approval. that seems to be the major source of contention between those people supporting supervisor wiener's legislation and those people who do not. in terms of the community planning exemption, i did have a question for the supervisor. projects that would be under the community plan exemption, in this process when would the appeal period begin for that? that's one thing i think would be useful to worry about because i think that's the one area where larger projects would be impacted. >> thank you, sara jones in environmental planning. with community plan exemptions we administer them in the same way as regular exemptions. so, these would be appealable at the same time as regular exemptions. sometimes there is a focused environmental review document that's dealing just with the specific issues where there are significant impacts and mitigationses needed. and then we use essentially the process for the "highest" environmental document. they would be treated as a negative declaration or e-i-r i

and the first approval is basically the same. it would be that dr action. >> yes. >> there is also building -- there is also dbi activity the the dr is part of the process of the planning department considering the building more mitt. but the department of building inspection is the ultimate issuer of the building permit. so, there is -- >> elaine warren, city attorney's office. on the way this ordinance is written, if a project is subject to dr and a hearing is requested in front of the planning commission, the approval the project by the planning commission after such a dr hearing is what would trigger the appeal period for filing an appeal -- >> i get with this legislation. i'm asking the current rules we follow. >> under current procedure from the first approval, which we have -- our office ha advised, if it's a dr project, it's the dr approval by the planning commission. ~ has until the project is finally approved and there are no further administrative actionses associated with that project. so, for a dr project, that typic

we need to have a clear trigger, but it needs to be a final approval of a project, not a first approval. that would gut a lot of process out. so, stuff like that was not changed. once we saw that that was the case, we knew that we had to communicate with another sponsor to get something to move us forward. that's what came of the -- that's where the kim legislation is from, not from aaron peskin, from a very large group of neighborhood groups, environmental groups, social -- >> thank you for your time. >>> thank you. >>> commissioners, my name is dennis [speaker not understood]. i'm a native san franciscan. i'm an active member of both the san francisco labor council for decades and the san francisco community and a parks advocate. and for years had to struggle to help save our community from excessive development. i only give you that introduction for one reason. i felt like supervisor wiener sort of marginalized those of us in the community by his implicit criticism of people, as well as miguel's criticism of obstructionists. i don't consider myself either, and i wouldn't characterize

-- >> which is a building permit approval, that would be the first approval or last approval. a majority of these -- >> yes. >> c-e-q-a actionses or exemptions that the city takes on. >> yes. >> so, no change on those. and then for projects that require 311 or 312 notice, those that are not dr'd or there is not a cu that don't come here to planning, that are approved at the staff level, again, the first approval and the last approval is the building department. >> yes. >> so, no change -- >> right. it's one action. >> so, there is actually increased notice because you'll get notice -- you'll get c-e-q-a notice in the 311 and 312 notice that you don't currently get now. >> exactly, you would get c-e-q-a notice. the first approval action as a trigger for the c-e-q-a appeal process, that is defined here as the approval -- it's the section 31 04. and it's essentially the first action ~ at which the c-e-q-a document is implicated. and by that i mean at which the c-e-q-a document and the project description in the c-e-q-a document are fully considered. the entirety of that project.

of approval. why did we choose 8 years? because it was earlier than 2005 which were the first of the 3 year performance period was touched by the recession. we are targeting recession impacted projects only. out of these projects, 85 are now under construction or complete. an additional 15 have permits to begin construction. lastly we are looking at 90 projects that do not have permits. so out of 190 projects approved over the last 8 years do not have permits and cannot begin construction. let's break it down more. of these 90, 50 which include about 2600 dwelling units and 15 significant commercial projects these have already succeeded their performance time frames. these will be returned to you for approval before their built. you can see these time frames, they will do so this year unless the permit is pulled in a couple months. these include 300 dwelling units and 5 non-residential significant projects. if we are looking at 50 or 60 projects what has the commission done historically with respe

these are items that have been approved in the last 8 years. the recession has been deeper and longer. i think we would agree to that than your typical business cycle. i think it's a sound rational to do this. of the 90 permits, do you know how many were applied for prefall 2007 and approved post that date? >> it's a great question. we have a lot of data and would be happy to crutch that for you and respond to that. >> it would be to get a scope of what those projects are. and this issue that commissioner that 8 or 10 years. i would be more comfortable if your project has an entitlement. most agree it was in fall late 2007 that you are eligible for this program. how many projects would you add if you had so years and how many projects would you add or subtract if you had an approved entitlement as of whatever date you have is kind of the beginning of the recession. i think it's legitimate if you had an approved project where you are in that period to get financing. i think it's more tive if we only gave you 3 years before. you would think a lot

developer is in possession of all of the project approvals. we are ask for your approval. we look forward to any questions that you may have. we have members of the development team here, and members of their consultant team here. i can also speak to the ground lease if you wish or close here and you can call them. >> we call it already. >> okay, great. the ground lease which you will be reviewing and approving is the same operation, 75 units of affordable house, the initial term of the lease is 7 years and to extend another 29 years for a total of 99 years. in december 2006 mo issued a request for proposals and selected china town as the developers. they have all project approvals and financing in place, which enables them to commence construction in mid to late april. it is integral to the success of the apartments and we respectfully ask for your approval of the ground lease and ask for any questions that you may have. you should have all of the legal documents and we are available for any questions. >> supervisor avalos? >> any questions? >> okay. >> thank you very muc

to make a motion to approve item one >> so moved approval. >> and we have a second and we can do that without opposition. >> mr. clerk, could you please call item number two? >> resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to retroactively accept and expend the grant in the amount of $776,500 from the california department of housing and community development for the recreation and park department's boeddeker park project for the period of november 28, 2012, through june of 30, 2016 >> miss moran? >> i am here to ask the committee to recommend that the board of supervisors retroactively accept and extend the parks grant. in the amount of $760,500. this is administered by the department of housing and community development. the program is designed to encourage the cities to develop affordable housing, by providing grant funding for park-related projects. and grant funds will be used for boeddeker clubhouse and a portion will be in the housing for the promontory park project which is being developed in hunter's point. at this point, those projects are in construction. i am

we have a meeting coming up for our approval. this is an assessment that was issued in earlier february. it involves a comprehensive review of all our delivery costs of all our resources. it involves a high comprehensive review of trends and risks of the construction level. and also as part of that review we're assessing the needs of all our projects. it includes the contradiction projects we've reviewed the latest project from the contractors. we've reviewed the proposed projects from the engineers of record. i've personally meet with the project team and i've a challenged their projects and have asked for the changes. yesterday, i reviewed the primary results of our assessments. we're taking a number of steps to review accident costs on the program. we're essentially eliminating the organizational - we also have significantly reduced city anti consultant at the prom level and we've taken a number of steps to transition our projects to city staff and we'll continue to make that go forward. i think we're far long enough to give y

there are 10 ayes. >> motion to approve. colleagues as we wrap up that round of appointments and re-appointments to various bodies i just want to mention something particularly to our newer colleagues. this board used to have a tradition of report backs from different colleagues on the various bodies that we each serve on to members of the public. we have been for the last few minutes appointing different members to serve as san francisco's representatives in a variety of local regional and state bodies. i'm not suggesting that we do sort of mandatory report backs but i would suggest during roll call if there are issues either at bay area air quality management district, bcdc golden gate bridge district, abag, et cetera, there are appropriate things we need to be apprised of, report backs to happen at that time. with that why don't we go to item 30. >> item 31, mr. president, is a motion approving the mayor's nomination of appointment for aaron highland for the historic preservation commission for a term ending december 21st

should the commission choose to approve the design today, it whop not be a a condition of approval, enhancements could be considered to [speaker not understood], in kind approvements would offset some of the impact fees of the project. i should note that staff has received one letter in opposition to the project expressing concerns of over loss of light and open space in the area as well as construction noise. the project sponsor did receive several letters in support of the project that were received after staff publication and we can provide -- the sponsor will provide those to you shortly. i'd like to note that the staff woreth also included a draft costa hawkins agreement that would enable the project to locate affordable units on-site. since publication of the report, this agreement has been signed by the planning department as a project sponsor and i have that signed copy available for reference. so, in conclusion staff supports the design and program of uses for this site. the boys and girls club will provide a diverse array of athletic and educational services to youth in the area. the p

and the department will come back to the board for approval or would not require board approval in which case you would not need this language in the first place. i think that the purpose of the language is really to meet the states's requirement of what has to be in this resolution. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> so the colleagues, i would as is, permission to approve without opposition? >> thank you very much, mr. chiu. >> could you please call item number 1 1 in >> resolution authorizing the execution issuance of sale and delivery of a multifamily more taj revenue note and subordinate multifamily housing revenue bond in the aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed $30,000 with the purpose of providing financal axis of the instruction 88 unit multifamily residential rental housing development unit known as 2175 market street. >> sam (inaudible) from the mayor's office of house, thank you for the chance to present this. this resolution is a follow up from the september 2012, resolution, authorizing the mayor's office of housing to apply, to the california debt limit allocation c

so what is the actual approval that you're doing today? one you have to make some findings related to the ordinance. as part of the owner of this you will be approving - it still has to be ratified and you're not taking the final action for the city. there's certain vacancy easements that will be taking place and relate to jackson street and to the seawall lot. and finally, your indirect the manager to come back to you. there is a lot of that criteria for the protection of our infrastructure and i think it's important that you pass that ordinance today and make sure that that criteria is protects you from liabilities claims and other things we actually will be using in the process and once again that will be come back to you for approval. we can go on and on about this but that's in in a nutshell >> commissioners? >> i have a question about the timing of all of this. we have some additional kmgsz here and why is this coming before us today instead of a little bit closer to the election? >> well, this is a request from the port of san franc

they were approved by the building department. we are approving by the current laws and current guidelines. in reviewing this, we cannot approve the windows unfortunately. and generally we would request wood windows. that can be a costly alternative for people, so, we do -- can approve alternative. there could be fiberglass clad or i think also [speaker not understood] clad windows, but we would need to see a sample of those in order to ensure they were compliant or compatible with the building. so, with that the department respectfully requests that the board uphold the denial of the subject building permit application. certainly i guess an option for the board would be to -- you know, maybe overturn the denial for at least the windows of the rear so they can allow the windows of the rear. certainly we would request that the board uphold our denial of the 18 windows in the front of the building. and i'm available for any questions. >> go ahead. >> how did this come to the attention of the department in the first place? >> [speake

and in this version it is an already approved project. the second is an ushering design change in the second use there is a alternative threshold there is a height provisions so the projects they have to provide inclusion height. you know, this is consistent with a 5 foot height in the eastern neighborhood district. staff understand that the housing of those changes be o y okay. >> opening up for public comment? >> i have a few questions in regard to those changes. i guess the first part the reduction by 20 percent and i understand that's the technologist of the law we always thought it was 10 to 15 percent. i don't remember the a zones being approved maybe it was done at the board of supervisors of those areas in general >> commissioner there those are in the eastern neighborhood and when we approved the plan we had adopted the plan there are certain density heights that were allowed so there's certain tiers that goes from 18 to 21 so the 20 percent would be from those percentages. >> maybe i forget or maybe it was done later. the fact t

we've got virtually all of our approvals in place. we still need fta certification that we have our federal environmental clearance. we've been working with them all through this process. they've been at the table from the start. so, we expect to be able to secure that. and then with the final action of the board of supervisors once that special use district goes into law, we'll be able to move forward with the demolition of the building starting within the next couple of months so that we can keep our original timeline, which you'll recall that was to have the shaft built in time for the tunnel boring machines which are set to arrive about 12 to 15 months from now in north beach. so, that i think summarizes what we have before you. i just want to thank the many staff and the mayor and the board president for their work to get this done, and happy to take questions either now or after public comment. >> we can certainly ask members of the public to come forward at this point. do we have some names? >> yes, for item 11 greg gi ber, how

the board of supervisors approved the ordinance clean up package. as you remember last week where s a few changes were identified and it was sponsored and this week the board approved it by first reading. and we had the reading for the second ordinances and they've been adapted. this week there were a couple of new introductions supervisor he in her introduced the non profit group in that area and mayor lee and supervisor kim identified the infrastructure and finance district on portland it won't be brought to you but supervisor wiener will be back with you in the next 90 days. there were 3 projects that were scheduled for hearing the 11 on door street the people reached an agreement. the other two projects the board upheld your decisions and that's before 25 crown terrace that would be brown before a horizontal and vertical position but the board of appeals especially held your decision. also, we have an appeal to as new construction on the subject property the va reported that the plans did not adequately represent the slope of the property and it

seeing none, public comment is closed. >> motion to approve. >> we have a motion to approve item numberwe have a second and we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, resolution authorizing the children and families commission to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1,269,400 from the united states department of education through the california department of education to support an early learning quality improvement system, for the period of july 1, 2012, through december 31, 2015. >> thank you. and we have laurel here from first five. thanks for being here. got it. >> okay. so, this is a good thing to hopefully you'll accept and expend. this is money, federal money that comes from the california department of education to the california department of ed down to first five san francisco. it's to develop a model for our quality rating and improvement system for early care and education. the money was given to first five because we were leveraging our prop 10 dollars and in san francisco leveraging our prop h dol

. >> move to approve minutes and second. >> on that motion to approve minutes (calling roll). >> so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero excuse me. item 7. >> you just few minutes ago one of the action that was mentioned in the electives report was in today's packet there was a mention that there was a san francisco parking minute manual now. we specifically ask that somebody give us the ideas up to date apparently that step was skipped. we want to know the philosophy where they are going to be put and this might be a moment for the department indeed to present the key ideas of this manual in the context of this form and everyone else can hear it. >> commissioner. >> yeah. a couple of things i understand there is a settlement that will come back, to us there is some changing in the size and i think we'll have to approve that. i'm, of course, on that and i'll have more comments as to the settlement when it comes before us. i've been working for 2 to 3 months with the tenants in two different forms at the address of 3974. the upper portion is being coupled by the ten

in the process of approval we tissue conditions that address traffic concerns. i can see that one particular mitigation is for a mid block crosswalks it never got built. i can see that condition as being a legitimate one. however, there are other mitigations that are blocks away and i'm not sure in those are within our power to then legitimately say because of this project we want some improvements two blocks away. i don't know if staff can address that question or not >> good evening. so the idea of the mid block crossing my understanding is that that mid walk crossing was approved many years ago. those are both part of the original plans on the western one was implemented and the eastern 101 north one was not because the epa didn't approve of two mid walk crossings on one block. there are no blocks in san francisco south of marketing where there are two crossings. and as part of this project that we would build that crosswalk but mta wouldn't support that crosswalk that's why it wouldn't move forward >> that's not my question. >> i think with your potentially

we approved it. >> what happens then? >> okay, tom, acting director. as soon as i take over the office since last year and then you see from the website and then we pass out an information sheet, what is a common issue for a small project first, okay. then to resolve those issues uniformly, we have a joint meeting, we have fire department with us and staff that discuss all those issues, i am out, we send information to all staff including inspection. everybody will be agreed. this is the -- because the interpretation from the code, [speaker not understood] issue and all those stuff, [speaker not understood]. and then by the time to discuss the code, staff can go in there and listen and have objection or opinion and then try to [speaker not understood]. small project, also they sometimes come in for verification. now is substantially big deals because what they call information sheet pass out to the public. then the bigger project, 95% of the time, you know, most of the inspectors, they agreed. if they don't agree, they need to come back to discuss with

it's a consideration that should be given before approving this project. thank you. >> next speaker. >> howard wong with savemuni.com. the pagoda theater is not the best option that avoids all adverse impacts on our north beach neighborhood. the pagoda theater still impacts several businesses, and for all we know, others as well. as you know, tunneling and subway projects do have risks. in the original approved final eir in 2008, the north beach tunnel was capitalized the north beach construction tunnel variant. the base contract was the boring of the tunnel-boring machines in the chinatown area. we have learned since then, according to mta, that the northern tunnel will not be used in any way for conveying materials to the chinatown station. thus the northern tunnel has no construction use. thus, the north tunnel itself is no longer -- and it's rationale is no longer adhering and there have no reason to be built. the pagoda theater $1.5 million is unnecessary. the tunnel construction of 2008 is unnecessary. we can save up to $80 million by burying or extr

and i hope and urge you to approve the lease. thanks. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning. i am nancy dowdy with town schools for boy, director of finance and operations. it's an honor to be entrusted with the opportunity to care for the palace of fine arts building for the next school year and we take that trust seriously. i am responsible for the execution of the terms of this short-term lease. we have negotiated for the space and i want to personally assure you that should you approve your tenancy, town school will meet all of the commitments that we made in the lease agreement. as i have gone through the process of working through the issues of getting through this point today, the real benefits of this short-term public-private partnership has become evident. the city gets a tenant who can pay the rent and will be good stewards for this amazing space and has a schedule that allows the city to reclaim the space when needed. the school has the opportunity to recreate our mid-century campus into an appropriate educat

no additional briefing, just the approved plans, correct? >> correct. >> okay. on that motion to reschedule to march 20th, commissioner fung is absent. president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 0. this meeting is scheduled to march 20th for the submittal of the approved plans. thank you. >> there is no further business before the board. >> we are adjourned. [adjourned] test, test, test test, test >> director brinkman. >> actually, we haven't called it to order just yet. welcome ladies and gentlemen. >> okay director brinkman. >> and director heinecke is expected. director lee is also absent with notification. (calling roll) have a skoerm. thank you and our city attorney thank you for being here >> approval of the minutes and the meantime of the cell phones and other electronic advised are prohibited at the meeting. anyone would those sound producing disguised will be asked to lead the meeting and approval of the minutes. >> is there a second? >> all in favor say i. there ar