transmission line to provide redundant see to downtown san francisco. you remember there were rolling blackouts that affected downtown and we had reliable services for the cities and supervisors got involved and we're looking at a number of transmission upgrades to the city and endorsed upgrades and this is one of the most important upgrades. right now downtown is served by kb system that runs from the patero substation to the embark substation and there's major concerns if there's an earthquake that happens that that transmission line can be severed and it will take some time to get the power surface up to downtown san francisco. there are a number of proposed

routes for this redundant see upgrade. one would involve submerged port property and i'll show you that route. as i mentioned before the port commission has previously endorsed a term sheet for the proposed project. and we have negotiated significant changes to that proposed agreement for your consideration today. pg and e has been hard at work during the same period of time. they've been working with the california public utilities commission and just recently published a draft mitigated that's under going public comment and review right now. here are the routes that are being considered by the cpcu. there's two upland routes shown in green and red. and then the submerged route is shown in

blue and all three routes would provide this tran mission update from patrero. the blue line would go underneath city streets and then there's directional drilling into the bay just north of pier 30. and that would -- the route would run three miles and then follow the transbay cable up to third street to get to the substation. once at the patrero substation, part of the station is building a new 230 kv switch yard to the existing switch yard in a much smaller foot length. on an anger of the site to the south of pier 70. i've gone over all of this. i'm going to skip this.

there's quite a few approvals required for this project. the cpc is the lead agency there the project. they're analyzing the project from reliability to see if it provides the benefits. cpcu will be collecting comments on their draft mitigated declaration through september 2013 in writing. the board of supervisors will have approval which would come after its complete and there maybe some [inaudible]. there's very agencies that regulate construction in the bay

including the regional water quality board and cd cd that may have to issue permits as well as the federal level at the court of engineers. so getting to the terms of the revised term sheet, the basic premises are the same as what you saw last november. and as is the term which contemplated as a term agreement with one 126 year option to renew up to the 266 years. pg is proposing a pre-paid rent structure so that the ports rent would be collected in a lump sum, actually two lump sum payments in 2014. and we expect $14.8 million divided into two payments. so the water front community benefits policy would

apply so there's big deposited in that fund as well. for the option period rent, pg and e would have the option of paying an annual rent or a lump sum rent, calculated in the same manner as this initial rent. we mentioned when we were here in november that a major public benefit that port staff had been negotiating for was the ability to buy some property right near the patral yard. and it's where pg and e does industry was operations. if you recall 22nd street is planned to be a major interest to the 4th city water front site development and we believe that the city staff level that there needs to be a change of use at this site in order to facilitate that development so

we've negotiated an option price. under the revised agreement the office of he can no, ma'am he can and work force development would have the option and for city development would rezone the hoedown yard. the great fwhing this structure it provides public benefit that the improved land. that's the difference between the $8.3 million that oewd would pay for the property and what it would sale for. would go to a project that's important to mayor lee, the hope six project at patrol which is completing its environmental review. it's a rebuild of low income housing in the city and really a whole new neighborhood. >> another is figuring out how

that existing substation can be improved to allow for all the development in the pier 70 area. this area of the water front has been dedicated to providing power to this city. there was the patraro plant that closed several years ago to the south of pier 7 and the switch yard. as we're thinking about repurposing this area of the water front we have to think about how to treat these old power facilities in a manner that will accommodate growth, so we've been looking with pg and e help with two options, either screening the substation with the utility screen and we go around the perimeter of the project or the substation or enclosing the existing substation in a building. and that's what you see in most of the neighborhoods around the

substation. the larkinsubstation is enclosed. that's a great option as well. under this proposed agreement the city will have a right to select its preferred option and they'll seek the approval for that city preferred option. wrapping up the presentation. the timeline has not changed since we've seen you before. we're in the middle of review that should end at the end of this year. we could be back with a proposed license agreement in early 2014 and construction will start as early as 2015. so as to our recommendations and next steps the resolution before you would resend your prior resolution endorsing that prior sheet and having the staff enter into this revised term sheet and then we would go to the board

of supervisors with the term sheet and our expectation is to bring it to them for their consideration and make sure the terms are acceptable to the board. after the cpuc completes the process then we would come back to you for final action. so that's my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> motion to approve. >> moved. >> second. >> okay. >> any public comment? >> any questions? the preferred route is the blue line? >> yes. >> which is under warrant. that's the most cost efficient we think? >> pg and e would be better -- they would be in a better position to answer that. it's better from the port's perspective because that's the means we're able to charge rent and we think it's cheaper for the project all over than

digging up city streets and putting the transmission. >> it's a blue route? >> the only one we're involved in is the blue route. this is ontario smith representing pg and e. >> the blue line is cost effective. it clears the hurdles and it minimizes public streets. we're not digging through streets which is impactful for the resident. >> my next question is the only line that affects us is the blue line, the orange or green line we have nothing to do with? >> although i think one of the other lines crosses the creek so we have a very small license for a portion of that route. >> the hoedown yard, who is responsible for remediation if there's a need?

>> the site has gone through a regular process. there's deed restriction on the site. we've been monitoring pg and e environmental efforts with respect to the hoedown yard and the power plant site including those lands off shore. and carol bock is our manager who has been monitoring that work. we think the cost to clean up that hoedown yard are pretty small to residential standards in the neighborhood of $600,000. we're buying the property on an as is basis so really what would happen is we would sale the property to a future developer. they would clean up the site if they were going to do residential use or leave it as it is and build a commercial use which is allowed

under current closure. >> so we'll be responsible or the developer -- >> yes. >> where is the yard going to move to? >> we discussed this and the commission expressed a concern that it not move to port property. pg and e heard that. so we can't tell you where it's going to move to. that will be part of pg and e due diligence over this next period of time as finding an alternative location for that use, but i think we can report to you that it won't be on port property. >> thank you. my last question is the 7 water front benefit fund, the $665,000 what is that based on. >> i think that number is wrong. >> me too. >> i need to recalculate that number. if i come up -- >> i come up with closer to

$1.2 million. >> i have to see if the 8 percent reflects the concerns in the schedule, but we'll get that information to you. it will be as we've told you in the past, the contribution to the fund will be consistent with the port commissions adopted plan. >> brad before we take a final vote -- >> by the way, nice catch. >> thank you. >> i am not 100 percent clear on what the revised versed the -- in three or four sentences tell me. >> we've moved from an annual rent structure to a pre-paid structure. we've been contemplating renting structure. we have a new prevision of the substation. that's the major improvement to

this term sheet. we've got rough cost estimates for the value of that. we can't tell you what it will cost but it can be between $10 million and if it's enclosed in a building it can be $50 million of expense. and then the option to acquire the hoedown yard shifted from the port to the office of economic and work force development, i think we concluded at the staff level as the port it doesn't make sense to acquire non trust property for non trust development purposes. >> i understand. that's it, right. i want to be sure that -- >> yes. >> okay. any further questions. >> all in favor. >> i. >> i. >> thank you. >> resolution number 1334 has passed. >> item 14 no business. commissioners. >> no. >> no new business. okay.

okay. >> adjourned. >> can we have a motion to adjourn. >> so move. >> second. >> all in favor. >>

>> commissioner antonini? >> move to continue items 1 through 4 to the data signed. >> second. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? tea aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that passiones 7 to 0 and places you under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will 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, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item

at this or a future hearing. we do have a request from the commission to take item 6 separately, so, we won't be considering that and it's not being pulled off of the consent calendar per se, but it will be voted on separately. so, commissioners, for the first matter under your consent calendar, item 5, case no. 2013.0282c for 2701 - 2703 folsom street, request for conditional use authorization. and items 7a and b for case no. 2011.0053cv for 25 elgin park, request for conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider request for variances. >> is there any public comment on the three items proposed for continuance or sorry, consent? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner moore. >> move to approve item 5 and 7a and b on the consent calendar. >> second. >> on that motion to approve items 5 and 7a, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and will take up the second matter under consent for item number 6, case no. 2013.0128c for 2460 lombard street (a.k.a. 2444 lombard street), request for conditional use authorization. please note that on august 8, 2013 the commission adopted a motion of intent to disapprove and to continue the matter to september 12, 2013 by a vote of 6 to 1 with commissioner antonini voting against. please note that on september 12, 2013 the commission will consider a draft motion to disapprove prepared by staff. i have no speaker cards.

>> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, appears to be none. public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> move to adopt the findings as prepared by staff. >> second. >> on that motion to disapprove and adopt the findings prepared by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner antonini voting against. >> president fong, i have a question. >> sure. >> i'd like to ask the city attorney as to whether or not procedurally we did this correctly.

>> deputy city attorney susan cleveland noel. i don't know of anything in your rules that prohibits you from voting on consent item separately. ~ knolls i think it's unusual from your normal course, but i don't think that it's prohibited by the rules. >> since this project has been very difficult for all of us, very controversial, is and two major cycles over the years, i just want to make sure that we're doing it in a manner that we do not have to revisit it because it is indeed an exception to how we're dealing with this. i've never seen a split in the consent calendar approval and, so, i'm asking you to basically assure us that we are doing this correctly. >> again, deputy city attorney susan cleveland knowles. the commission secretary is usually the entity in the city

that has jurisdiction over your rules. we can consult and advise you in the future about whether this is the appropriate course of action. >> if i may, there are times when you pull items off consent and vote on them separately as well. so, i would suggest it's not dissimilar from that and that this separate vote or that the commissioners choose to vote differently. >> as long as we hold that as a consistent interpretation i'm comfortable. thank you for assuring we are doing the correct thing. thank you. >> thank you. >> item 7b, the variance, close the public hearing inclined to grant the requested variance. thank you. >> thank you, zoning administrator. commissioners, if there's nothing else we can move on to commission matters. item 8, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for august 8, 2013 and draft minutes for august 15, 2013. >> is there any public comment

on the two draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> yeah, i'm looking at the minutes from the eighth. i believe that item 16 is incorrect. that was the one that was 1865 to 18 67 greenwich street. [speaker not understood] we approved the merger, but i recall that commissioners fong, ant anyone i and hillis were not in support of that, phil orlando correctly. if i recall correctly. >> i believe that is correct. >> indeed you are correct, commissioner. i'm looking at my hearing results from the 8th and that correction would be -- is noted. >> great. and i have some other small like editing errors or names and things. i'll submit those to you for -- to fix. >> thank you, commissioner borden.

>> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to actually comment on you probably commenting on small editing errors. i would like to ask that in the audio translation of what we say into meeting minutes, there are a lot of omissions on commas and punctuation so that the meaning of what we say often becomes, for lack of better word, gibberish and why we might speak fast and sometimes the microphone might not pick up what we're saying, the transcript cannot be at the expense of it making sense. i see in my own replication of what i said omissions of words and because of the omission of commas and punctuation, it doesn't make any sense at all. so, for the future, should anybody ever sit down and read this, they'll be saying we are really talking gibberish. i ask that there is an

editorial, at least intent looking at the minutes. for example, page 5 on august 8th, line 3 under my comments, there is on the third line -- it says, really using trend. the word is people using transit. [speaker not understood] it really doesn't make any sense at all. as i go on, particularly with commissioner borden who speaks very well and very eloquently on top of me, i'm saying what she's saying doesn't make any sense either. so, i kindly would like to suggest that somebody take a quick glimpse that at least the sentences are complete. even if you have to invent a word, please do so in order to make -- to have these minutes make sense. >> i did that in a couple spaces, too. same thing was repeated -- [multiple voices]

>> commissioner moore, if i may, this would be the opportunity to correct anything that was not transcribed correctly. i would hesitate to insert words that you don't actually use because then i would be putting words into your mouth. and i don't feel that would be appropriate. it is a struggle to sometimes transcribe what is being said, but my staff does their best job. and then i do my best job actually to relisten to your comments and make the corrections that i feel necessary. but it is difficult, hardly perfect, and i would encourage you to simply, when you receive these draft minutes, to make those edits or corrections to them and i'd be happy to make those corrections now. >> perhaps commissioner borden and i will kind of meet and find some solution of how to do it. we'll take it in stride and obviously want to work with you to make this correct. >> [speaker not understood]

opportunities to send out the audio to an official transcriber to actually do the minutes so that it is actually done very well, but we have to find the resources in order to do that, but it is an option that i've been looking into. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> no, nothing. beat it to death. >> did we approve this? we didn't approve -- >> we still need a motion -- >> we still need a motion for the minutes. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll move to approve the minutes -- >> amended minutes? >> minutes before us two dates. >> as corrected? >> as corrected. >> second. >> second. >> commissioners, on that motion to adopt draft minutes for august 8 and august 15 as corrected, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. and places you under item 9 for

commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> thanks. a couple of things. i'm in receipt of a report from the office of economic and work force development and happy to report that there were some good news. and one of the items was that san francisco is the fastest growing county in private sector job rate growth of 6.1 between 2011-2012. and also that the tech industry in and of itself had created 20,000 jobs in san francisco since 2010. and unemployment rate was down 1.8% from the previous year in july of this year. so, anyway, these are all very good information and there's more in the report, more detail, and it's welcome news.

however, there's one discrepancy that i find in that report based upon other sources. that report stated the employment totals, those employed in san francisco at about 4 86,000 people. in the san francisco business times, with their source being abag, reported the number at 580,000. so, that's a big discrepancy, so, i would ask that, you know, perhaps we can have some research done to find out what, in fact, the total employment in san francisco is at the date that's referenced in that article and establish a little bit more of a accurate figure. secondly, i do want the to report that the subcommittee secretary search subcommittee met yesterday and action was taken to recommend a candidate.

and the presidents of the two commissions have been informed, and they will have to take action to schedule a hearing for the two commissionses to independently vote to accept or reject our recommendations. so, it's been a long process, and i'm happy that it appears that it's headed towards its finish. and i will tell you in more detail about all the things that this subcommittee did over the year plus that we worked on this particular thing and we continue to do more. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> so, two things. i don't know that anyone saw in the paper today, san jose mercury news there is an article that the california supreme court is going to rehear the case that was filed against the city of san jose inclusionary housing ordinance. and i would just like to ask the director, you know, if the city is going to be doing an