in the development agreement later on, i still believe that there were concerns given the fact that costa hawkins, the state law that regulates rent control in the state of california has been challenged in other development agreement situations and other counties, including los angeles with the polymer decision, and my conversations with several advocates, there was a lot of concern that perhaps that would not hold, and in that case, i was concerned with the fact that it was a 30-year phase-in project that demolished 1500 units of rent control housing. hear, we are seeing the demolition of parking lots and a private swimming and tennis club, which, i know that does represent a loss to many of the individuals who use it, but it

will be replaced with a swimming pool, and i have heard that there are long lists of youngsters who are waiting to access swimming lessons at the recreation facilities at the park, and some of the medications would go to making sure that some of the young people on those waiting lists, it would make sure that would include some of the residents of district 5, that they be included in this mitigation and be allowed access, swimming lessons at the site. also, there is a high level of unemployment, as many individuals no, among labor workers, carpenters, and other union workers, but trades, and this is an issue that the labor council has very much stated

their support of to help insure that some jobs can be acquired by their members, and that is something, the creation of jobs in this case, i think is very important. also, the design, it does not reach a height of the golden gate commons. i believe it is still a few stories below that. and i know that some of the opposition has come from some of the office buildings in the adjacent area, so although i understand the arguments of it representing the type of construction of housing that the city does not necessarily need, i do also have some concerns given the dissolution of the redevelopment agents say and the

need for us to still acquire some income so that we can construct affordable housing. perhaps this is not the ideal way of reaching those and, but this project did go above what is required of them, so we will be seeing at least some indications, it will go to the mayor's office on housing to construct some affordable units as a result of this project. so, again, i think, supervisor kim laid out the comparison pretty accurately, and i do believe what needs to happen in the future is that there needs to be some more thought given to a planned unit developments and if a unit goes outside the underlying code that perhaps we can start looking at more

certainty and have those conversations with the development community, the affordable housing community, and others have said that there is more certainty in the process so if they request additional heights, then there are some set negations in place for the city and the community as they benefit from their developments, so, again, this was not an easy decision. i think relatively speaking when we look at trinity plaza and the balance between what the developer got there, what the community got, i think this is comparable. i believe these are comparable. again, as i said, there have been some projects that i have not been able to support because i did not feel the mitigation greenplace to justify supporting

them, but in this case, with only 134 units there and the captioning of some mitigation, this is an ok deal. it is a balanced deal, and i think in the future, i would like to see some legislation drafted or some thought given to planned unit development. chair: thank you, supervisor olague supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i want to thank my colleagues. i believe it has been a very substantive conversation in the past few weeks. let me say that i appreciate the efforts on behalf of supervisors kim, mar, and olague to make this project a better project, and i think there is a point about this project in some ways being comparable to what was

accomplished with other projects, and i see the validity of that point. i personally would not have supported several of the projects that it is comparable to, whether it is trinity plaza juan rincon hill. so that is not necessarily for me and analysis that is that compelling, but i do appreciate the fact that more money was added to affordable housing and that the project being voted on today is certainly better than the project that was first introduced to us. that said, i still believe, and i think for a mate -- think for me, the problem with this project is that i do not think this is the type of project that is needed by the city right now, and i do have concern, even though there was increased funding of affordable housing, i have a concern about our view or our vision for what the waterfront is going to look like it's the only type of housing that is treated on site is actually luxury housing.

i do not think that the waterfront should be a place that should only be limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy. i think that people of all income levels should have the opportunity to live on the waterfront, and had there been affordable housing created on site, i think that would have changed things for me, so i appreciate the work that has been done. i think it is a better project. i just do not think we are where we need to be. i also hope that notwithstanding the commitment that has been made to include 12 additional kids, and i think those are positive trends, i would hope that we would see the developer do more. the reality is that we want the kind facilities that are going to be billed accessible to all kinds of young people, it all kinds of kids, and i hope that in that spirit that not withstanding what is required that there would be more done for all of the young people of

the city that need access to those kinds of facilities. let me also say that i think we also have to put this project in perspective. again, i have some questions and concerns about this project. i do not think that this project rises to the level of some of the projects that have come our way. i certainly do not see it in terms of importance at the same level that a park merced was. likewise, i do not think that relative to what is coming our way in the next few weeks that this project is at that same level. there is one project which in terms of magnitude, size, it's significant to the city is a far more important project, and that is not to say that this should be minimized. i think it is important to put it in context. the last thing i would say to any city agency that brings forward this kind of the relevant project, i do think that engaging in the kind of

analysis that was talked about where we actually look at the rate of return and have a third- party independently analyzed that is something that as a matter of practice, as a matter of course we should do. i do not think that we fully know whether or not we are getting everything that we should get unless that kind of analysis is provided. that is not something that i fault the developer for. i think that is something that we as the city and the city agencies that are involved in these projects have a responsibility to engage in that kind of analysis, and i think that the fact that that analysis was not provided to the budget and legislative analyst, in your respective of the sustenance -- substance of this project, it is problematic, and i would hope that weather is a project coming out of the port or other city agency that we will get that kind of independent analysis by

city agencies. i think we will be better served and the citizens of san francisco will be better served if that analysis is provided. thank you. chair: supervisor olague? -- supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i had the chance to meet with advocates on both sides. i appreciate the people that come. especially the asian neighborhood study done connected by -- conducted by fernando tatis and community efforts, that was one of the most important one, when thinking there is up zoning that could happen in a place like a washington, actually, it is a small spot, but it is huge to the residents that live around it. that we can achieve from the

developer. i think also the voice of labor and many community-based groups is critical in analyzing the benefits to the city as well, said their voices were very important to me. i wish we could have got more for affordable housing, and the votes came down as they did, 25%, even though the units are very high cost, and i hope we can look at this in a different way, even compared to one when con hill, as the supervisor referred to. the port has been flexible about the amount of money -- compared to juan rincon hill -- one rincon hill. i look forward to this conversation. we need as much money, given the financial situation. was looking carefully at some of

the analysis and trying to weigh the benefits connected with the huge up zoning that is being done on this three block area. also, i wanted knowledge that the 50 cent per car visit to the parking garage surcharge is significant for connecting neighborhoods around the side, especially chinatown and other residences, and it will help with a one-mile radius to help improvements for pedestrian safety and other improvements with the broadway street scape and the master plan as well. also, the reduction of 55 parking spaces is significant in a transit first city. i wish we could have reduced more, but it sounds like that was a significant 20% reduction, so working with others to feel that is an accomplishment in making that a public benefit, and lastly, the president's --

the president said this was signet against -- was not significant, i think it will be for one of the high quality pool, and they will be low- income children from all or the city, so i am interested in making sure it is equitable and that the health club abide by that process, so in weighing the process and the community and labor concerns, i think the public benefits are significant, and that is why i will be supporting the project. chair: supervisor olague? supervisor olague: one reason i was not in support of on-site affordability is i think in this instance at least, those fees can be used to a better and of creating more affordable family units. sometimes, when you have housing of this range, the homeownership association fees are such that,

i mean, just a whole picture makes it prohibitive, and those fees, as you know, are ones that are regulated at the state and not the local level. also, apparently the 30,000 units that are vacant, maybe to have a conversation with the san francisco apartment association, tried to engage to find ways of filling some of those units, so i think that this does not dissuade from continuing the conversation about the pursuit of affordable housing, but certainly at the end of the day, in many ways, this conversation to me was very much about real estate values, and there are other ways of capturing some of these equity issues and affordable housing concerns. chair: thank you, supervisor olague.

seeing there are no other questions, to the city attorney, i do have one. we were talking about the parking spaces. does that trigger any ceqa issues on our part? >> it could, and you should get some input from planning on whether that is the case. chair: oh, welcome. >> supervisors, welcome -- hello. i am paul with the staff. on that one point of the reduction of parking to to letterspaces and the ceqa implications, i have a memorandum that i want to submit to the board to put into the record. we were aware that that might be considered by the board, so we did look at that. there is a memo that demonstrates that reduction is well within the range of the alternatives that were analyzed in the eir. it is covered by the

environmental impact report that was previously certified and that no further ceqa review is required on that issue. chair: any further direction, madam city attorney, based on that? >> we recommend that the board amend items 20, 27, and 28 that deal with adopting the previous ceqa findings, and there is a similar clause that would be put into each, the two ordinances and a resolution that is indicated the board will view this in today's memorandum and considers the effect of reducing the commercial parking and concludes that such a reduction would not result in any additional in our metal impact beyond those analyzed in the final eir for the reasons stated in the memorandum and incorporate that by reference, so we can prepare that and give that to the clerk. chair: thank you.

will someone make that motion? the motion is offered by supervisor chu. is there a second? seconded by supervisor olague. can we take that motion without objection? yes, ok. that will be the order. any other comment on the underlying items? supervisor olague? supervisor olague: that was 312 students that would have access, not 12. i think that was misinformation. chair: president chiu? president chiu: 3 hedron 12? it states 12 students at any one time, which is a lot less than that -- 312? chair: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: can someone come up and read how many this is a dressing, because the number i

have is 312, too. i have a lot of papers in front of me. i am sorry. i have it now. the project sponsor will provide pool space for 26 classes, and each of these classes will get 12 young people access to the facilities, said that is 312 young people per year, and we have roughly over 1400 kids on our waiting list for swimming lessons currently, in my understanding is that rpd would be administering these swimming classes for the private facilities? >> supervisor, to the underlying importance, -- for the underlying documents, the port and others agreed. the project cannot move forward unless and until the recreation club operator and the rpd have

entered into a memorandum of understanding about how to implement that program. supervisor kim: thank you. and just to confirm, it is that number of classes? >> that is my understanding. supervisor kim: thank you. chair: seeing no other comments or questions, mr. clerk, could you read the roll? clerk: [reading roll ] president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, and there are eight ayes and three nos. chair: the items are approved.

president chiu: mr. clerk, if we could go to our next item, which i believe is our 4:00 p.m. special item. if you could call items 31 to 34? clerk: item number 31, the appeal of the final environmental impact report. item 32, emotion affirming the certification. item 33 is a motion reversing the certification, in item 34 is to direct the board to prepare findings. president chiu: colleagues, today, we will hear the eir on the cpmc project. just kidding. i understand what a continuance until july 17, and there will be four hearings at the land use committee to hear different uses. could i have a motion to that

effect of the motion from supervisor campus, seconded from supervisor chu. is there anything to continue? without any discussion, colleagues, can we take the motion to continue without objection? as you can see, the item will be continued until july 17. [gavel] and why do we not proceed to roll call? clerk: supervisor olague? supervisor olague: i wanted to mention accommodation we would be making later in the week in honor of a 90th birthday of a woman come tomorrow. she was born in newark, new jersey, 1922, to an austrian immigrant and a hungarian immigrant. she began her activism at an early age, when she and her mother gave leaflets at a

theater owned by family members to protest the franco regime, and the action caused the family members to ban them from the theater. she moved onto union activism in new york city. during world war two, she worked in the brooklyn navy yard. she moved to san francisco in 1947, where she met her future husband, the late herman griffin. they were married in january 1949, right after the laws which prevented interracial marriage were overturned in california. this made them one of the first interracial couples in san francisco. in the 1960's, she participated in civil-rights actions. she is a mother of two, both from san francisco, and a mother-in-law of someone also in san francisco. she will celebrate her 90th birthday tomorrow, but i think

when someone celebrates such an incredible life of activism, they should be commemorated in honored by us, so i am happy to be giving that accommodation later this week. the rest i will submit. clerk: thank you, supervisor olague. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you, very much, mr. clerk. it is with deep sadness that i am doing an in memoriam along with supervisor supervisor wiener for jacqueline reed, who died june 22, 2012, of pancreatic cancer. she had been battling the disease for more than one year. she was born in 1954 in providence, rhode island, the oldest child of charles and ruby.

she was educated in the public schools a providence, graduating from classical high school in 1972. she graduated from brown university in 1976 with a major in medieval and renaissance literature. she received her law degree from georgetown university in 1979. tied to public service, she served for several years in the office of the chief counsel for advocacy at the small business administration in washington, d.c. 60 years after that, for those years, she served for the commissioners on the district of columbia public service commission and then moved to california in 1989 and became an administrative law judge at the california public utilities commission in 1991. she served in that capacity for 21 years, until ill health forced her to retire. the judge was an expert in telecommunications law and policy, but she also worked in a

broad range of areas, including fire safety, rail safety, in transportation. -- and transportation. she celebrated her adult bat mitzvah -- bar mitzvah -- she was a person of keen intellect and quiet disposition and wide interests. she was a devoted wife and mother and a loyal friend. those who knew her knew that her smile could brighten any room. her tranquil presence could calm any storm. she is survived by her husband, paul, that many of us know here in the city attorney's office. her son, jacob, her sister, estelle, her nephew's, cousins,

grandnephews, and other relatives who are too many to mention. the peril was held at the congregation of emanu-el this past thursday, june 7. those who are interested in making a donation under her name can do so to the san francisco food bank, the jewish response to hunker, pancreatic cancer action network, and congregation emanu-el. i ask that we adjourn the meeting in her honor and send our condolences to her family. and i would ask to be re-ref erred at the end of the introductions. supervisor avalos: today, i am

introducing a measure for the november ballot. its working title will be "the small business relief and economic recovery initiative." it is an effort to transition from a business tax based on payroll to a business tax based on gross receipts. the measure is geared toward protecting small businesses and encouraging economic growth, job growth. also, to generate revenue while inspiring economic recovery, and to make sure our largest corporations pay their fair share. i am proud to have cause sponsorship of my colleagues. all of them represent districts that have struggling neighborhood commercial corridors. this measure will help to provide a boon for our commercial corridors, especially

by exempting a lot of the smaller businesses that have a gross receipts tax, and expenditures of $1 million and less, which is what a lot of our small corder businesses is -- our small corridor business has. i wrote a piece around how to build a coalition to support that effort. what i did not have as part of the coalition was the business community. i have grown years later to where we have been making sure we have their input and suggestions about how to craft this measure. of course, this measure could not be done without the great work of the controller's office, and the outreach to and from

different parts of the business community. ben rosen field as well. -- ben rosenfield as well. supervisor chiu and the mayor have talked about sponsoring a measure that is very similar. i think it would be best if we have forward to the ballot. it should be revenue generating. it will generate upwards of $40 million. a lot of that is pasted on the business registration fee, which is skilled up by the business's revenue. that makes sure the business tax is fair, so the smaller businesses are paying much less. some of our uni