as you know at one of our previous meetings the building trades council has signed an agreement with the build inc. to make sure there are going to be good jobs in the area with apprentice ship programs and pensions and what have you so the building trades council will continue to be partners with build inc. i think that's very important. i feel like we had to come and say a few words since we were here. that being said, thank you for hearing this and we really hope that we move forward. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is michael hammond. i'm a long-time resident of india basin. i'd like to preface my remarks today by urge you to compare the negative air quality impacts of this project with those of the

p.u.c. sewer project in the same area. their impacts are 1,000 times greater to put in perspective. one of the mitigations in the project was to require all delivery vehicles to be alternative fuel vehicles. i joined with the planning department staff to reject the idea. no company will buy a special vehicle just to deliver to one neighborhood. rather, they will simply choose not to do business with that neighborhood. this would mean no stores to operate there. and there would be no stores all 3600 residents in the development would need to make a trip each day to buy their daily

necessities. it's 1.3 miles to the nearest store of any sort. if half the residents drove to the store each day, that would be 7200 miles of unnecessary trips. compare that. they deserve the same sort of walking neighborhood that everybody -- >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

i'm jeff well being.

>> we want to enrich the community and our grandkids to have a better life, being safe. we elected the officials to serve so in return we expect the officials that we elected to help us out. i have two sons out there and every time my phone rings i'm

shaking. >> we have a chance to really change the neighborhood around and make something beautiful. >> president cohen: any other member of public that would like to speak. >> yes. >> president cohen: i think you spoke on the other side.

>> the environment is used in a way in the president's view and in my view we're trying to -- >> i'll have to cut you off. i just checked in with our city district attorney and he said you already spoke and we can't give you another two minutes because it would be unfair to other speakers. i tried to be clear. my apologies. would anyone like to speak in favor of the project.

>> many seem to be not paying attention to the testimony. >> i want to be clear because

we're going to the board of directors. if it gets approved it will be challenged in many ways including civil rights violations an show up and say a project the e.i.r. admits is likely to exceed air district standards.

>> let's work together to get a grocery store but not at the expense of people's ability to breathe. that's what we need to vote on today. thank you. >> president cohen: ladies and gentlemen, this public hearing has been held and now closed. i'm sorry, are you appellant? >> yes. >> president cohen: all right. can i have a motion to re-open public comment seconded and moved by commissioner ronen. my apologies. two minutes. >> i'd like to urge you to not vote for the project to approve the appeal and go back to the e.i.r. it has shown this community is a care community. and you heard from families who have cancer and asthma.

it's not okay when you see so many mitigation measures will have negative and impactful consequences to this neighborhood. you can't agree with that. high winds is not going to be good and the dust will go where ever. the mitigation they said they'll try to change the fuel, that's not going work because they even said and harmful to the neighborhood. look at air monitor sensors. it would reduce the amount of the air quality to be higher than accepted in california. this if he -- if the sensors go off you should stop the project. just staying you'll stop travel

by 20% won't be that significant. you need to go back to the c.i.r. and look at so many issues you said were going to impact it negatively. this is a community that has already been affected so much. and you guys are here to be a positive compluns -- influence to the city. please vote for the appeal because you guys need to protect people's lives. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other speakers from the appellant? >> you can have an opportunity. >> good afternoon. i'm here with green action one more time. i couldn't let the opportunity

pass by. i worked on diesel for bayview-hunters point. i'm the only person i know of that was able to secure good neighbor agreements from all the trucking companies within our city limits. however, you're going to sit here and tell me the pioneer the person who did all the research and all the leg work you're going to allow them to use alternative fuel? who's going to stop them and where?

only place close to alternative fuel is muni. are they going share with the truck drivers or the businesses that open up? answer those questions, please. think about that before you put our lives in greater damage and our health and well being. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. the public hearing has been held and now closed. i want to give everyone an opportunity to answer some questions. i particularly heard from supervisor fewerer who may -- supervisor fewer who wants to ask the planning department question. what will the mitigation be for dust? i think there's some information that is erroneously put out there that people think dust is going to be kicked up and kicked around and there's not going to be any manner of checking the amount of dust.

maybe you can talk about the state standards? >> wade wicker of planning department staff, president cohen, board. san francisco has a dust control ordinance that requires projects of this scale to prepare a dust controlled plan that sets forth a series of measures such as watering the dust daily or potentially hourly. it's monitored so dust doesn't leave the site. >> president cohen: i don't know in colleagues have any follow-up questions? >> we heard a speaker say by

california law there has to be a full 30-day comment period and as we know the last mitigation efforts were introduced to us at the meeting before this. so can you speak to that, please. >> the city attorney may be the best person to speak to that. >> deputy city attorney christa jensen. the letter that cited the 30-day period is incorrect. the issue before the board is whether there's new information that triggers a recirculation of the e.i.r. and there's a standard under ceqa that gets analyze will whether there's a change to an impact that was not previously reviewed, etcetera. there's no 30-day requirement short of something that would trigger a recirculation requirement. so no, there's no requirement for 30 days.

>> this could sent it back to the planning department to do an additi additional review to see if there's other measures that could be mitigate. would we send that back to planning to do a subsequent e.i.r. to look at other measures that could actually be implemented to mitigate some of the air quality problems and things around dust? >> again, to the president and supervisor fewer under ceqa and the city's code, the job of the board to vote up or vote down on the appeal. if the board concludes the e.i.r. is not adequate as presented, yes, it would be sent back to planning with instructions as broad or limited as the would like. >> thank you very much.

>> eighth other questions, colleagues? i want to thank everyone who's come out time and time again to weigh in on the projects an the neighbors, advocates, sponsors, planning department, back med for their surprised appearance two weeks ago. and i want to thank my staff that's helped me through the process and most importantly i want to hold up the community activists that have come out to talk about their concerns and what they like in the project and what they don't like in the project. i think the project can renext the uneasiness when it comes to the environmentalin --

injustices and people are still living through them. we're trying to do our best and the city will continue to do their best to do their careful due diligence to ensure projects that move forward are not compromising the community's health. with that said, what i'd like to do and it's important to remember that we what we have before us is a ceqa appeal based on the evidence presented and from what i can tell there is no clear ceqa violation. the ceqa evaluation is thorough. the project will undoubtedly be a benefit to the community and can provide not only beautiful space for residents and continues to allow us an opportunity to highlight and showcase what thoughtful

projects look like. colleagues, now i'd like to make a notion prove item 47 and table items 48 and 49. is there a second. madame clerk i believe we should have a roll call vote on this. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] >> president cohen: the final environmental impact report is

finally certified. madame clerk, we will now move to the legislative matters pertaining to india basins. call items 50 through 52. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the bayview hunters plan for the mixed use project and adopt appropriate items. item number 51 is to establish appropriate findings and improve the india basin project at the approximately 28-acre site where various public benefits including 25% affordable house and 11 acres of parks and open space and making appropriate findings.

>> this is for the majority of affordabili affordability on site and exceeds section 415 by 6%. an ordinance that only is 3,000 square feet for childcare and i want to recognize a $300 million flexible childcare fund. the basic infrastructure that's going to be put in place this is for a part of san francisco where there are no sidewalks, no poor lighting, no -- when i think about vision zero there are no crosswalks, sewer

infrastructure. these basic infrastructures in other parts of the city already exist. this particular project will have to be build from the ground up. india basin has no class 6 and no basic infrastructure or a weak transit system. mission rock is on public land and tax increment will play the developer in part but not entirely. i want to note that a c.f.d. is not the same as an i.f.d. when it comes to housing we have a robust housing plan i'd like

to read into the record. [please stand by]

>> president cohen: i will pause here and acknowledge my colleagues whose names are on the roster. supervisor kim, we'll start with you. >> supervisor kim: i'm not sure if you introduced the amendments all right? >> president cohen: excuse me? >> supervisor kim: have you

introduced the amendments? >> president cohen: no. i haven't finished the amendments. supervisor peskin, did you want to -- okay. >> supervisor peskin: i want going to speak to the amendments, too, but i can speak prior to the amendments. >> president cohen: i can jump right in. why don't we get to the amendments -- no, why don't you speak. >> supervisor peskin: i just want to we reflect how we got there. i think there is he a general notion when it comes to large projects that the developer comes and leaves on the table that the board is supposed to take in addition to additional community benefits. and that's the way these large project entitlements kind of go because they require a d.a., and what i've noticed in this process is that it has been

largely divorced from the reality of the changes that we all made to section 415 that were in part what i was asking the mayor about earlier in this session. and i want to take stock of the fact that what we're trying to do with section 415 -- and this does not preclude the d.a. in a large development may be different and may have extenuating circumstances, was to create some predictability and security and stop the case-by-case negotiations. and i think when you hear about the amendments, which i am supportive of and are not net before us, we will find there was a whole bunch of stuff on the table, and i would like to absolute the process here at the board, the sponsor, supervisor and president cohen, and the push back that various members of this board have been

concerned about that have actually shown that the sponsor and yes, with all due respect, the office of economic and workforce development, had we not pushed back, would have left all sorts of community benefits on the table. what you'll hear is yeah, we brought the structure with tiers and with levels and with higher fees. it's really, frankly, outrageous that you guys let them write this own lesser in lieu fee into the legislation. how the heck does that happen? i would like to use this as a learning experience, but respectfully to the development community and more particularly to oewd, don't leave that much stuff on the table. bring us a deal -- 'cause i don't like sitting in my office

and hearing this is the maximum feasible thing. you've got to take it over leave it, and over the course of two weeks, the developer comes in and says yeah, we can bring it down from an average of 110 to have a lower ceiling on affordability, and yes, we can pay the higher in lieu fee, and we can phase the project so you get the affordable housing when you're supposed to get affordable housing so -- pardon my language -- so you don't get screwed in the end. let's have this to the board of supervisors doesn't have the role what additional benefits the project can actually sustain, so that's what i wanted to say. >> president cohen: thank you for those general comments. i'd like to circulate the amendments at this time. i believe the city attorney has them to be circulated so that we are all on the same page.

and as these amendments are being circulated, i'm going to pivot to ann topia to just briefly walk us through the development agreement, and once we have the amendments in front of us, we will talk about the changes. before you do that, i'd like to recognize supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. we did ask the city to bring us the relevant parts of the d.a. that memorialized the parts of the amendment, and we have not been given -- >> president cohen: i think that's what's being circulated

now. >> supervisor ronen: okay. >> president cohen: they're doing it now. >> good afternoon, ann to 3id a from the office of economic and workforce development. the four amendments required a 25% availability on the 1575 units that are being proposed on the site. there's an additional -- the project sponsor's actually providing a large open space area, including the development of six acres of currently private land that will become public park, permanent public park. they will be making improvements

to the india basin open space that is existing with parkland, but improvements will be made by the developer. we will end up with a -- over 12 acres of permanently public open space on the project site, and it will be in conjunction with about 1.5 miles of shoreline open space, extending from the ocii project to the south all the way to herron's head park to the north. in addition, there's a 3,000 foot child care center that will be built on-site and a $3 million -- 3-to-4 million endowment associated with the facility, possibly scholarships to community children in need.

i'm sorry. there's also a c.f.d. that will provide $43 million towards future sea level rise outside of the project boundaries. in addition to that, $1.5 million annual pay goes to c.f.d. that will provide enhansed operation to all of the public parks, including the rec park parks, as well as construction of an open air community market, potential first grocery store, first source job opportunity for both construction and permanent on-site job, local hire on infrastructure and city streets and park, and an 18% business target. and finally shall the city reserves an option of 5,000 square feet of commercial space for future community space, such as a reading room, library or other community space. so that's sort of the overall

project benefit package. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, president cohen. and i just want to appreciate you and your office for working with a number of the concerns that i had brought up at land use committee. as someone who coauthored or inclusionary ordinance with supervisor peskin, then supervisor breed and supervisor safai, it's incredibly important we remain consistent with the policies that we have set. a number of things that i think are just important to point out, i'm not going to continue to be on the board of supervisors, and i think it's important that as we look at -- as we look into the future at housing deals, that we understand average median income banding, and we understand average median income rent or ownership income prices. when this deal first came to land use committee, the project sponsor was proposing that

studios renting at $2,900 or two bedrooms renting at $3,729 should be considered part of their affordable housing contribution. and the reason why i put so hard on that 140% of median income, pegging the rent prices, i don't believe that should be part of any housing developer contribution. i want to acknowledge the project sponsor agreeing with president cohen and bringing those down to 110% of average median income. it's important we separate that out from income banding because we talk a lot about who get to see live in affordable housing, and it's talked a lot about that those that are middle-income don't get to be eligible for low-income how's wilusing.

ensuring that households of four that makeup to $165,000 a year are eligible for these very units. but what is important to me is that they are pegged at affordable prices. so i -- i'm happy to see that there has -- there's now symmetry with section 415 on both the a.m.i. rent prices and the banding. i -- i'm supportive of president cohen's priorities that we build more middle-income housing, and so setting aside a greater percentage of the units to be available between 80 and 110% of median income, but allowing households that makeup to 130% being eligible for those units i think absolutely meets those goals. but what i do really want to counter is this narrative that i've begun to hear in this chamber, which is that building a lot of housing at 55% of

average median income is concentrating poverty in districts six and ten. let me tell you what the rent price is at 55% of average median income, and this is the vast majority of inclusionary housing that's being built in the market rate developments in san francisco. if you are building at 55% of average median income, you can rent your studio at $1,140. if you are renting a two bedroom, it is pegged at $1,465. these are not poor residents. poor residents can't afford to pay $1,000 for a studio or $1,400 for a studio. when i moved to san francisco, that was generally the market rent prices of rents of studios and two bedrooms. that is the point that we have gotten to here in san francisco, so i think it's really important to dispel the myth that when we

are building at 55% of average median income, we are building for the poorest. we are become for middle-income, people that are in nonprofits, people that drive our muni buses, that is what 55% of median average is, and we that e

do rehab in district ten, i'm happy to support the current levels. i am also happy to see that the language was included, so there's actually specificity, ensuring that the in lieu fees will be use today rehab and

stablize projects by mohcd within two miles of the district. i just haven't been part of many of these deals as much specificity as possible is really important. these deals can take 10, 20, 30, 40 years to build out. in fact my first year on the board, we approved a little known project called treasure island in 2011, and we're still waiting for the first unit of housing to get constructed there. we have no idea how long these development agreements last for, and it's important to have at much specificity as possible. my final point, i'm going to bring this up because the comparison to mission rock keeps coming up. i'm not sure why we want to compare these two because they are two vastly different projects. mission rock will build as much housing as india basin in the

sense that it can build a maximum of 1500 units. this project, india basin will build exactly 1,575 units if it is all built out. it keeps being brought up that the average of mission rock in terms of affordability that was guaranteed was higher than what is being guaranteed by india basin, but it's incredibly important for this board to understand that you can't just look at one single factor, whether that is the average of the affordability of all the units being built, or the percentage of on-site versus off-site. mission rock, if it builds out to the 1500 units, which is the maximum that we permitted, will build 600 units between 45 and 55% of average median income. this project, india basin, will at maximum build 319 units on-site. and not only is that half of the affordable units, only 78 of

those will be offered at the most deeply subsidized rate, which is the 55% of average media income, meaning mission rock is going to build twice as many affordable units, and a little over two times the number of the most deeply subsidized units, which is between 45 and 55% of average median income. they both come with a lot of acres of open space and park. mission park committed to building one and two bedrooms, ensuring that families would be able to live on that site. it's not just about the average affordable. if india basin had commit today 45% affordable housing, they could commit to a higher average of affordability throughout those units. but being that they've committed to 20 to 25% on-site, it's just appropriate that they provide deeper subsidies to those residents. any way, i'm happy with where this project has landed.

i want to recognize that actually several colleagues had to read through this p.s.a. to tease out a lot of the details that have come before us, but i do just want to agree with supervisor peskin. we can't have to do all of this work. there should be consistency in the development deals that come before the board of supervisors, and we shouldn't have to be looking under a microscope at every single word coming out of these development deals. however i'm happy this is where we've landed. i think we have a good project moving forward. i do want to recognize a lot of the concerns of the residents. i didn't speak during the peal, but i am sympathetic to much of the concern about us continuing to build when we haven't addressed air quality issues, and supervisor ronen, mandelman and i got to visit the great city of los angeles which was quite a bit of air quality issues in that city. and supervisor safai, and i know that president cohen expressed a

lot of interest in figuring out how we've reduced congestion in our cities that contribute greatly to air quality for our residents. in fact, the five of us who went all represent the districts where the 80, the 101, and the 280 lie, and this is exactly -- when you look at the map, the overlay of where we have air quality issues in districts 6, 9, 10, and 11. and i think that we as a city really need to look at mobility management and congestion pricing. we have to relieve the air quality issues that we here in the city are addressing. it is not simply a housing development issue, we have to look at both -- we have to look at how we provide mobility alternate tif alternatives for all of our residents if we're going to continue to grow, and i look forward to this board of supervisors really engaging in those policy debates in the upcoming years.

>> president cohen: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i just wanted to thank everyone that was involved in these conversations. i think we were able to push this forward. i will say, however, it's very different -- there's not many 1500-unit developments that come before this body. so i personally am okay with putting it under the microscope. i agree with the supervisors that we would like them to be as close to resolution as possible, but sometimes that's not always the case. i will say that it was a little bit frustrating to continually ask the same questions and try to get extra clarity in areas that i think were really important to this body. this body spent a lot of time -- i think everyone kind of grew tired at one point, that we would finally get section 415 updated, first time in 15 years, but it took us almost an entire year to get that done. part of why we all put so much work in that is so we would have certainty when we were

approaching these deals, so i appreciate the work that the office of economic and workforce developing as well as planning and lewd use and supervisors through the leadership of president cohen, we've been able to get this to a good point. i want to emphasize a point, and i appreciate what supervisor kim said, it is apples and oranges, mission rock -- for the public out there, mission rock is city land. it is port property, it is negotiated and exclusively negotiated with a franchise that is -- we're asking them for a significant community benefit. but essentially, in many regards, it's free land versus this is private land that we're negotiating a very different set of circumstances, similar in the sense that significant infrastructure needs to be improved, but the idea that we could push this even further, we might end up in a situation

where some of the projects that have come before this committee over the course of the last year, where we negotiated and pushed to a point, and the construction costs have risen, the labor costs and risen, and so the deals that we negotiated will actually not be realized, so we also want to be careful for that. i think it's very important because the community and those that are in the surrounding community in bayview-hunters point have been waiting for decades, decades, literally decades for certain areas of enthuse community to be invested and realized and one of these investments to come in. this is one of those areas. i know the shipyard is another area, but there's not many areas where you do 1600 homes in one pop. i'm okay with the level of scrutiny that we did. i do also want to say one more thing in that -- and i agree with supervisor kim. we always need to champion tax credit units and those at 55%

a.m.i., and there is some flexibility in the amount in terms of the a.m.i. that can be eligible for those, but there is a hard cap. and ultimately, as you point to the rents that are there, for those that are making between $60,000 a year up to 150, $160,000 a year, however they are at individuals or single parents or partners or whatever they may be, there is no financing -- there is no financing for that targeted a.m.i. and that's why it's so important -- at least that's why it was so important to all of us in these conversations to push the envelope as it pertained to those making between 70 and 130% a.m.i. because we cannot subsidize those. the only which that can be done after the abolishment of the

redevelopment agency is with negotiations with private developers. i know as supervisor kim said, we're talking about teachers and bus drivers and nurses and janitors. janitors sometimes do not qualify for our tax credit units because of their combined income, two person household with children. that is something that is punt amoupunt -- fundamentally wrong. i for one am happy we're able to push that envelope, at the same time respecting the need for those to have additional units in the lower income categories because that's where the tax credits, that's where the money, that's where the financing is. i'm very happy to push this deal forward, and hopefully we'll see this realized in the next few years. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor safai. in addition to what supervisor

kim and supervisor safai laid out, there's also a small site acquisition, and i think that's important to highlight, to note. because it allows us to stablize people in transition, or in crisis of losing their housing. we were all contacted last week about a family that was being displaced out of the bayview. that particular house, i used as an example was in a two mile radius of this project, would be able to have moneys available to help stablize a family. there's no better way to mitigate gentrification than to keep families inside their home. supervisor ronen, you have a few remarks? >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you. i want to thank you, president cohen, for working with all of us to get this deal to such a good place. and i definitely want to associate myself with supervisor peskin's comments.

i think he very eloquently expressed the dilemma that we're in. you know, the small sites program doesn't currently have any money in it. we can't add any small sites to the city, and there's no plan to refill that fund in the near future. the housing trust fund, almost every cent of it is encumbered for the foreseeable future. there's no adding new sites to -- to -- to the queue. almost every dollar's spoken for. of course we know that redevelopment has been gone for a long time, so the money coming from the state for low developable housing is nonexistent. one of the only areas that we

have left in the city to get that, whether it's working class housing or workforce housing or middle class housing, any of that housing at all is through these development deals. so having our city leave any money on the table is a big deal right now. we have to strike this right now, and we have to push, and push where the line where the product remains feasible. i just want to echo -- i can't say it morale quently than supervisor peskin, but i want to echo those comments that we really need to look to oewd when you're getting involved in these individual projects, so help us get there. you're supposed to be the department with that expertise on how far can we get to that line before the project becomes

infeasible. i can't bring that enough. i also want to mention that supervisor cohen's, you know, impetus for originally veering from section 415 and accepting a lower rate of the fee out money for off-site units was for her desire to be able to have some funds to help residents around the developments when they're in danger of being displaced. we know that pressure is going to become greater as we look at what's happening in the mission when these luxury developments go up, when this new infrastructure comes in, which we need and is exciting, but what that does is puts pressure on the existing housing that's there, where the value of that housing goes up, and then, rent controlled tenants are, you know, often times displaced and

evicted. and so that desire of supervisor cohen to have that funding available to stablize those small sites and to push building to want to use that off-site option made sense to me because of this problem. and that's why i think we so need to find stable revenue sources for these programs in the city that currently we have nothing left. so i just wanted to make that point, but i'm happy that i'm going to be able to support this project today, and i really do think -- thank my colleagues on the board for all working together to the place that it's in today. >> president cohen: thank you. seeing that there are no -- oh, supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yeah, thank you, president cohen. and i also just want to say that i really commend you. i know that this has been a project that you've worked on

for a really long time for your neighborhood and for your constituents. and hearing from your constituents today, they want the project to happen. they just kind of had a disagreement around the environmental effects of what happens during the project. i also want to thank my colleagues for lending their expertise for making this deal, i think better for the residents of san francisco, but i also want to just explain a little bit why i am voting in favor of the project, and i voted not to affirm the final environmental impact report. i feel as though the elements of this plan are good, and it -- it's actually, i think, better than first proposed, and i think what we heard today from many of the residents there is that it's time for a revitalization of that area and also to support more growth in that area. and so i want to commend president cohen and to thank her for her hard work, and also the

rest of my colleagues who actually had much more expertise in this than i do. >> president cohen: all right. seeing that there are no other names on the roster, there's a couple things that we need to do here in order to move this agenda forward. first, we need to make a motion to accept the amendments to incorporate the new findings from bacmd. i understand we need to clarify items 50 through 52. the amendments simply refer tot incorporated -- refer and incorporating the planning department's october 10 memo regarding the air quality mitigation. that is what we discussed just pry irrelevant to -- that's what -- prior -- that's when we discussed in the hearing.

so i would like a second to my motion to accept those amendments. thank you. these are the mitigation that bacmd presented. we're going to accept them into the plan. thank you. that second was made by supervisor tang. and then also, the amendments that you have before you, too, i'd like to make a motion to accept those amendments. is there a second? seconded by supervisor safai. these are amendments made to the development agreement. we all on the same page? all right. seconded by supervisor safai. so colleagues, i'd like to call this without objection, same house, same call. all right. without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first reading as amended. >> madam chair, you need to take the first amendments on the legislation, items 50 through 52 first, and then take the second amendment to the d.a.

>> president cohen: i'm sorry. i can't hear you -- i'm sorry. my speaker's not working. i can't hear you. [inaudible] >> so on the first amendments to accept the seceqa findings -- >> president cohen: okay. can we do that without objection? >>clerk: and the second amendment, can we do that without objection? >> president cohen: all right. we'll take the second amendment to the d.a., and we'll take the first -- the first item that she called, we'll take without objection. the second amendment to the d.a., we'll take without objection. thank you. >>clerk: and on the ordinances as amended on first reading. >> president cohen: and on the ordinances as read, colleagues, without objection, passes on the first reading. all right. thank you, could you please call the next item, committee reports? >>clerk: do you want to go back to item 35?

>> president cohen: item 35, yes. >>clerk: item 35 is a motion to appoint graciela eye liens hernandez so the citizens committee development for terms ending january 1, 2020. >> president cohen: colleagues, can we take this same house, same call. all right. without objection, the item is approved. next item? >>clerk: item 36 is a motion to approve easter residency requirement -- [inaudible] >>clerk: terms ending march 19, 2021. >> president cohen: same house, same call. next item. [agenda item read] >> president cohen: same house, same call? all right. taken without objection, this motion is approved.

next item. >>clerk: item 38 is a motion to aappoint mike petricca and waive the requirement to the graffiti board. >> president cohen: colleagues, with we take this same house, same call? without objection, this item is approved. next item. >>clerk: the next item is committee report, was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on october 15, 2018 and was forwarded as a committee report. item is -- [agenda item read] >> president cohen: all right. colleagues, we can take this same house, same call. seeing no names on the roster without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. >>clerk: next item would be roll call