methodology and not to get too much into it, but you take your contracts that are planned to be awarded and you look at the north american classification codes associated with each of those contracts and then you look into dbe data base for dbes that are certified to do that type of work and then you look in the census bureau for the type of businesses in the 9 counties that are registered for that type of work and then you just do the proportions. >> this is a similar methodology to the fte? >> we used the same just on the broader set of contracts. >> how does that compare with our existing empirical performance. >> 7 and a half percent is much lower, since it is just the participation, it is at 20 percent for the life of the program. and 21 percent right now for these past three years and so i think that 7 and a half percent is a good target to keep in mind for dbes but i would

expect it to be much higher when you consider sbes. do we not have data? it is hard to apply the same methodology to run the sbe numbers because the data bases don't use the same types of classifications. the codes are not in it. >> i understand. i don't mean to belabor this. i think that we were surprised when the fda said that this is how we want you to do the calculation because it seemed a narrow and technical way as opposed to looking at the past performance and so we have to do that for their purposes but for the other program, i think that it is great that you guys are doing, we don't have to use their, some what limited methodology, we can just look at our own past performance and we can look at other projects in the region and i would want us to be inadvertently setting a low target, even though it is, again, it is just a target

and it is not for the reporting purposes, i think that it is still important. >> sure, we can take a look at that and what we will do when we come back to you in june, we will look at the sbe percentage distinctly from the dbe percentage from the program wide contract. >> that will be great, thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you. >> okay. >> so, no members of the public want to address you on that item so you are looking for a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and a second, director harper aye. >> lloyd, aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> item nine is approved and go ahead and move into item ten. >> which is approving the recommended applicants to the transbay joint pores authority. >> bev will report on this item.

>> thank you, maria and directors and members of the board. we put out this, we had the cac going for six years now, and i want to acknowledge jim lacerous who has been a member has termed out it has been a member and served as at chair for the entire six years to date. so his participation is appreciated. we had a great response to our interest for applicants this year and we had a total of 19 applications and virtually without exception, the candidates brought a wealth of experience in multiple areas of which we are looking for on our cac. if you are not familiar our cac is 15 members, and each of these 15 seats is designated to

have a specific area of interest or representation including a bicycle advocate and a disabled advocate and a representative from labor, a resident of district six and almost without exception, people brought a breadth of experience to the applications. we have a total of 7 recommendations brought to you today. and including three returning members and four new members to the cac. and two of the new applicants are here today, and they would be available to speak if you would like to. and if you have any other questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> i have no questions, on the recommendation and i am happy to support it. i know at least two of the folks and they are great and would be great additions. just a question on the functioning of the cac, aside from the appointments, we don't ever kind of see or hear

anything from the cac or if we do i have forgotten. are there, do they make recommendations to the tjpa? is there any... do they issue reports? is there anything that comes out that would be relevant or of interest to the board? >> well a lot of the cac has been to serve as a public forum for discussion of the design of the transit center and elements we have had as an example. s better market streets program come and speak to the cac so that they can understand how our ro ject is relating to that project and the bicycle improvements and the cac has upon occasion made recommendations, but, we don't typically agendaize specific actions for the cac.

>> and co-founder from cal train. cac chair or appointee make a full report to the full board of director. i would like to see to do the same, so that we can become better acquainted. >> okay. and we have offered that in the past and not recently, but jim laserous did come a few times to make certain statements. but, we could consider that. we will look at that change. >> i have a question about the ac transit rider. the appointee marla wilson. do you know whether or not she is a member of the transbay riders group that meets monthly? >> i don't believe that she is, no. >> that bothers me, that is group that comes to the ac transit about anything on this project and they are important

to me politically, 20 to 30 people and i don't care who they want to serve on this committee. but it will be somebody from that group. because i don't know marley wilson and i called up a couple of people that i knew from the transbay riders and they don't know her and i don't want us picking, and i don't not want to disparage this woman she could be great. if i can't talk to her and have her, you know, at least promise me that she is going to become a member of that group, i don't want her on this body. those are the people that the ac transit board listens to when it comes to the problems with the transbay terminal and the problems with anything to do with this and they really should be the people to say, this is someone that we... because that way you are getting 20 riders, 20 or 30 that are active in that group as opposed to one. so i would oppose to her appointment, because you did

not have a phone number for us so i could not call her. so i could at least talk to her or find out what is going on. i just, we have got a very active group, around the terminal. and we just need to now, they need to be the ones to say, here is our person that we want to listen to about that. >> well, we could do is if you would like chair person harper is just take out marla pending further investigation on that issue and we could appoint the others and then we could bring you... i believe that we... i believe that bob has put out on calls for applicants to apply everywhere and also with the group. >> we have done it with the ac transit. and i don't know, we have not specifically gone to the ridership. >> you have spoken to the rider ship group. >> a couple of times. >> yeah, why don't we do this,

why don't we take mar la out for now and go and reach out to the bus riders group and if she is a member of that and if she will become a member of that, if not let's see if they can provide a candidate, will that work? >> yeah. >> okay. >> so we will take a motion to amend the resolution to remove mar la for now. and approve the other six recommended applicants. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and second and then members of the public wishing to address you on that item? >> i would like to make a comment. >> patrick, and patrick and company. i attend many of these board meetings but you are right, i believe that the cac, is a joke. i am sorry to say that. there is fine people there, but this board takes no notice of their activity in a minimum you should at least have their minutes so that you can see what is going on, what has come

to their. i know that there is one issue about the artwork for the transbay terminal and they wrote the board a letter and no response. i don't think that they are effective and you need to make that order effective. thank you. >> thank you. >> and members of the public that want to address you on that item? >> so with a first and a second? >> harper? >> aye. >> lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> that is four ayes item ten is approved. item eleven. >> approval. >> second. >> no members of the public wishing to address you on that. and believe that harper harper will be abstaining? >> lloyd? >>ite aye. >> reiskin >> aye. >> and that does conclude it

for today. >> we are adjourned. >> thank you. >> this is a special meeting to continue the following items. items 1 a and b for 1084. items

2 a b and c for e h k r t s z to may 23, 2013. >> any public comment on this one item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> our session would have been at 10, but it says to be considered at noon. is there going to be an earlier session at 10:00? on the continuances

calendar we have a joint hearing. i'm with direct connection with the department chair. we won't reserving the board chambers for that maybe 23rd hearing. >> i will move to continue the items that were called to the may 23rd time to be determined. >> thank you. >> that was a second? thank you. >> on that motion to continue said items to may 23rd, commissioner antonini, hillis, moore, commissioner sugaya, commissioner wu a president fong. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and for benefit of the public on the same

calendar section b are items of the recreation and parks commission. that is all for this special meeting. >> any public comments for this special meeting? if none, meeting is adjourned. >> commissioners because your regular calendar was notice to start about 12:15 we have about 3 minutes. >> all right. let's take a break.

>> planning commission. please silence any mobile devices. i would like to take roll at this time. commissioner president fong, antonini, borden, moore and sugaya. commissioners first on your calendar for consideration of item proposed

case no. 1. 2011.1369c. 3682 18th street - on the northeast corner of 18th street and dolores street, lot 027 in assessor's block 3578 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 710.83 and 303 for a proposal to install a wireless telecommunications services facility operated by at & t mobility. the facility would consist of installing four panel antennas on the roof within faux vent pipes with equipment located within the basement. the facility is proposed on a location preference 6 site within a nc-1 neighborhood commercial cluster zoning district and 40-x height and bulk street . 2012.0822c. 1865 post street - south side between fillmore and webster streets, lot 002 in assessor's block 0701 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 249.31, 303. and 712.48, to add a new use size in excess of 4,000 square feet as an "other entertainment" use to an existing restaurant d.b.a. pa ina lounge and restaurantt within a nc-3 neighborhood commercial, moderate-scalee zoning district, japan town special use district, and 50-x height and bulk district. the proposal would add live and amplified music during the restaurant's evening operating hours. >> is proposed for continuances for june 6. that's all i have under matters of continuances. >> is there any public comment for two items proposed for continuances? seeing none, commissioners. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini, borden, hillis, moore, sugaya, wu and president fong aye. that places you under questions and matters. item 3 for questions and comments. >> i read in the paper, golden

gate park. i know the planning department was not involved. it was a cute article. i'm going to pass it around. he was a child who discovered like a hollow on the bottom of a tree and had his father who was a shipbuilder and he built him a door with hinges and knob with all of those things and installed it because there are people living at the bottom of the extremely. i want to pass this around. it's absolutely adorable. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i want to mention that i attended a meeting last night at temple baptist church and i thought that it was a very good meeting for the residents of lakeside village which is where i reside and it

was a discussion for future planning for the m line which runs through lakeside and along 19th avenue which stops at san francisco state and circles back to balboa park station. they had some great input about great change of a line that goes under 19th avenue and that might allow pedestrians to travel under 19th without having to utilizing the station to get from one side to the other which is a great idea because it a very dangerous area. there are a lot of incidents every year with accidents involving pedestrians and by getting the munis and pedestrians off the street, it's going to calm the situation greatly there. anyway, it has a long way to go. it was a very good meeting

and had over 1 hundred people in attendance. >> borden? >> yeah. i want to make everyone aware that they are on the mayor's transportation task force and they are hoping to come up with recommendations by october on how we can make our transportation structure world class and what's unique is all the different agencies including planning and development are planning department and looking at things like long range planning and development are existing infrastructure. you can find the information about this task force and meetings on the website which is a great appropriate place to have that information since so many people visit that website. if you are interested, you can find on the agendas and

presentations related to the task force on that website. if you have questions that you want know bring up, please let me know. thanks. >> commissioners, directors report item 4 directors announcements. >> just two things. there was a question last week about the nature of the approval of the new japan town plan i can't remember the full name of this plan and what type of approval action might be needed. we are looking, it partly depends on the nature of the document. it's up to us, up to the commission if they want to incorporate it into general plan adopted as policy or as another form. we are really somewhat variable depending on how the commission chooses to go and what type of review

might be needed depending on the specification of that plan. it may not require an impact report. if it does, we don't know yet at this point. so as we get into more details of that plan we'll get back to you on more details on that as well. the other thing i wanted to mention is that i will be at the annual planning conference in chicago. i will be out of the office next thursday and campos will be in charge of my absence. the conference is in chicago where the apa office is located. the conference runs from saturday to wednesday of this year. and that concludes my report. thank you. >> just curious, at the conference are you speaking or presenting or anyone from the department speaking? >> there is a number of people speaking on various topics. i will be speaking on saturday

where i'm part of a group of directors that helps to train new planning directors, folks who are newly installed as directors and that's something i have been doing for 3 or 4 years. it a very interesting session. >> next item, please? >> item 5. review of the past weeks of board of appeals. >> good afternoon, department staff here to give you your weekly report. this week at the committee, the majority of public comment and hearing was focused on supervisor wiener's local procedures. on march 14, and hpc considered the proposal on march 20th. both commission recommended two modification. no. 1, the appeal for all type of appeals be extended to 30 days and no. 2 that we provide

clarity for the process where the board acts as decision body. he made the following amendments: first clarification about what the approval action would be and second requiring direct not only an adoptive survey but a recognized survey by the department. 3, limit the filing by a notice of exemption until after a period of appeal. and 4, when the sequel depending party. the sequel a response prior to the closing of that

hearing and no. 5 extending the appeal to 30 days and when the board revise the i r, it maybe reviewed. at this weeks hearing the public raised the same issues. public comment was lengthy and divided neighborhood groups, environmental organizations and both in favor and some opposed to the proposal. there did seem to be concensus for rules of appeals should be codified and both supervisors kim and chiu were interested in increasing notification. our director committed to provide increased online notification for exemptions that would be

searchable. supervisor kim notice it maybe fact reduced to allow appeals until the last approval instead of the first approval which is essentially the situation that we have. supervisor kim announced she plans to introduce an alternative proposal and after this commission continued this issue to be heard on april 2nd. there was a minor alcohol and tobacco control. last week since your hearing supervisor chiu did recommend all modifications and this week they did approve the final modification. they considered supervisor chiu's portion of the northeast ordinance that

was before the board this week which is merely the expansion of the program to allow tdr's to be transferred to all districts in the area and voted to approve this portion of the ordinance back this appeal is the project is before the dr is to construct a 3 story vertical edition in addition to a 2 story home. they had 3 main concerns. first the project would have a significant impact of historic resources and impact to public views and 3rd the dr action is inconsistent with the planning commissions intent required to the front

yard setback. during the dr hearing which is before, the planning commission recommended a total of 3 feet for a total of 5 feet from the wall which will allow greater visibility of the adjacent building. the opponent argued it's offset impact to the historic resource building. if this were in fact a mitigation to avoid a significant impact, you could not be sent to the final review. a design concern to increase street visibility of a building feature on the adjacent properties and as such this change was a condition of approval for the building permit and not a sequel mitigation. given there is no increase impact to the environment with these changes, it should not be considered

mitigation measures to the project. staff also discuss with the board that the overall height of the building would remain shorter than the buildings. and are not designated vista and ocean views would not be blocked by the projected addition. concerns related to the commissions an approved motion and intent do not substitute nullifying the original. there is a hearing before the board of appeals which is the appropriate body to address the concerns does it match the revised conditions and that's been set for may 8th. while supervisor wiener he agreed with the decision and analysis of the department and the board voted unanimously to uphold it. also adopted on final reading

this week where the market street mason historic district for the alcohol restricted use district. most notably as i mentioned earlier for new introductions this week supervisor kim did introduce an alternative ordinance that would amend chapter 31 of our administrative code. we'll bring this item to hearing in both you and historic preservation commission as quickly as possible. our intent is to public our report next thursday to allow us to bring this item before the commission at your next hearings which will be your hearing on april 25th and on may 1st if they do in fact decide to have the hearing. that conclude my board report and i have a short note from the z a about the board of appeals. i will go with that. the