both of them i should say i'm known both of those farms and privileges involved for years and consider them friends and not been involved in the
11:37 pm
selection process at all and it didn't effect my ability to do my job that's a disclosure i need to make. >> would you like me to read the items. >> item 17 award the agreement state legislative representation to gilbert robison and smith for an agreement with the e r g s not to exceed one million dollars plus and item 18 award agreement federal legislative representation for the services to dearly owen services incorporated with darrell owens not to exceed one million dollars plus over a duration of 5 years. >> thank you
11:38 pm
good afternoon julia assistant general manager for the affairs i will do the items one contaminate for items 17 we are asking the public works to approve for the state lobbying contract for the advocacy services for the public works and this begins in may 2017 the proposed work is implementing a comprehensive state for the public works for the regulatory issues across the bay and in addition, this lobbying form coordinators with the mayor's office and the lobbying team and i can't imagine from emily in her update last october the rest of the work we're doing at the state and federal level is our lobbyist are crucial kind of how
11:39 pm
priority to make sure we are able to respond to the effort of the state as background during the two year session for 2016 that policy and government affairs team tracked over three hundred and 50 interests over thirty years for the incentive of the breath and scale so for that year working with the body of our tracking the bills and 58 power bills and other bills that could have impact and barbara hale talked about the effort that we've been working on in sacramento with cleanpowersf and across the date it is a really effort if our lobbyists in sacramento has been pivotal
11:40 pm
working with that and at the ad m level with that contract it that what we're requesting this time around year term it and have won't include any years which we've embedded in the last contract so if you remember when we came to you that would have been four or five years ago a 3 year term with the option of 2 year extension and with the state and federal lobbying contract we are coming before you with a request. >> commissioners. >> i have a question i remember an issue with the
11:41 pm
federal lobbyist we were. >> should i answer that now. >> the first one up is the state. >> i'm sorry the state lobbyist and second. >> a second. >> any other questions or comments any public comment. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? the item carries and on the federal number 19. >> i know you read it. >> would you already could that. >> i read them together. >> okay. so for item 18 similar request for a review to the state contracts that will be 5 year term in front of you the changes in about washington, d.c. to defend and protect the puc water rights a high priority
11:42 pm
so didn't need a lot of explanation doctor and find a lot of value in the work they're doing the question commissioner vietor had asked with regards to how this lobbying from the this relates to supplemental resources we've been working 0 with the mayor's office to add to our capacity the explanation we work with the mayor's lobbyists that is which is different from owen and associates the owen have a day to day sfpuc core operations work we at the puc as many departments put resources through the mayor's office just to support the work that the entire city 0 does in addition, we provide about $75,000 a year
11:43 pm
to the mayor's office to the pro-active activities they've got the effort meeting the charge with regards to our workforce priority working with the department of labor and with the congressional black caucus when president obama that was in the administration so the pro-active general manager group that harlan helped to co-characterize is support with the holland night and owens and associated is doing our bread and butter power issues etc. >> a lot of work i mean, i would strongly encourage you commissioners to come with us to washington, d.c. to see the great opportunity and done with the he wanted but commissioner caen came with us in the fall a
11:44 pm
year ago and did a bunch of meetings with you and was surprised like half a day through you guys have 8 meetings a day uh-huh if folks with interested we do about 3 or twice a i can't remember to plan to kind of have the list of meetings with the different departments. >> actually, i would recommend that you come by the way, because a it is exhausting we meet from even from epa to the core of engineers to many office it is a very crazy time we usually can't get everything in you i'd like to move the item. >> thank you any other comments public comment oh, i'm
11:45 pm
sorry mr. da costa. >> supervisors, living in a different time with someone that we have in the white house who has totally paralyzed the epa and even didn't building in climatic change and so forth and so i came here as you may know that when we have over 45 years of experience you can connect the dots as i trained that the army let me say something let's get real over one million dollars even if it is $5 million with a 5 field i don't mind but let's get real
11:46 pm
we have to shape what the previous - we're living in a different time and if all goes according to plan donald trump will be in office for 8 years. >> so we have to figure out now if we have the money which we have ways an enterprise department let us channel for things over here local the city will suffer right today, the mayors are meeting p with donald trump not a single mayor from california i think and for sure a lot of the mayors linked to the century city it will be the same they talk about climatic change and will be the same north dakota so
11:47 pm
the pipeline can't be built it will be the same it we have the money here san francisco public utilities commission and you commissioners we need to use the money here no bs about where we'll go and try to convince donald trump with the legislative stuff and it ain't going to happen some of you all have a beard like i do some of you as old as i am over 70 we've seen it all we've got a joker we don't want to go there i think it is a circle we need to spend every single nickel and dime here in san francisco and spend it
11:48 pm
wisely thank you very much. >> thank you any other sponsors public comment. >> we have a second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? item 18 carries thank you item 19 and approval of amendment to agreement c s increasing the grant agreement by one and 80 thousand by an extension of two years. >> thank you mr. richie. >> yes. steve richie assistant general manager for water. this is an extensions with the parks alliance for the guardian of the environment the garden for the assignment cases out maintenance of the garden for public tours and instructions for visitors market value and outreach to promote the garden and enrollment in classes as public education and workshops and school field trips for education in and a variety of
11:49 pm
other activities this last been going on for many years we continue this for water conservatism and white water use and prevention activities. >> i had and thank you to my colleagues, i asked for this item to be continued i'm prepared to vote but want to make sure for the record number one, i know this group know that well my organization supports this group so i think that is good for me to be able to make those statements as it relates to this group so it didn't have a perspective we have a problem with the i dissolution but i take it seriously when i hear
11:50 pm
what they think is a lack of transparency and a lack of responsibilities i read all the articles and know what is happening with the ethics commission i read the blog and prioritize the workforce and i think if we get ahold of this conversation as an agency and as a commission we control the narrative i think we'll be more successful moving forward especially, as it relates to the granting and the agreement and the entities we're granting money to i'm focusing my attention on the workforce the reason you end up overtime with kind of a back filled workforce folks working on the puck land but working for some other
11:51 pm
entities i'm disappointed with the fact that we continue talking about old stuff i don't want to talk about old stuff no more but how we're going to have a policy in place so we can deal with the constituents the rate payers and the public has it relates to our obligations not just fiduciary but our coagulations obligations to the public to make sure there is standards more transparent - the parks alliance has 16 thousand people going to the meeting we can support staff when there is not a policy that we have before us then we're just going to say yes and staff is left out there all alone we
11:52 pm
said, yes and there is no violation so i'm really trying to is a lot of things before we vote on this item but eventually i'll be asking for support it is it is a heavy lift just to say when we grant to these organizations under the guise of some kind of work performance take place we do that work and as we want to make sure we know what the wage rates are we want to make sure we know that people that want to work 40 hours a week and make sure no ongoing complaints with the fair housing with the e oc their fulfilling an agency purpose without strings attached that is appropriate and i'm just going to appeal to all of us to think about this in terms of just moving forward, be positive
11:53 pm
about that reject the negative i that think one base frankly, i didn't want to hold that up i know those people they're good people and believe in what we're doing and believe in it i'm glad not another organization people can say i'm not in sync with that organization therefore i'm attaching the grant the general manager has been nothing but supportive rule 200 is supportive and every single gm is supportive it is up to us to decide the egg we want a policy and implement it and make sure we follow it so i'm going to go ahead and move the item after that long speech. >> can i make one comment you know commissioner courtney and i
11:54 pm
had a conversation about the new 0 policy healed to have rolled out and talk about how to implement it moving forward and maybe some of the things that we want to gather may have to be part of rf the selection process that requires us to do do servicing that's why i want to sit down with the commissioner to talk about how we can make this more accountable and transparent and be more informed before he we make that once this selection is made anguish it could be more challenging but definitely hear you and definitely commented working with you i'm looking forward in working with you on the policy and who to implement the policy. >> and i will add that that is the emphasis of our review
11:55 pm
selection and the question of our own audit process to make sure those policies are valid we have a motion do i hear a second. >> second and any further discussion any public comment mr. da costa. >> you know commissioners, i heard one of the commissioners parolee clearly some years ago the president made a statement i hope you remember what he said that's what i'm going to talk about some years ago there was a contract given supposedly all the requirement were met but the contractor couldn't fulfill what had to be done. so our young people went all the way to cal berry to do do scaffolding i'll put on the picture and you can see
11:56 pm
something else took credit our young people went and built a fence and went to homestead and with a native plan and sent off when people make a statement in good faith we put out a bid someone gets the bid through there is no enforcement there is no enforcement all this big guys that get big contracts in the millions they make changes it is a joke go oh, who cares so let me get to the point the muwekma ohlone has requested for some land they can continue what they know when it comes to facht plants that's what people need to go and see to see a
11:57 pm
continuation the city has 6 or 7 odd resolutions i just gather the cities and counties of san francisco oh, yeah, the muwekma ohlone and nobody gives a i don't want to use the word so what i did was i took the muwekma ohlone to the general manager and present to the chairperson and i did therapy this and that so i represent the muwekma ohlone and i agree with one of the commissioners that when you work you better get paid even we came to an agreement to calaveras and paid them the men were shocked and the woman worked harder than the men and same agreement to the homestead the general
11:58 pm
manager know about that he didn't mention it we sent it to him when it comes to grants not mickey mouse we don't want mickey mouse gardening we want something that is viable and sustainable and before god is rig right. >> okay. thank you i had a motion and second and any future comments. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? the item 19 carries. >> item 20 and approve the terms and conditions and authors the general manager to execute a 5 year revocable license with the parks alliance. >> i'll move. >> there is a motion that has been seconded any further discussion this item? seeing none. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? item 20 carries. >> madam secretary would you
11:59 pm
read the items for closed session. >> item 23 will not be heard item 24 existing litigation for partisan and existing litigation for gas and protect and 26 litigation for gas and protect and 28 litigation for gas and protect and item 29 will not be heard. >> any public comment to be heard on items for closed session. >> mr. da costa. >> you're going into closed session i just came from the board of supervisors and one of the things that was discussed was a blackout and how pg&e very poorly communicated with the city not
12:00 am
only pg&e but all management for some emergency management office they didn't a poor job if i'm not mistaken back to the sfpuc as i said in my previous comments if you take one hundred cases pg&e versus sfpuc like a soccer game i want to know who wins most of the time. >> i want to know why pg&e wins most of the time? because they got thank you all have one attorney they'll put 50 attorneys if you have 50 they'll put one hundred and i know for a long, long time


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on