so that is yes, >> they can do it in tandem with their conditional use. ? >> it's my understanding is the conditions are routed after the building permit has been issued, which is after the planning commission-i believe it typically does happen at the end. >> and i don't know what -- you know, again, maybe we should make a look at what the law is. it seems to me that we should not be having subdivision applications for these projects happening a year or whatever it is after the planning commission approval. it invites these fragmented types of appeals and appeal happening when you have a demolition or maybe construction done so that's not a conversation for today. >> we'd be happy to discuss that. i have a may 14, 2014 site survey that shows the building to be demolished. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor mar.

>> thank you colleagues. i don't want to drag out this decision and i want to thank planning staff for their presentation and department of public works. i want to thank the resident for bringing these issues to this body, but you're challenging a very routine commission by dpw and planning commission. the time to do this would have been in the conditional use process to raise the concerns but right now our hands are tied in my opinion on how much can be done. i want to address the lack of noticing that is alleged by the residents. a number of the residents say they didn't receive the notice, but my understanding is some were renters, not the owners, but i'll ask, what's the proper notice and was there adequate notice a according to the rules of the neighborhood. >> yes. i believe this were concerned about not getting the notice,

but there was ha newspaper advertisement, homes within 150 feet of the property t proper advertise owners in a 300 feet radius and a 30 foot sign posted at the site. >> thank you. >> anymore questions for our department representatives. seeing none we will proceed to the project sponsor who will have up to ten minutes for the presentation. >> good morning president tang, supervisors in for the project sponsor at 3838 clement l lc. i want to talk about the chronology of the project. i don't want to repeat what planning staff has already

discussed, but supervisor wiener, to answer your question, demolition took place after the subdivision map application was filed. that motion took place in november. the building permit to demolish the building and the permit to begin construction of the new building were issued in october of this year and demolition commenced after that time. so i first just want to talk about how long this project has been pending. the project sponsor began the initial outreach program with a neighborhood meeting in 2012. the project sponsor then filed an entitlement application, which ms. rogers already discussed with you in 2012

and that began an 18 month process in working with planning department staff on design that began an 18 month process of neighborhood outreach and the project sponsor conducted extensive neighborhood outreach and i want to briefly show a map of neighbors that issued letters of support at the conditional use hearing. so you can see that the project is marked with a star and red dots indicate each neighbor that submitted a letter of support. as ms. rogers mentioned there was no opposition at the entitlement hearing, no appeals filed and at that point the project was fully entitled and

ready to enter the next phase of development, which was getting its building permit plans in order, which takes time. supervisor wiener, to get to your question about the overall timing of the development of this, part of the issue for consideration is how long it can take for architects to develop the building permit plans to finally get them approved by a dbi staff. it's our experience that while sometimes subdivision applications can and are filed consistent with the entitlement application, some aspects of the subdivision map act, dependsing on the type of application you're applying for, you need to have them granted before you can apply for a subdivision. that's another consideration for why there's oftentimes a lag between when an entitlement is granted.

back to the project at hand, i want to talk about the limited scope of this project. the top photo here represents the current project sight and as has been mentioned, it has been demolished. it has been levelled, and before some of the rain that happened in the last week or so, the project sponsor intended to start doing foundation work, which is the first stage in building the structure so before i introduce the architect, i want to run through the highlights of the project. they replaced a single space retail building and it's adding 9000 square feet of ground floor retail and six multifamily units on floors two through four. it was granted a rear yard

exception and the project's second floor rear yard is actually the same size as required by the planning codes. the units themselves are going to be two or three bedroom. i'm not sure the distinction between a den is something that's ultimately that important here. what's germane is we are talking about constructing a multifamily housing building on a relatively busy street in the outer richmond where a project like this is appropriate and these units will be offered for new families to move into the district. i'll introduce the architect to run through the project design. thank you. >> good afternoon members of the board. as mentioned we have been at

this project since 2012 and our firm has held a couple of neighborhood meetings and worked with the planning staff, environmental staff, building, planning, dbi, fire department to get this plan through. some of the design background for this project, if i show you the ground floor, basically we ask for rear yard variance so that we can provide the adequate parking agency required at the back and still be able to be achieve neighborhood commercial unit. the floors above are pretty much identical. the building has been designed scarefully so the two stair shafts and elevator is buried in the belly of the building so they're not overwhelming

to the street or rear yard. with that, itch want to take a bin. of your time on available [inaudible]. >> any questions for our project sponsors. seeing none, now we 'd like to proceed to public comment. for those who'd like to speak in support of the project sponsor you have two minutes. seeing none, now we have the appellant if you'd like to present a rebuttal for up to five minutes. >> i forgot to thank supervisor mar for introducing my appeal. >> please speak directly into the microphone. >> the architect's own

drawing shows there a 40 foot wall going beyond the height limit. there are these structures additional on top of that. we have a stairwell, penthouse, as it's called, another stairwell penthouse. we're already talking about 8 feet beyond the 40 foot limit. i don't see how this meets the height limit. beyond that, i apologize to the board for taking up your time on bringing this matter up at such a late date. again, we are not familiar with the process, we're just average citizens that go to work everyday, try to get to work, take care of our families so when we see these signs, we see them all over the city. and in speaking to the meeting that happen in the store earlier in 2012 one neighbor

actually went and i believe that's the one person the project sponsor is speaking about. when he went he said that the owner was there, there were no plans, there were no diagrams and he was told that the store was going to be torn down and condos were going to be put up. there was nothing beyond that. there were rumors going around that are it would only be four units, not six. i think most of the neighbors were just okay with that, but in addition to that, i think the notification is really a big deal. most of the renters within 150 feet, they claim that all occupants within 150 feet were notified, that's absolutely not true. the renters were not notified.

i was watching my own mail during this whole process. the only opportunity i saw in the entire period was an appeal hearing in february to come. i tried to make that meeting, i could not. i came five minutes late and i would not be heard. i was told outside that sorry, it's a done deal, there's nothing you can do about it. i met this kind of problem every step of the way so you can imagine how the average person feels when faced with this process to try to get something done and they're told there's nothing that can be done. right here i'm hearing nothing can be done. newspaper ad, i've seen the ad. really nobody reads that part of the paper, if anyone reads the paper anymore so i hardly see that as adequate notice. . the sign on the building is a large sign, but again, most

people simply drove by, walked by without examining it. supervisor mar can attest that once the neighbors are properly informed that the neighbor wills come together and voice their opinions. we all had neighborhood meetings, they were well attended and there are many neighbors right now who would like to voice their opinions, but because they can't be here, they can't say anything. thank you. >> thank you. at this time, our public hearing for the appeal of the [inaudible] of 3032 and 3038 through 3040 clement street is now closed. >> i want to thank the neighbors for speaking out for the betterment of the neighborhood and thank you for the appellant for bringing

these issues forward. i hope you're not discouraged and hope you continue to raise concerns, but i think this is a fairly routine parcel map approval and i don't find merit in supporting the appeal. my moek motion will be to amend item 43, the language in the title, striking the word appeal from title and the first line so the first line would read motion of approving public works mixed new construction so i move that we amend item 43. >> all right, supervisor mar has made a motion to correct the title through an amendment seconded by supervisor campos. without objection the amendment stand and -- >> i move that we adopt madam president, item 43 as amended

and table items 44 and 45. >> motion made bid supervisor mar and seconded by campos. can we take that same house same call. without objection the motion is approved and the tentative map for 3032 and 3038 through 3040 clement street is upheld. at this time if we can go to our next special order 3:00 pm. . first we need to go to item 43. 63. >> item 63 is a convene [inaudible] at 3:00 pm to hold a public hearing to approve or reject the mayor's reappointment [inaudible] ending february 20, 2019. >> can we take this same house same call. without objection this motion is approved. first we must take public comment on item 63. any members of the public

please come to the podium.

>> in government definitely not a matter of good government so we will bring our comments further on this matter at -- when it's considered business the board at a later date, but i just wanted to state that for the record. >> thank you. and for those members who wish to comment on this item, i want to remind then we will actually proceed to the hearing about the retirement board reappointment so at that time there will be further public comment on that action item. again, if you want to comment on whether we should sit as a community as a whole. >> i think it's very important that the board as a whole take a look at what's happening to the -- i would say systemic problems going on at the pension board in san francisco. as everyone knows, pensions are a serious issue for

working people and the 35,000 city employees, whether or not they're going to have a pension. what we learned from 2008 is that the hedge funds and speculators are using these hedge funds to put our money in play, threatening our future as a right to live from our pension so i think this is a broader issue than just the city employees and even public workers. private pensions are threat and as well. we have to ask why has mayor ed lee appointed a speculator to the pension board in san francisco. city workers should ask that question. why is the mayor appointing a speculator of hedge funds who sells hedge funds to the pension board to the city and county of san francisco. especially when a state agency said they're no longer going to invest in hedge funds.

so why are we going in the office of direction which is a largest [inaudible] as a matter of fact in after after, the directors refuse to get in touch with them and ask them why they made that decision so i think the board as a whole needs to take this decision and needs to reject -- first of all, accept having a full board meeting and reject her appointment. thank you. >> and again, i want to reminds everyone that the public comment we're taking right now on item 63 is board of supervisors should meet such as the ones provided previously must be reserved for items 46 and 47. at this time we're only taking public comment on whether the board should convene as a committee as a whole. >> i hope you do and i hope it's a thor rediscussion. thank you. >> whose marching down the

streets of the city >> seeing no other members of the public. now for the rest of the board, if we can take a roll call vote. >> on item 63, supervisor wiener. i didn't hear that. >> i. >> avalos.

>> i. >> breed . >> i. >> campos. >> i. >> cohen. >> i. >> farrell. >> i. >> kim. >> i. >> supervisor mar. >> i. >> supervisor tang. >> i. >> there are 9 is. >> this motion is now approved unanimously and now with can go to items 46 and 47. >> items 46 and 47 comprise the board of supervisors sitting as a whole. we're here to consider the motion to the retirement board for a four year term ending february 20, 2019. >> thank youp. at this time i'd like to invite supervisor avalos to provide comment. >> thank you madam president. colleagues, i've been troubled by this appointment mostly because i don't feel like i have enough information to understand whether approving

the appointment of wendy jordan is going to be an approval that has cleared her from all the investigations that are going on related to complaints have been made about her position on the retirement board. there have been two stories that have come out just recently last friday or saturday and yesterday. i did have a conversation with commissioner jordan on friday and what she had to say to me sounded reasonable, but at someone who's not well versed in the rules, even though i see language for the rules for how [inaudible] is conducted i'm not sure how it measures up to ethics laws and i'm not clear there's a real investigation underway and what's the result of the investigation that have been conducted and then sent out. it's not clear.

even talking to ms. jordan it wasn't clear either so for me i feel best that -- i wasn't really sure how the process -- if it was going to have the right process for the appointment. i know that she had been sworn in about maybe a month ago, i don't recall the exact date, and at that point there was a notification that was made to the board of supervisors. when she was sworn in it wasn't a swearing in. what i'm hearing from the city attorney that when she was sworn in it was more expressing the intent she was going to be appointed. later on december 8 we received the clerk of the board received a letter from the mayor saying that he would like to appoint her to the retirement board. the only issue with that is

that on december 8 the mayor wasn't in town, it was -- supervisor cohen was acting mayor at the time. we talked to the city attorney and the city attorney told us that because the mayor had sworn her in even though he hadn't done proper noticing that that was considered a notification of some sort and the intent notified the board was don prior to the memo that came and was signed and dated december 8 when the mayor wasn't here so we have to accept it as a proper notification, but it doesn't strike me as one. what i'm concerned is we don't have time to review the actual complaint that's been made of jordan. if she is cleared i would feel comfortable to move her forward, but i'm not sure if she's been cleared or not from

these complaints. not to say she's on the same level or would be on the same level as murphy, but we just recently had the experience of approving to the port commission, murphy, when we knew for sure that he had actually not been working in accordance with building code policy, that he at one time he had been responsible for overseeing and then we've seen there have been issues with mr. murphy on port commission for not following building code procedures, which i think is not what we want to put our name behind for making appointments for important position for the port commission or in this case with ms. jordan for the retirement board. these are questions that i remain unanswered for me and i think it's important that either the mayor rescinds the

notification an reissues a new one so we can actually have mrr more time to weigh in with information on our appointment or we can see what questions with can answer today and possibly end up rejecting her appointment because we don't have enough information to know whether she's been cleared or not. i have some questions for the city attorney or other people about what she's at in the process. so i'm not sure who we have here present to be able to respond from the retirement board or -- >> at this time, i'd like to invite the mayor's office or someone from the retirement board to speak to this item. >> executive deputy to the chair. >> thank you. so i guess -- the ethics commission did receive a letter from the retirement

board suggesting she's been cleared of anything related to the complaints that have come forward, but sounded like there hadn't been determination. can you respond to that in any way. >> i believe you're referred to the letter dating november 28, 20140. my understanding is the letter to the ethics commission was stating the retirement system's position with respect to the positions. the position [inaudible] of the compatible activities to my knowledge the ethics commission has not made any response in reference to that letter. >> has not made a determination. >> one of the things i'm concerned about is the gmo

investments there is a threshold for people to make investments, which is about $10 million and that she has, through her firm, had a relationship with gmo through mutual funds but hadn't done her own private investment with them until later. i was told she was granted a waiver fwr the $10 million threshold many years ago but she didn't take the waiver until after she was on the retirement board and the retirement board oversees $388 million in investments in gmo and i've been told -- the question is whether receiving -- taking advantage of that waiver after she's been on the retirement board has the investments in gmo, is that something the retirement

board would feel comfortable with with a member receiving such a benefit. to me that is not something that i feel comfortable with moving forward with her appointment based on that relationship. i talked to ms. jordan about it. show said it seemed -- from her point of view everything was fine because the intent to do the waiver was given before. show had the opportunity to do it whenever she wanted to it. didn't matter that she was appointed to the retirement boshd. board. to me it doesn't seem quite right that way. i know i've talked to other people in the industry and feel that's not something that's a standard practice either. i wonder what your thoughts are. >> i think i would defer to [inaudible] and did talk to commissioner jordan, but i'll say that the section in the

statement of income activities you're talking about as interpreted by the retirement system when they drafted it, they believe that this particular item related to opportunities that were available to you because of your position on the retirement board or during your time on the retirement board and since ms. jordan obtained the opportunity and accepted the opportunity well before her time on the board, it's my understanding that mr. hue determined that this particular statement and compatible activities section didn't apply. . >> okay. but that was something that still could be taken up by the ethics commission wlg whether it would apply or not. it's not