diversity and creativity of beautifully designed architecture from all eras. i live in a historical home and appreciate unique architectural features of my more modern neighbors. carefully designed architecture promotes the unique architectural features of adjacent building and the neighborhood even when the structures are from different eras. the proposed addition for 61 1 buena vista does exactly this by expanding on an award winning design that complements the architecture of its neighbors. this is a very modest project and as a property owner i am concerned about the possible removal of a categorical exemption for a project of such small stature on a nonhistoric building. the project meets all the legal guidelines of the categorically exempt project. if you, the board of supervisors, requires a full c-e-q-a evaluation on this small legally exempt project, i do not see how any project in

the city can be exempt. while i don't have plan to remodel my property, i fear the press department that would be set is the categorical exemption is overturned for this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. board of supervisors, i had prepared comments, but i think all the technical points have been made so i'm now speaking as a homeowner in the neighborhoodv. what i hope is a rational citizen of the city. just listening to the arguments that have been made up to this point, i think we've now exceeded the limits of rational argument and turned a process that's thorough and constructive for the city into a mud slinging match between neighbors. i think it's unfortunate. i've seen projects go on in my neighborhood including next door to my house. they stretch out over multiple years, even modest renovations and it discourages homeowners from investing in the properties that they have. i travel up to the park every day with my son.

i enjoy the park. i use the neighborhood, i use the sidewalks there and i don't object to this project. so, i hate to see what are positive guidelines for the city turned into something that could be used by neighbors to inflict changes on people who are proposing renovations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, board of supervisors. my name is josh davis. i've lived in san francisco since 1 79. i have two children. i live in noe valley and we go to buena vista park quite frequently. ~ 1979 i want to stay in san francisco. i don't want to have to leave a city because my family is growing, and my family is growing and i live in a relatively small house and i'd like to be able to remodel it. and i fear this might set a precedent where homeowners who want to do a relatively small remodel to accommodate a growing family will be subjected to an extraordinarily expensive process and i don't think it's fair. and i think the points have

been made by many other speakers along these lines and i'll just leave it at that, that i'm in support of these builders and their attempt to remodel their house. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? please step up. okay. seeing no additional speakers, public comment on that side is closed. let me ask the appellant if you'd like to use up to three minutes for rebuttal. yes, we would. thank you, president chiu. i'd ask the board to keep in mind here the standard of review before you. there are clearly arguments on both sides. the question is whether environmental review is required. a fair argument standard applies. that means if there is any evidence on the appellant side, any credible evidence that this

project might have a significant impact, then the categorical exemption is set aside. we heard from staff, staff's opinion about things. we heard from the project sponsors, their expert's opinion. but the opinions of your planning commissioners and the neighbors who -- all of the neighbors who actually live on this block are supporting the appellants here. the others that you heard of are from the other block. you have substantial evidence in the record supporting our position and that's what's key. the fear of a precedent setting project is unwarranted and i think -- maybe appropriately designed to influence this board, but it's just not true. the fact here are very unusual. going back to the planning commission transcript, i noted that commissioner antonini, it was stated by someone else here, perhaps the architect, that the project 10 years ago was designed to go down the hill.

that was the agreement that was made, that they would go down instead of up. so, now they've gone down and that was the agreement and now they're trying to go up again. and that's where we see the segmentation. i already explained that yes, normally things go forward, but in this case we have a segmentation that is undoing something before. guideline section 15064.5, c-e-q-a guidelines historic guideline, right, it does not require substantial evidence show that a resource will be de listed. that was incorrectly stated. i'm not sure if ms. tam said that, but certainly the project sponsor attorney did. ~ p [inaudible]. the test is whether a project may materially impair historic significance. it does not mean it's gone. and what you saw from the photographs and what you heard from the planning commission was that that they believe this particular addition that will block the character defining features of these roof lines of

these homes will have an impact on the esthetics of this neighborhood. and those esthetics are covered by c-e-q-a. a demonstrable esthetic effect is subjective and [speaker not understood]. the fact that staff may decide it's not significant, doesn't mean that that is, in fact, something that this board may accept. you must look at the evidence on the other side and it can be subjective. but that's that this may be a potential historic district and this may have an impact on that. those are all things in the environmental study and they just haven't even been looked at here. while this isn't a question of a property report, we showed you the site plans, the actual site plans that were prepared by the project sponsor in fact inaccurate. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. colleagues, any final questions to any of the parties involved today? okay. unless there is any objection, colleagues, at this time this

hearing has been held and is filed. [gavel] >> and the matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank all of the folks on both sides who came out today. i know sometimes our public process is not exactly the most user friendly in terms of people who all have busy and full lives. and i think the fact when we have people coming out particularly on both sides, it shows that everyone is very passionate about their neighborhood and passionate about our community. i remember approximately two years ago, a few months after i took office when we had the first c-e-q-a appeal from district 8, ms. tam also worked on that from ord street, which

was -- makes this appeal look completely harmonious and noncontentious, there was a huge turnout on both sides for that one. and i remember saying at the time that as a district supervisor, when you have lots of your constituents siding with lots of your constituents, it's a lose/lose for you politically it doesn't matter what you do. there are going to be people upset with you. and in a way, it's liberating because when it comes to c-e-q-a it's about applying the law. people are unhappy with you no matter what you do, it makes it easier to focus on applying the law. i also just want to acknowledge another very, very difficult thing about these kinds of appeals and it's very true about this matter, that, you know, sometimes we tend to when

we look at the range of c-e-q-a appeals, we talk about these are the big appeals and these are the really little appeals. and, you know, yes, when you're talking about the cpmcs and the park merceds and the treasure island and the mission bay kind of appeals, those are certainly very, very large projects that have significant and profound effects on neighborhoods and on the city. but i don't like referring to cases like this one or like ord street or other appeals we've had as little appeals. these appeals all affect people. and even if you're talking about a relatively small project in terms of a one-story vertical addition, you know, if the project doesn't happen, that has a real profound impact on the people who are living in the home and wanting to do expansion. they're going to continue to live in that home and they're not going to have that expansion. if you allow the project, you

have a real effect on the surrounding neighbors. and we all know, we all live in homes. when you have impacts in terms of physical changes on your next-door neighbor the neighbor behind you, it has a significant and long lasting permanent effect on the way that you live your life and the way that your house is situated in the neighborhood. so, although this might belittle, quote-unquote, in the range of our c-e-q-a appeals, these projects do have effectses on people, whichever way we rule. and, so, for me i do take these appeals very, very seriously however big or small they are. and i do think it's important out of fairness to everyone to be very, very careful and conscious about applying the standards of c-e-q-a. and i say that in contrast to the standards of a discretionary review. we are not a review body of the planning commission.

the planning commission can make very sometimes subjective determinations about -- make this taller, shorter, set this back or make this change or that change because the commissioners set or points of view, they think something should change. and, so, we heard about a lot of issues today that are very, very, very legitimate issues and disputes, but in my view are more appropriate for a discretionary review or an appeal to the board of appeals that is happening and are not relevant to c-e-q-a. so, in applying c-e-q-a here, it's my view that this categorical exemption was correctly granted and that additional environmental review is not required here. i won't repeat the arguments i heard from the planning department, but i do agree with

them. i want to stress that i talked before about ms. brandt holley setting a precedent. there are times when you need to set a precedent. if there is a c-e-q-a issue and you need to set a precedent, that is appropriate. i believe overturning this cat ex here would be setting a precedent that would be outside of c-e-q-a and would, in effect, turn this body into some sort of review body of the planning commission's discretionary review determinations around views, around shadows, around a number of the things that we discussed. ~ today. so, with that, i do move that we affirm the categorical exemption, specifically the motion is to move item 14 and to table items 15 and 16, and that is the motion.

>> thank you, supervisor wiener has made a motion from the categorical exemption. that is seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any additional questions? before we vote, i just want to note, supervisor mar unfortunately was not feeling well and had to go home so i'd like to entertain a motion that we excuse him for the rest of the afternoon. motion by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor campos, without objection, he will be excused. [gavel] >> with that, if unless there is discussion, let's take a roll call vote on supervisor wiener's motion. >> supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 aye. >> the motion is approved and the categorical exemption is

affirmed. [gavel] >> thank you to the members of the public. and with that, let us go to the adoption calendar, madam clerk. >> items 19 through 21 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. a single roll call today [speaker not understood] unless a member objects, a matter can then be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would any member like to sever these item? supervisor cohen. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to sever item 21. >> tie at thev 21 is severed. members of the public, if you could please leave quietly, we still have a little bit of business to do in front of the board. madam clerk, can you call the roll on items 19 and tae? >> supervisor yee? aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. bravoed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor co-en? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener?

wiener aye. there are 10 ayes. >> those resolutions are adopted. [gavel] >> item 21, madam clerk. >> item 21 is a resolution declaring april 9, 2013 as equal pay day in the city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. colleagues, i'd just like to thank you for allowing me a chance to speak on this item today. i'll be very brief. my throat is hurting. i want to acknowledge my colleagues david chiu, john avalos, eric mar, jane kim, david campos and london breed joining me in the co-sponsorship of this resolution. and let me tell you about the purpose of this resolution. it's really to bring attention to the fact that even in 2013, 40 years after this kung tali has passed the equal pay act, women still earn an average of only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. additionally, according to the u.s. department of labor and

statistics, women earn less in every job classification that has been analyzed for wage disparity. over an average working lifetime, let me tell you what this disparity would actually cost women. it will actually cost american women and her family somewhere between 700 and $2 million in lost wages. so, ail though we're making great strides in this country for aloual rights for women, we're not quite there yet. that's why we have to continue to work together to brick bring attention to this issue. this continues to recognize disparity between pay in men and women. as the employers in our city to voluntarily take a look at their wage policies to ensure that women are being paid fairly. i'd like to take a moment to thank ~ my co-sponsors for the resolution as well as the ones that joined me earlier today on the steps of city hall. i especially want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our partners in labor seiu, did a phenomenal job in organizing the rallies

and along with the department on the commission -- of the department and the commission on the status of women as well as sfwpc. thank you, colleagues. i would urge your support as well. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. colleagues, unless there is any additional discussion, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you read the in memoriams. >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor breed for the late dominic [speaker not understood] crawford. on behalf of supervisor cohen, for the late ms. catherine campbell. and ms. levine stuben. on behalf of supervisor chiu, supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener for the late ms. mabel sue. >> madam clerk, is there any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> are we ready for prime time?

call the roll please. >> chair recognizes the quorum. approval of march 12, 25 and 26 minutes. move and seconded to move approval of minutes of march 12, 25, 26. public comment? just want to say thank you to our secretary for the tedious task for drafting our minutes and be able to correct the misunderstanding that were created by some people that didn't understand

what was going on. so thank you miss hood for that. public comments? we have no public comments today. this is unheard of. all right. we'll move on to item number five -- communications. no comments whatsoever? no public comments on communications. we'll move on to other commission business. is there any? yes, mr. /phor moran. >> just following up on the lake hearing and i thought that was a very useful meeting. i

would just ask staff to return at the appropriate time, hopefully not too far in the future, with an mou with rec parks that incorporates the various discussions that we've had over the past six months or so. >> comment on this issue? >> no. >> i want to reiterate the commitment i made at that hearing. that is to conduct a task force meeting again and make it a regular business for us to do that and any commission is welcome to do that with us as well. it's all about a willingness to be heard and for communication to take place. >> thank you president torres. for those of you who are not aware, labor leaders tend to be like prize fighters and then retiring and unretiring and

retiring again. i do have it on good authority, and i'm going to ask for some assistance from staff, that larry [inaudible] who has been the head of the plumbers union is in fact going to be retiring and i'd like to make sure we don't miss an opportunity here to do reck recognition in some way and i will ask staff to follow up on that. >> that is now confirmed by mr. courtney. i have a long history with mr. mizzola. we will save or remarks for the appropriate time. other commission business? report of the general manager.

>> i'd like to start off with introducing kim mall com. kim has just joined our staff. she comes with a strong energy policy background and experience in the energy field. she's worked for the california public energy commission so she's quite involved in community choice and helping to write the rules there. when she left work for cpc she worked for a non profit in uc berkley so he's also a /prabg /teugs /tpher as well working with communities job placement. i think she brings a very strong background to the san francisco public utilities commission and we look forward to hearing from her in the near

future. >> we'll have some questions. welcome. >> this is my third day. >> this is your third day. no wonder you're still smiling. thank you for being with us and welcome. >> i'd like to call gee lee for the water system improvement update. >> good afternoon. as you know, we've spent a lot of time the past few months working on this comprehensive assessment that will allow us to refine or budget and schedule and that work culminated with the publication on march 22 of a notice of public hearing where you will be asked to consider changes to the wisip and that will take place on april 23. at the program level i want to highlight the fact that we have now passed the 5 million worker hours milestone. this is a

pretty important record. i also have some project level news that i'd like to share with you. as you know, the differing site conditions that were discovered at the site in mid 2012 are by far the largest program changes and i'm happy to report that last week we were able to reach an agreement with the contractor on the terms of that change order. it took two months to negotiate that change order and in the end i think both sides think the outcome is fair and justifiable. on the bay tunnel i wanted to let you know that we extracted the cutter head of the tunnel and we are on track now to start the installation

of the pipeline inside the tunnel in may. this will allow us to get into the existing tunnel by the end of completion of the new irvington tunnel. this is a change that will come at no cost to us and it's a great opportunity for us to work with the water enterprise on a plan to inspect the tunnel while we still have a contractor on sign so that's something that will take place in late 2014 or 2015. we will need to have a lot of coordination with operation staff before we come up with a thorough inspection plan there. another milestone in march --

we issued construction on the san antonio pipeline project and that leaves us with only preprojects in construction. another project in pre/skwr*ubgs -- the regional water ground and recovery project. that project is being issued tomorrow with comments due at the end of may. and finally i wanted to close by recognizing the incredible support we're been getting from our operations staff, especially the two treatment facilities. the staff is doing an outsiding job balancing the need to accommodate all the construction activities at both plants, while at the same time minimizing operational risks. at one plant right now some of the performance testing has

been delayed. we're only a couple weeks from substantial completion there, but because we are delay /w-d some of that testing, the plant needs to remain operational drawing furtherer down some of our local /rez . >> thank you. >> any questions? thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> public comment on the general managers report? consent calendar. >> item eight, approving amendment one and authorize to execute a journal amendment for a timeframe of one year with no change to the contract amount.

any comments? a motion to approve the consent calendar. all in favor say i. opposed? motion carries. and we're down to our regular calendar, item number nine. >> item nine updated debt management procedures. >> here today we have an update of the debt policy for you to consider you and i've asked our debt manager to share with you the policy. >> we have a presentation. >> can we have the