>> i would like to thank all the members of the community who came here today. i think we have an agreement and the marsh is a unique treasure for our city and that we have to be very serious when it comes to preserving all sorts of arts and nightlife and theatre uses in the city. i know that i and others on this board have worked very hard to try to

foster an atmosphere in the city where various kinds of arts and nighttime uses are valid because sometimes they haven't be very valid in the city. so it's in incredibly important and we agree on that. i think we've also seen today that as is always the case in san francisco that we are deeply passionate about our naebts -- neighborhoods for those who have lived in our neighborhood for a long time and for those who have arrived more recently, we love these neighborhoods and work hard to improve them and to make sure they remain the special places that they are. this neighborhood is no different. it is a mission liberty hill. this is an absolutely wonderful

area. and it's not surprising to me that there are so many people who are passionate about the neighborhood. with all that said. this appeal before us today is a ceqa appeal. the not a discretionary review. when you have discretionary review of like thg part of the project and not and making changes. in fact if this were conditional use it would give us the same flexibility. ceqa is much of the different thing and this board in particular which hasn't always been in way. one thing this board has done is to apply ceqa and apply it under our obligation to apply ceqa as

adjudicate oris of these appeals. sometime we have our open opinion about what i like about this or don't like that or i wish that were different and if it's not a ceqa issue and for the appeal. when you look at this project first of all it's in the zoning. you can like the eastern neighborhood and not, like it or not, even neighborhood is a law of the city. it was passed by the previous board of supervisors and signed by the mayor. it is the law. this project is within that zoning. there is no parking minimum for this project under eastern neighborhoods. again i know there is a lot of issues about

disputes and different opinions about the maximum and there was a discussion about not to have parking in these areas. when we look at ceqa rgs i do believe, that this negative declaration was supported by substantial evidence meets the legal standards and i believe it should be affirmed. the issues that have been raised i think were adequately addressed within the negative declaration. the preservation issues both by the planning department and the historic commission and have been adequately addressed as well. i will be making a

motion to affirm the negative declaration to move item 26 and table items 27 and 28. now with that i do want to make a couple of comments and i want to ask the project sponsor or his attorney to come up because i do believe that i do want to see if the project sponsor would consider again this is separate from ceqa, i don't think there is a ceqa issue here, but i know there is a pending appeals and the board of a n appeals can alter condition and take marsh into full consideration. i know the planning commission as part of

discretionary review limited the construction hours from the normal 7 to 8:00 p.m. and i'm wondering if the project sponsor would consider asking the board of appeals to cut down to 730 :30 p.m. and the mark is concerned about the residents who move. when people move into areas where there is an existing nighttime use and go to war with the nighttime use when it was there. so there are, as a suggestion that the existence of the marsh and the fact that it is nighttime use, the fact that it will emit

noise and it can be loud and applause and people will be coming and going at night and that will be disclosed to residents and they indicate they have received that notification with a signature so and this is one of the things that the marsh has requested wondering if the project sponsor would consider that. we can put those two out there. >> i think both of those are reasonable request and certainly things we will consider. as you just mentioned this body is not at a little bit at this moment to condition the project in this way. certainly those are valid concerns and if the board imposes that, we would agree

with that. reducing the construction hours is going to reduce the construction. if there is no performance why wouldn't we get another hour or two of construction. moving on to your issue about self disclosure, that's not a problem at all. we would agree to mitigation measure. >> there is also a construction relations officer and if we are going to be on staff as who is going to be available with the liaison. >> mike. we will appoint anybody. meanwhile they have my cellphone. they can call me at

any time. we will a point a liaison. >> okay. i don't think any of these issues are ceqa issues. but i just wanted to put those out there. i know you have a board of appeals hearing that is being held if the environmental document is affirmative tonight and the board of appeals can make an amendment. i wanted to put that out there. back so ceqa, my motion is to affirm the met gated nag deck. >> all right. any more discussion? >> thank you, mr. president, i want to thank all sides of this

issue and there is department for their presentations and supervisor wiener for his comments, i have a different perspective here and the thing about ceqa or any issue depends on how you define it. sometimes this board chooses to have a very narrow definition of ceqa and a very broader definition of ceqa. i do think that based on a ceqa analysis this appeal has merit. if we are talking about the merits of the project and non-ceqa issues, i would be talking about the larger issue of whether or not there is a need for more luxury housing in the mission. i think that's a legitimate question and one that i think should be dealt with and addressed in light of that is displacement that is happening throughout the city

but especially in neighborhoods like the neighborhood when it comes to artist who are an endangered species. but that is not the focus of this appeal. it is ceqa and i'm concerned about the analysis that's been provided and i have a lot of respect for planning. but i don't think that there has been sufficient consideration of the changes in this neighborhood. i don't believe that there has been adequate consideration of the impact environmentally that this project will have on the marsh and it's not just saying that you did the analysis when the very institution that you are talking about is not even mentioned in the document. i think it's pretty hard to come here and say that you give it due consideration. i also have concerns about the fact that

even though we are not talking about ceqa. we are talking about asking the develop er to do something to interact with this community that should have been done a while ago. i am concerned that no meeting has taken place sense september of last year. so, for all those reasons, i will be voting against this motion. you know, this is one of those interesting cases where even though this is one of those cases that is not in my district, this is a project that impacts my district tremendously. and i think that we are unfortunately by some of the actions that we have taken putting ourselves in a position where we tell people that we are transit for city but we don't really do anything within what the environmental law allows us to actually acquire

mitigation by the people that come forward with these projects to make sure that we are a transit first city. so i think this is one of those cases that ultimately depending on how it goes could set a very good or bad precedent. i like no parking projects and i appreciate the comments from the bike coalition and walk sf. but, the mere fact that you are the that kind of project is sufficient without looking at the over all impact that this project has with the analysis that in this case in my opinion is lacking. i will vote against the motion. >> i'm not in correspondence

with the not parking provision whether you have a senior or children and extracurricular activities. i believe that our transit we talk the talk about being transit first but in reality we are not a transit first certainly on the east side of the city. supervisor campos, on potrero avenue. it's a little wags -- ways from this project and nonetheless we deal with challenges that we are waiting for mta to help us to address. a no parking solution, i don't know, it just seems too finite and should be a little bit more flexibility. thank you. >> colleagues any further discussion? let's take a roll

call vote. >> supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, no, supervisor breed, aye, campos, no, supervisor chiu, aye, supervisor cohen, no. supervisor ferrel, aye, supervisor kim, no, supervisor mar, no, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye. there are 6 ayes and 5 was nos. >> the mitigation is affirmed. we have a lot of items in front of us. i suggest we go briefly to columns. there are a lot of people waiting to hear our discussion. please call item 14.

>> 130799. >> [roll call vote taken] supervisor breed, aye, campos, aye, supervisor chiu, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, ferrel aye, kim aye, supervisor mar, aye, tang aye, supervisor wiener. ordinance is passed. item 15: 130937 administrative code film production daily use fees film rebate program. ordinance amending the administrative to code to reduce daily use fee for film

productions. >> supervisor ferrel. thank you. i want to thank the supervise for your support in this measure. there is a number of productions applying for the number of rebates that continue to rise. the film media program always been about jobs in san francisco and by supporting our arts in the community as our technology community continues to grow and unquantifiable ability for our city to be on the big screen on our tv screen and the city pride that comes with it. the most recent legislation, when no city space was available to help securing called looking that will fall for a game in san francisco. the core of the legislation

today although it has a number of parks to include the program web series with eligible productions. netflix is house of of cards is a great example on a web series which i know lly a number of colleagues on the board have expressed enthusiasm for. the legislation that we have here we need to i want to make sure the program evolves with it to make sure we capture it in san francisco. i hope to have your support. >> can we take this same house

same call. >> mr. president, i don't see supervisor yee. >> okay. roll call vote. >> [roll call vote taken] >> supervisor avalos, breed, campos; hee, chiu, aye, cohen aye, ferrel aye, kim aye, mar aye, supervisor tang, aye, there are 10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed. item 16: a resolution to support the fleer 2014-2015 community development block grant and the mrnl solutions grant and house is opportunity for persons with aids consolidated plans.

>> [roll call vote taken] there are 11 ayes. >> resolution adopted. item 17. forgivable loan agreement for the department of housing and community housing and community housing. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank my colleagues. last week on hearing this item as you can tell this item is a an item that both sides feel very passionately about. i want

to request that we continue this item to the next board meeting. >> thank you supervisor jays on from the mayor's office. at the supervisors request about an hour-and-a-half ago we contacted state hcd and with were able to secure a 2-week extension on the state deadline which is good news. the mayor's office and office of hope intend to use 2 weeks to make the case and the supervisors office of course excuse myo mission will continue to make the case as to why this is a good project and we hope to answer any questions about that and we look forward to november

19th at this point when the board will hopefully accept this loan. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> please, i hope you will be able to honor this continuance. >> supervisor cohen has moved this item for thethe 19th of november. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i appreciate the dialogue but my understanding was that the continuance could jeopardize the grant. so i'm wondering or the funding when you are talking about you got a hail mary and you got it. is there something in writing that says that. what kind of garrette guarantee do you have this money will be there if we wait for 2 weeks. >> sure, no problem. the money

is not in danger of being lost. it's a contact between me and the mayor's office. >> i appreciate that. is this something in writing that says that. with combrants there is a deadline. i'm wondering if you have something in writing from the agency that says that? >> supervisors dave of human services agency. i was in contact with the state by e-mail at 6:00 tonight they will confirm to us in writing by tomorrow. yes we have the director of hcd's word that we have a 2-week continuance. >> supervisor campos? >> do have anything in writing to confirm now? >> not unless i check my e-mail. it was a conversation in a text we had about 6:15

>> that's with whom? >> it's with randy deans, the executive director of housing and community development at the state. >> supervisor? >> okay. supervisor kim. >> i will support the continuance. i just wanted to acknowledge that we have a lot of members of the public who waited since 2:00 on this item. i see them here. i just wanted to thank you for being here. i recognize you as you spoke. i apologize that you have been here for 5 hours waiting for this item. i understand the position that supervisor cohen is in and the additional discuss she would like to have in her neighborhood. i am supporting the continuance. i think it's important to recognize all of the folks that stayed here all of these hours. their fou being here and the support of the amazing organization in the bayview. i

was really appreciative of the comments and i was touched by many of the things that you said and i thank you for being here. it showes your dedication and i know there are many people on the street and it's amazing to see your commitment here. >> i would like to add what we hope to achieve with the continuance. my presence is that we have a community divided on this project and yet i was very impressed with the proponents of the shelter and the way the shelter was discussed. there was a real strong community around the shelter and around people who are involved from the neighborhood directly with the shelter that i thought was very rare in san francisco. so if

one thing that can happen with a continuance is that there can be some consensus built from both sides. i want to approve the shelter and i think it needs to get done. so i would like to see if it's brought together on that goal. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. i appreciate what people said and, i will defer to the district supervisor and hope that we can get to a resolution. the one thing that i would say and i would ask the mayor's office if for some reason not that i'm being paranoid, it turns out that in fact we lose the grant or

funding because of the delay, i would hope that we would find a way to make sure that money is available through other sources so that at least that it's not the reason why something that for many of us is badly needed and doesn't go forward. >> supervisor mar. >> it doesn't seem like it's going to be jeopardized. i think at the hearing it was very powerful. supervisor cohen really needed to be reached out more generally by the mayor's office and by our homeless services folks and this allows her to work with more with those divided toond come up with an effort to bring together that community. i

would hope to say that many people from the community i really appreciate it for being here tonight. this allows our colleagues to allow supervisor jones. so i'm supportive of the continuance. >> colleagues, any addition discussion. on the motion to continue. can we take the motion to continue without objection. why don't we go to our second 3:00 p.m. order. please read items 29-32. >> item 29, public hearing

conditional use appeal. hearing of persons interested in our objecting to the planning commission approval on september 19th. >> we have before us the appeal of the project on taraval street to allow for a facility within the preschool was appropriate. as we have done in the past. we'll proceed as as follows.a i'm sorry. that project description is incorrect. this is for a wireless telecommunication facility.

>> my apology. >> madam clerk can you call item 18