economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and thank you very much for joining [gavel] >> good morning, everyone, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, january 29th, 2014. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i'll be chairing this committee joined by committee vice-chair supervisor eric mar as well as supervisor avalos. i want to thank the members of sfgov-tv covering this meeting nona smith and melkonian. and the clerk am i wouldtionv. do we have any announcements? >> yes. [speaker not understood],

completed speaker cards and copies to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will appear on the [speaker not understood] unless otherwise stated. >> okay, thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an resolution authorizing a 10-year lease of 37,289 square feet at 1145 market street, for office space for employees' retirement system from 1145 market street, lp, a california limited partnership, for $119,228.21 monthly for the period of july 1, 2014, through june 30, 2024. ~ monthly. >> ms. [speaker not understood]. >> good morning, chair farrell, [speaker not understood], updike. a quick update. since this is for retirement lease 1145 market street, we are continuing discussions with ownership, hearing concerns loud and clear from both this committee and as raised by the budget analyst, and working to repackage a slimmed down lease with lower fiscal impact and also hopefully a reduced foot print.

we're in discussions with ownership as well as my client, the retirement system on that's correct working closely with the budget analyst's office. we'd like to return on 2-26 at which time we should have a renegotiated lease and an amended resolution for your consideration. any questions, happy to entertain them at this point. >> thank you, mr. updike. i think we'll be able to entertain that. first we'll move to public comment. so, is there anybody in the public wish to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> can i have a motion to continue item number 1 to our meeting on february 26? so moved. can we take it without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> item number 2 is a resolution approving an agreement with the nonprofit owners' association for administration/management of the renewed and expanded property-based community benefit district known as the "central market community benefit district," pursuant to california streets and highways code, section 36651, to commence following board approval. ~ district. >> thank you very much. i believe ms. connor is here

from owd to speak ton this item. thanks for being here. >> good morning, chair farrell, supervisor avalos and mar. today you have a resolution [speaker not understood] renewed recently expanded central market cbd. in order for the city to transfer assessment funds collected by the city, we need to execute this management contract. the document is a template we use for all our cbds and is adjusted for each one. if approved by the full board, it will allow us to transfer the funds as early as next week. we anticipate it will bring approximately over a million dollars to the cbd over the period of fiscal 13-14. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> colleagues, any questions? okay, thank you very much. we do not have a budget analyst report for item number 2, so, i'll move now to public comment. anybody wish to comment on this item? good morning, supervisors. i just wanted to introduce myself.

i'm phrase i ebber line, the central director for the [speaker not understood]. we are very eager to start delivering our services to the neighborhood. particularly, the sixth street corridor which is new to our district. thank you very much. >> okay, thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can i have a motion to send item number 2 forward with recommendation? we can take that without opposition. [gavel] >> madam clerk do we have any other business in front of us? >> no, mr. chair. >> thanks, everyone. we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> joining me is the vice-president with commissioner hwang, hurtado and fong will be absent this evening. to my left is our city attorney and he'll provide any information tonight and victor pacheco. i'm cynthia goldstein, the executive board of director. we have matters before the board. carla is here

representing the bureau of urban forestry and also representing the planning commission commission with the planning department. duffy will be here senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and john fong with bureau and mapping. mr. pacheco please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers and please carry out conversations in the hallway. the procedures are as follows. department representative have 7 minutes to present their cases and 4 minutes for rebuttals. people must include their comments within the 3-minute period. members of

the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting on call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television sf gov tv. thank

you for your attention and at this time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify this evening, please stand, raise your right hand side and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please take note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> thank you, mr. pacheco. we'll start with item no. 1 which is public comment about any item to speak about what is not on the agenda? any public comment? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. item no. 2, which is

the annual election of board of officers. the vice-president and president shall be elected after the 15th day of january of each year. tonight is the first board meeting after january 15th so the election of officers is on our calendar. if i can take a quick minute before proceeding with the meeting, i would like to thank the president. i want to extend to both the presidents how much i appreciate your supporting my work and the work of the board and guiding us through the year. president hwang for a year 1/2. with that stated, i want to start the process with the office of the vice-president and ask if there is any member of the board that would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for this office. >> i wonder is it a good idea for us to put this off until

president wong is here? >> if the board wishes to postpone it? >> that would be my preference. i don't know what my fellow commissioners would prefer. >> i think that will be fine with me. >> okay. just a heads up, i will not be here next week. >> commissioner honda will you be here next meeting? >> yes, i will. >> okay. so we need to postpone until the 19th. is that what the board would like to do? >> i would move to do that. >> commissioner fung, did you have a comment on that? >> it doesn't matter. >> is there any public

comment on the election of officers? there is a motion to postpone this item until february 19th. >> on that motion to reschedule the election of officers to february 19th, commissioner fung, >> aye. >> president hwang is absent. commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? aye. the vote is 4-0. this election is rescheduled until february 19th. >> the next item is 3 comments and questions. any? seeing none, item 4 is the board consideration and adoption of the january 15, 2014, minutes. any changes to the minutes? >> no. >> motion to adopt?

>> i will move to adopt. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you can call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner hurried -- hurtado to adopt the january 15, 2014, minutes. commissioner fung, lazarus, honda. the vote is 4-0. those minutes are adopted. >> thank you. before moving on i want to make sure the parties to item no. 9 are here. with the vice-president's consent i would like to suggest the board to consider whether this item 9 should be heard tonight. a demolition permit. the permit holder is requesting the matter be

rescheduled. with the vice-president, we can give the parties to discuss regarding the hearing date. if the matter is heard tonight, it can be heard in a normal order. if not, they can not sit through most of the meeting. we would start then with mr. yee. who would have 3 minutes to speak on the date of the hearing. >> good afternoon. i'm with the parks and recreation. the parks and recreation department request that we reschedule this hearing to make a decision on the design. the committee has a three phase review on the process. the project has already

received a phase 1 and 2 approval. however, it has come to our attention that the project has not received the final phase 3 approval. this was an unintentional oversight caused by the design of the three separate restrooms and were packaged and heard together by the arts commission at the one and two approvals. out of the three approvals, one has not yet. with phase two, the arts commission has already received the findings. the purpose of phase 3 is for permits and construction drawings and for recreation of arts department to respond to commissions comments from phase 2. the parks and

recreation department has already quoted the comments into design and is confident that phase 3 approval will be granted. the parks and recreation is scheduling the phase 3 approval for the court's at the arts commission civic design review hearing on february 10, 2014, we believe it would be most orderly to hear on this case until the final approval is obtained. that way the board can have benefits of any additional input from the arts commission and review the project in its final form. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kelly? >> madam vice-president, commissioners, i request the hearing be held today. they

received the permit to construct the new structure without approval from the park commission, the arts commission. that's one of the crucial aspects of my proposal today. i was mislead that will phase 3 approval was an enhancement of the previous one, but in fact they got a permit to develop this site without proper authority. okay. any comments from the department? any public comment. if you wish to reschedule, we will. if you don't, we'll move on to the

next item. >> the arts commission has at times modified the design. i think we should get their final approval and proceed with that. >> i agree with commissioner fung. i don't think there is any reason to hear until we review the final phase. >> move to continue to february 19th. >> okay. okay. thank you, mr. pacheco, call the roll please. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to reschedule item 9. 13-076 for february 19th. >> i'm sorry. how does that

work from a point of view? >> i think it's okay. there are items on the calendar that may go away between now and that night. it could be a full night. >> on that motion to reschedule to february 19th, the president is absent. commissioner hurtado? aye, lazarus, fung. this is now rescheduled. >> the next item for a tree removal. this was heard on

january 18th. the matter is continued to allow time for department of water and power to research the replacement of two trees. i think we should hear from the department first since they are the ones tasked to provide the board with more information. you have 3 minutes. >> good evening, vice-president lazarus, department of public works. so at the last hearing the department of public works was asked to replace the property with trees. our guidelines require certain methods be met from the sidewalk and that includes a minimum of 3 feet

away from the gas line. this is a gas meter here. we would want to be 3 feet on center away from that line. the sewer line property. generally we try to exceed these minimum differences as possible but they are the bare minimum that we can allow a tree to be planted by an ordinance. if we mark these two sites, that gives us just over 13 feet between them. 13 feet on center is smaller than normal. there are a variety of trees that could be planted. from

our perspective it would not be ideal. even the columnar variety of trees for the most part has a spread of somewhere between 15-20 feet. if these two trees have seven or six 1/2 feet between them for each canopies to grow, i think we are looking at once these trees mature essentially creating a tree. there would be little competition between the trees for creating space. having said that, there are some species that we could allow to be planted with that distance between them. i'm available for any questions. >> ms. short. for a while they were able to put trees

there. on the alleys. how are they doing? >> i'm not sure. we were able to put them on the alleys but as long as the cap pee -- canopy that is competing with the structure itself. there is a columnar variety. certainly one of the alleys have princeton planting on it. it's an over grown species. but it has a spread about 16-18 feet. that would be competition between those trees. what are the ramifications of the competition? >> it's primarily so you wouldn't see the dive back. i think one of the reasons i was making the point is i think one of the arguments in this

case is the cottage is being screened by this very large tree. if we have them grown together, that would create another screen. it could take time before that happens. i don't think the competition would be so severe that you would see substantial impact to the health of the trees. but there would be some pruning to cut out small dead branches that might be competing. >> sorry, what timeframe are we looking at before they get to the canopy before they are competing? >> it depends on the tree. ironically the up right variety of the gingko is the fastest growing species. probably a number of years, easily 10 before you would see some competition possibly even longer, but it's a little bit hard to predict with