effort. and we do believe that it is a good start but very much is a plan that we need to build on i think in two significant report respects. not just to take the plan and take a breather. this plan aoe peneds on a lot of active advocacy in sacramento and washington to try to make the progress that we need to make here. >> the most obvious on the land use side is the fact that the same legislature that gave us this charge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through smarter growth is the one that took away the redevelopment authority which might have been the best tool to achieve that and so we are working closely with the senator's office on trying to fashion some kind of a redevelopment and framework and some replacement or series of replacements so that we can get that roughly one billion dollars of investment that was occurring in the bay area flowing again and in

transportation we are look forward to the self-health motto to continuing we think that it would be more viable if we had something closer to the majority vote for those ballot measures in stead of two-thirds. even though this city and some of your counter parts around the region have been successful and there are other counties that have not and we think as a matter of fundamental, we ought to have a voting standard that gives us more of a fighting chance. and finally we also acknowledged in this plan, that there are, i think pretty important subject areas that we were really only able to scratch the surface of and the one that i will mention in closing is the question of adaptation to climate change, this plan like a like of efforts these days dealing with global warming is trying to mitigate the effects of our own life styles on the planet by reducing the amount of

emissions that we make per capita, that is the mitigation part. the fact is though, that there are a lot of emissions already up in the atmosphere and the one that we need to worry about the most is sea level rise, if you look at a map of where it is and these pdas are and a lot of them are in the indunation zone. it makes sense for a lot of other reasons and i suppose that we could put a lot of growth on the tops of hills, and that would give us above sea level rise and defeat a lot of other purposes that we are trying to serve here. i will conclude on that point with the time line which shows you where we are headed, and which we hope is a july adoption, i know that several members of this board will be involved in voting on that. either as members of abag or

mtc and we will be happy to answer any of your questions today. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much. commissioner mar? >> thank you, i wanted to thank them for the regional public hearings that have been going on as well. i see from the east bay and other places how much you get beaten up for trying to plan wisely and how to for a more sustainable future and to reduce the greenhouse gases as well. dy want to ask, i know that there are different proposals from the right and the left that are brought up from the equity organizations and environmental groups on the left and on the right. tea party to libertarians and others. and i am just wondering if you could comment on the san francisco hearing that and helped it from bcdci and which weiner attended as well was fas

fascinating and if you could give us a feedback from counties and i know that marin county is coming up on april 29th. and another one on the 29th. and then may first on may day, alamena county and if you could give us some input and that is coming in from the regional counties. >> supervisor, they do say that beauty is in the eye of beholder and that is the case with this plan, using merin as an example. they comprise about 4 percent of our region's population today. and this plan assigns to them about 1 percent of the housing growth in the future. and you would think that we were bringing in a foreign invading army. some counties clearly think that any amount of growth is going to be destructive of the

lifestyle they enjoy. and other counties like this one, i think are anxious to take on growth in the right places under the right conditions, and as you know, one of the principle issues that have been raised about growth here as well as the other cities in the region is the question of displacement and the concern that when we do reenvest in some of these areas, where we would like to grow, that we make sure that we have adequate protections and opportunities for the residents who are already there. so, that sort of spans the spectrum, and i think that we are going to have a difficult challenge trying to please both of those faction, but i would acknowledge and i think that this was in response to a question that you may have asked at the last meeting that we had. that we have looked at a series of alternatives in the environmental impact report for this plan. and one of them was designed by the business communities and

another one by advocates for low income and minority populations and i think that we are able to mix and match to a limited extent in facing a plan, it is not something that we have done in the past but i think that will be the opportunity that we have principlely in june and july to see whether there are some places where we could nip here and tuck there to produce a better plan for the region as a whole. >> and i know that abag and the new deputy about them getting the estimates verses the state and i was wondering if merium could address that and that is a key point that some of the tea party and other folks are honing in on. >> there was relief in the

department of finance population projections of about half of where we are including in the plan, so we are seeing about 2 million, and the department of finance will be some numbers for the region for the numbers indicating that the population is expected to grow only by one million. and we have a series of meetings and conversations and we had a public discussion where we explained what were the different targets under the plan? and under the department of finance projections, the department of finance projections is primarily based on a demographic model, where they see the fertility rates and the mortality rates, with the small component of the migration and the jobs and they do not include economic trends and that is what led to this very low number. and yes, there have been

several concerns about the numbers being too high and steve indicated that the spectrum was broad and there are people that said that we need to stop the population growth. that is not under our purview. and we have assessed. >> and at the general assembly last week, in concerns about the senior population, booming from the baby boom to the senior boom and you mentioned that two-thirds of the potential growth will be senior and i am wondering how abag and the mtc are anticipating the senior boom and how we will address that with jobs as well. >> that is one of the components that really alines with the concept of the priority to have the housing close to transit and jobs and close to services hops and healthcare facility and it remains to be seen what will be

s choices and the housing types there is an expansion of the care facilities for the senior population. we think that with this framework, we are creating or providing a framework for aaccommodating that will accommodate that growing population. >> i am anticipating that as a baby boomer that will be here as soon and i don't know if avalos is on that cusp but there are two of us on this eleven member board, but thank you. >> i have always wanted to be a baby boomer. >> okay. colleagues any other comments or questions? >> we would like to thank you for your presentation, and thank you for being here, and thank you for your great work

on this. this has been, abag for a couple of years and a lot of work and a lot of effort involved both of the agencies bringing this together and still a ways to go but thank you for all of your efforts. >> okay. >> this is an information item. colleagues, so we can go on to our next item. >> public comment? >> public comment on this item. very sorry. >> any member of the public that would like to comment, please come forward. >> give me one second. it is a bit slow. >> give him one second there is a bit of a lag. >> will you mind using the other mic? i am having difficult. >> thank you my apologies. >> and 140. and could you reset the time? >> yes. the pot holes

and it is just, it is hard to understand where the money is going, and as far as the muni situation, i think that you know, we need to focus in on fixing what we have now, and instead of trying to expand, i think that the subway was a real bad state because i believe that will take away services and in addition to that, no doubt it will have an impact on gentrification in china town and that is one way to get rid of the poor people. >> i would imagine that many of the homes are condos that are developed there and would be second homes for the people who are leaving abroad. and that is the wrong type of housing as you know.

and with the limited opportunities in san francisco it is important that we stop and try to figure out, that we are not building the housing and we just heard from the report that two-thirds of the growth will be seniors and seniors, and it will be in the able to afford these new condos and i think that we need to now look at perhaps, a lower rate, you know, affordable housing where seniors could leave and also, in regards to nursing care that type of thing has to be addressed, hospitals. and our those are things that i know that it is not part of the trend of your committee but as city leaders, you have to have four sight as to what is going to happen in the next 30 years and i think that we have to fix

what we have, or fix where we or what is broken now and we know what is broken now, and and to ignore it, i think that it is a major problem. okay? >> is that my time? >> that was your time. >> thank you. for your comments. >> any other member of the public that would like to comment, please come forward and we will close public comment. >> okay. that was an information item. again, thank you for the presentations and we will go on to the next items. >> lefb, introduction of new items this san information item. >> colleagues, any new items or issues? >> no we will go on to public comment. >> and public comment is opened. and seeing no p member of the public to come forward we will close public comment and our next item? >> number 12, public comment. >> now we have general public comment and this is for any member of the public to speak to us about any item not on the

agenda and we will close public comment. >> and our next item. >> 13, adjournments. >> we are adjourned.

we will start with the roll call. (calling names). for those of you who are not aware commissioner dorothy lou resigned at our lastometer and hopefully next meeting well have somebody sitting on that seat >> first agenda is matters appearing or not appearing on our agenda in our jurisdiction of our commission. no one? okay. let's move on to possible action from a request from jonathan and mayor lee conduct

coincide on behalf of mr. paralleling man a left hand architect on the historic preservation commission >> thank you i'm jonathan i'm a practicing architect here in san francisco and now serving on the prehistoric commission. >> i'm quite honored by mayor lee selecting me to position to be able to serve the supply in a a captain that i both love and care about historic buildings in san francisco. and in my practice over the last 18 or 19 years i continue to work on projects throughout san

francisco. they do account for about 70 percent of my business is in san francisco or projects in san francisco. so given the fact the seat that i sit on in the prehistoric preservation commissions has is credentials that i hold. there is is clearly a conflict with section 225 will 4 with presenting my work to - continuing my work or the plan checkers in the planning and building inspection. i have a small firm i had since 1995 in the city and i was up to about 7 people in the 2000 these now we're up to four for the

most part my projects don't are not credit card before the administration. one project in a particular the alexander theatre outthink a boulevard is my roenlt and we have a hearing this thursday and there's no one in my affirm that has the information to be able to present the projects. i have one left hand architect who works for me and hope to have one or two more so in the next month's. so if other projects do move along and a do need to be presented i can have staff working on the projects. the large projects have

professionals involved to present those projects. so i'm asking inform a waiver to continue my livelihood as long as serve on the prehistoric committee >> any questions? >> what would you do if you worn out granted this waiver. >> i won't be able to serve the big conflict is not appearing before the commission but that i work with planners and staff in the building department and the planning dependent on various projects. obviously anything that is a

conflict on that board i will recuse myself. i would go everything i could to have someone else presents those projects. but this is really related to ongoing work with staff. >> my understanding is the remit for seat number 3 are very difficult to find is that your experience? an architect historian that you but more or less in our experience how many people do you find with your backyard. >> there are historian who

don't work in the field and there's historian that are not architects so there are a few people who cross over. >> any information as to whether or not in the past minute who served in the seat that you're sitting in the 3 has also sought a waiver? >> the commission was started in 2009 as a propose j so there's only been one person charles. and charles is a partner in a very large firm is any project that is handled by his first name business it - i don't think he asked for a waiver because there's many staff workers in

his firm >> so your sense is that because he had a lot of associates and a lot of other architects when we went before the planning commission even though it was his affirm he might have seen a principle that that was deemed sufficient separation? >> you kn >> you know architectural research project i don't know the significant amount of work in san francisco there might not have been a lot of work in san francisco but again, if it's a staff member that's handing a project that would be would take away the conflict. >>

. >> on their own so, yes, of course, i'd like do everything i could from taking advantage of my position. >> anything further? the mayor's office has a representative here from his office >> good afternoon. i'm the mayors appointed secretary. i'd be happy to answer any you questions that you have whether it's mr. pearlman >> that was unanimously approved by the board of supervisors? >> yes probably about a month ago. >> how many candidates did you look at?

>> so overall we started vetting candidates for 4 seats on the commission maybe in november of last year there were 4 terms that expired the end of december. and so we have had a 60 day window january 31st, 2013. so during that process we seriously reviewed between 25 and thirty candidates. for this seat in particular after speaking candidates we narrowed for this seat to 3 serious candidates >> how many of those candidates were with small firms? >> no one other.

>> did you discuss the waiver issue with your interviews? >> yes, it is something we discussed to make him be sure that he go through this process since his work is so often for the city. >> were the other candidates willing to forego a waiver? >> it wouldn't have required a waiver. >> what about mr. pearlman - i've certainly read the letters and the argument in support but what about mr. pearlman distinguishing him from other candidates you went with a candidate that needed a waiver? and the other candidates were

fantastic they wanted to serve the city. but mr. parallel man's qualifications philosophy matched what the mayor wanted and besides the fact he is a small business person we feel was important. through his past practice expressed the importance of a philosophy that we share. with him that the other two candidates did not necessarily express as strongly. we found him to the best candidate and most aligned with the philosophy of candidatescy. >> can you sky to articulate that philosophy? >> yes absolutely. what we were were really looking

for is a pragmatic approach as commissioner pearlman does but also tries to make it a pal table thing for the public not a scar i didn't. it was really somebody who had had experience in san francisco and he has done that through the harding theatre. and has really had a first-hand experience with residential southerners around preservation as well as on a more grant scale so we found him to be a pragmatic candidate. it's impacts on the community an

approach towards preservation that benefits the community now and into the future >> thank you. welcome. any other questions? >> not at this time. >> do you have a motion? >> i move that we grant the waiver. >> i'd like to hear public comment first? >> any public comment on this request for a waiver. >> i don't know mr. pearlman we met briefly 10th at the beginning of the meeting.

i'm generally concerned about granting of the waivers but i think to fill this seat is difficult. it does call for specialized skills and he meets those qualifications and does work in the city that's why we've got the waiver process. my only brief comment it would have been helpful had the waiver request come in sooner perhaps at the time of nomination. i believe the appointment was granted on march 12th so mr. pearlman has sat for 3 meetings? 2 meetings. it would be helpful to get a