>> good afternoon, today is the commission community investment and infrastructure. today is may 20th. >> should i start again in >> good afternoon, everyone this is the commission on the community investment and infrastructure, today is tuesday, may 20th, i would like to call it to order at 1:10. >> call roll. >> commissioner members respond. >> ellington? >> present. >> mondejar. >> absent. >> singh. >> absent. >> vice chair rosales. >> here. >> and chair. >> here. >> and the next order of business sit em two, announcements, a, the next schedule meeting will be a

regular meet on tuesday, june third at one p.m., city hall, room 416 b. please be advised a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the commission adopts a shorter period on any item. it is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission should fill out a "speaker card" provided by the commission secretary, and submit the completed card to the commission secretary. >> item three, report of actions taken at a previous closed meeting, no reportable

actions and the next is four items of unfinished we have no business. >> and five, matters of new business, consent agenda, 5 a, approval of minutes, april 15, 2014, madam chair? >> thank you, everyone should have received the minutes and is there any public comment on the minutes? >> i have no speaker cards, madam chair. >> thank you very much. >> any changes, or other comments on the minutes? from fellow commissioners? >> i would like to entertain a motion. >> commissioner rosales recused

herself for one of the items in the meeting and i think that your vote says that you recused yourself saying that you were not part of that discussion. >> yeah, i mean that i was absent, but i can, i mean if... >> and i will move to accept the minutes. >> thank you very much. is there a second. >> second. >> madam secretary, call the rolls. >> announce your vote when i call your name. >> ellington? >> yes. >> mondejar, is absent. >> singh, absent. rosales. >> yes. >> johnson. >> aye. >> the vote is three ayes and two absent. >> next item please? >> we are going to the closed session now? >> chair johnson, would i recommend that we now move to the closed session, item, after you take public comment. >> okay, no i thought that we were going to. so, madam secretary. sorry, i got it. all right, so, that we are

taking the closed session prior to our regular agenda. and so, are we saying take general public comment before the closed session and then after again? >> just see if there is any public comment on the closed session matters. >> okay. >> the agenda reflects the item of the closed session, the actual okay. >> is there any speaker cards for a closed session item? >> i have no speaker cards, madam chair. >> okay. >> is this on the... and it should be on the agenda. >> item ten on the agenda. >> take a look at that. >> okay, we will give everyone a minute and then we are going to call the closed session

>> okay, i would like to give those who would like to have a comment on the closed session item an opportunity to put in a speaker card now, and announce themselves or otherwise we are going to call a closed session and all members of the public will need to leave, in fact, anyone who is not directly related to that closed session item will need to leave the room. >> thank you. short recess to clear the room, and then we will come back for closed session, and i believe that we have two commissioners who are absent right now but they are coming and let's make sure that we keep an eye out for them. madam secretary, are we ready to go? >> i am ready.

we are ready. >> oh, yes, yeah, sure. >> okay. thank you, everyone for your patience, and i would like to call the commission on community investment back to order at 1:58 and we are going back into the regular agenda and we have a special guest with us here today, scott weiner who wants to say a few words and so please come on up and thank you for coming today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you very much for giving me a brief opportunity to make a few remarks about an item that is a little bit later in your agenda relating to street clearance and the 100th point shipyard and the candle stick point project. and so, commissioners we learned about a month ago or as you will recall, back in 2010, after many years of community process, and community support, and approval by the board of supervisors, this plan was

approved with 20 feet of street clearance to the standard ten feet lane, and ten-foot lanes on the residential side streets and which is good, standard urban design in terms of livable, walkable streets, and that is what was approved by the board of supervisors. and we learned about a month ago, and that unbenouned to any of us, two of the city departments the fire department and the department of public works had between themselves agreed that the streets will be widened to 26 feet, clearance on, i think, basically all of the streets including the residential, side streets and this change, in addition to being inconsistent with the plan that was approved by the board of supervisors is a total violation of accepted street design standards and the various policy pronouncements of the mayor, of the board of supervisors of the voters that

we want the livable and walkable streets that are safe for all users including pedestrians and we know that we have an epidemic of pedestrians being hit and killed on the streets and we know that although, enforcement and education for road use are very important, that all of the education and enforcement in the world is not going to get you very far, if you don't have well designed streets and we have a history in this city of widening streets and whether it is geary or chavez or other streets in the 50s or 60s that were ruined and turned from the neighborhood streets into semifreeways in the name of having wide streets to maximize the car through put and we have been spending many tax payer dollars for years to try to fix those mistakes and make the streets more walkable to build the build outs and the sidewalk extension and to calm the traffic and we know that when you widen the streets, the traffic will move faster. and there will be more accidents, and those accidents

will be more severe. and so, we and we have the hearing at the land use and economic development committee because although, this project is in one part of the city, not only is it the largest project in the city, it is a city wide significance, because, if this is allowed to happen, it will set a precedent for the rest of the city, and we will now have a new standard of wider streets for the development in san francisco. and that is very much a city wide issue. and it really not only is a problem, in terms of when you do a development agreement, when does it actually done? and could a few of the departments come back a few years later without any process and say, wait we want to change this and widen the roads which means cut back sidewalks and reducing the number of square feet available for housing and so forth, and just, make those changes. and does the development approval process actually mean anything? and in addition, this will

absolutely set a new base line standards for street width in san francisco and it is a significant policy change, and i don't think that it is a change that we should allow to happen because two departments got together, and decided that they thought that that was right. and neither the mta or the planning department, has agreed to these changes and these are the two agencies that are actually charged with good street design and with our transportation policy in san francisco. and so, commissioners, i urge you not to allow this to happen, and to do what you can do to make sure that the original approved street clearance, 2010 is honored in the community and we are working with the city attorney's office now, and it is too late to legislate on this project and but for the future we are going to be making amendments to the fire code and the other code to make sure that this does not happen again and so i very much appreciate a time and

opportunity to convey my viewpoint on this. >> thank you very much for coming today and we appreciate it. and for those who are not aware, supervisor weiner's remarks are in relation to item 5 f which we will be hearing later as a workshop item today and i would like to go back to the regular agenda item, call the next item. >> the next item of business is regular agenda, item 5 b, authorizing a settlement agreement and the release of claims in the lawsuit, entitled

yerbabuena consortium. >> public comment? >> no, before. >> we still will have general public comment, and but i would like to move into our open session. >> in the process was from just like how you allowed the supervisor to speak. that is a subjective opinion, okay? and so, and you and announced somebody to speak on that? and then you should have... and now, i am saying this because we come, we, the constituents who have been in the use have come here to speak up, and don't dilly dally and if you look at this thing you will have your discussion or whatever, and whatever on number ten, but there is no action. and if you want to take no action, then you can have that conversation under the three,

but don't, and no here, and you have... and we have to go out and we are kept out and then you conduct yourselves and without following the rules, without following any action. >> i would disagree with you. >> okay, and that is my right. okay, thank you. >> i actually agree with him too. >> okay. >> it should be declared after the closed session, what happened in the closed session. >> okay. >> the next item. >> i think that the next. >> no we did not do a read out on the closed session items. we normally do that in the next meeting. i asked this question before. so we will make it easier. >> counciler brian? should we have a read out on closed session or is that part of the closed session minutes or action items? >> we have a read out. >> i don't think that we do the read out, we just have the actions taken in the closed session, which we didn't have any. >> actually, if there was

action taken in closed session, then you should have or decide whether or not you are going to disclose the action taken. if there is no action taken then it will not be disclosed. >> you are not here because you were not part. >> we have no actions in closed session, in fact the next agenda item is related to an item in closed session. >> okay. >> so i would like to move on. >> okay so we are going to move on to item 5 b and we already had a read out of that, madam director. >> thank you, madam chair. this item is related to your approval actions and you took a series of approval actions related to the 706, mexican museum project last summer and the developers continued to diligently, move forward on that project in concert with the city and the staff and however there were two outstanding pending lawsuits of which this is one of them and there is a proposed settlement agreement for your consideration and also, available for the general public on the informational table. and so with that, i would like

to ask, jim morales to present this item. >> thank you. >> johnson and members of the commission. i am here to report to you on a proposed settlement with the petitioners. this is from july when you approved a purchase and a sales agreement when you, conveyed a undeveloped parcel on mission street, between third and fourth and the jessy square garage and a small air space parcel to millennium to develop as a 43 story residential tower and a 50,000 square foot mexican museum. and 5,000 square foot retail

restaurant and rehabilitation of the historic building at the corner of third and mission. in addition, the garage, will be used by both public and private interests, and with with 200 of the garage spaces to being dedicated to the private use and the residential use and the rest of the 442, spaces available for the public. and this project really has had a long history. and it goes back to 1994, when the commissioner actually before that, and i guess, when the redevelopment agency first acquired the property, with what was then called udag funds, and subsequently became the cgb program and acquired most of the project area with these funds including the parcel and it was conveyed in

july. a stand alone museum and in 2008 and a new proposal came forward to have millennium build a tower and encorporate the cultural space and in the building and so it has been around a long time and it is seen, fortunately, or unfortunately the passing of the redevelopment agency and the expiration of the plan itself and thus, the actions that you are left with were the merely the conveyance of the parcels to millennium. and historically, or typically this would not have been a big deal, fairly straight forward transaction, except along the way, the redevelopment agency was dissolved and the state put into place a number of procedures that actually required former redevelopment agency to dispose of property