when ceqa documentation is required to be submitted. clarnying a few things related to insurance, prevailing wage and lbe requirements or example, clarifying multifamily residential projetss are exempt from prevailing wage. requiring the grantee to be the property owner so the grantee is the same entity as the permitee of the onsite water treatment system as well as aligning with compliance with the chapter 12 sole source requirements. as well as making non substantive corrections to the grant program rules. that is my quick and brief summary. happy to take questions if there are any. >> i have one question. i think it is slide previous to the last one where you said, clarification that multifamily units are exempt from prevailing wages. clarification, was there some type of a misunderstanding or mistakes made because people didn't understand that prevailing wages didn't occur in terms of granting? >> previously the understanding was it was only exempt for single family. that was the previous understanding, but we had conversations with

in february of 23, the ceqa process and official 24 the planning department concluded the ceqa process and issued an addendum once completed ocait someday the new contract with allied to the board for approval. as you recall in march of 24, allied waste with drew proposal following the board of supervisor's budget and finance committee. unless we commence for extension of the current contract. which is why we are here today for this propose the amendments >> next steps. step one amend the contract with recology. proposed fifth amendment. step 2 to commence negotiationos new contracts start this month. step 3 we conclude the negotiations and finalize the new contracts no later than august 2024. and it is possible this we may complete the negotiation sooner but as you know the board be on recess in august. so we plan on submiting august to the board. but don't anticipate having the contract heard until october of 2024. thank you. i'm happy to answer questions you may have. item 8 approve an ma'am to the agreement with recology this is for recology's collection of city refuse from city fa

designate san francisco fire station 44 located at 1298 gerard street as a landmark and affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> same house, same call, the ordinance is passed first reading. next item. >> item 37, resolution to authorize the place ment of commemorative plaques at two locations within the north beach neighborhood known as little italy at the sidewalk near the northwest corner of the intersection between stockton and union streets and the southwest corner of the intersection between stockton and filbert street to celebrate prominent figurers in the italian american community and direct the department of public works to complete this work. >> supervisor stefani. >> thank you president peskin. i wasn't feeling a lot of joy when i walked in today. i have to admit, but after those commendation and looking at this resolution i say i got there so that is good. i want to thank you so much president peskin for taking the lead on this and really being there for the italian community and the 6 years i have been here we have been able to do a lot. the ital

clarify the use size maximums applicable in the chinatown community business district to affirm the ceqa determine aition andation and make the promed findings. >> colleagues, yesterday in the land use committee, we amended this piece of legislation to include the clarification of the maximize in the chinatown community business district as recommended by planning commission staff to the planning commission and in turn, to the board and the land use committee. in the interim 24 hours, i heard from memberoffs the community who do fot feel they were adequately consulted about the change. that wasn't part of the legislation i was carrying for the sud and as a result i would request that there be a motion to strike section 4 on page 4 and the top of page 5 relative to the size limits which were basically a add-on accommodation that we accommodated yesterday in land use, but the community needs to review and feel comfortable with. if we can strike that language and strike the corresponding mention in the long title at lines 5 and 6, we can move forward with the rest of the legislation that wi

clarify the use size maximums applicable in the chinatown community business district to affirm the ceqa determine aition andation and make the promed findings. >> colleagues, yesterday in the land use committee, we amended this piece of legislation to include the clarification of the maximize in the chinatown community business district as recommended by planning commission staff to the planning commission and in turn, to the board and the land use committee. in the interim 24 hours, i heard from memberoffs the community who do fot feel they were adequately consulted about the change. that wasn't part of the legislation i was carrying for the sud and as a result i would request that there be a motion to strike section 4 on page 4 and the top of page 5 relative to the size limits which were basically a add-on accommodation that we accommodated yesterday in land use, but the community needs to review and feel comfortable with. if we can strike that language and strike the corresponding mention in the long title at lines 5 and 6, we can move forward with the rest of the legislation that wi

i'm ceqa chair butler on those and i e-mailed the idea letter of the program monitoring and then mrs.nt corners response to this so the key of these are administrative finding and they didn't raise any scorns that corners was providing inadequate services so we don't have a lot of corrected action. i can dive into those if i like were a lot of data compliance were maybe missing move in days arrest service nose in the information system and in the one system the the other thing is is the files were the lease information was not updated or something that was extremely for that vice chair dufty raised last month the procedures need to be in every system to report deprives to the organization those are some of the finding we really want to partner with brilliant corners on improving for the ongoing and took note missing contact information and have not been able to responds to surveys; is that correct? >> two things you're talking about we require is a survey is administered on a annual basis if it is what you're talking about- >> (multiple voices). >> writer all our skrertsdz sites for a

9th, the planning commission certified the project's final environmental impact report and adopted ceqandings and approved several other actions, including recommending the development agreement to the board of supervisors. and we are working toward consideration of the project by the board of supervisors this summer. i have been asked to wrap up just by summarizing the actions that we're requesting your support for today. so first we are requesting that the board consent to the transportation related elements of the development agreement, including the transportation exhibit and the transportation components of the infrastructure plan. second, to adopt the planning commission's findings and the and the, the transportation related mitigation and improvement measures. and third, to authorize the director of transportation to execute sfmta's consent to the development agreement pending approval of the board of supervisors. so with that, thank you for your time, directors. that concludes the staff presentation, and i will be here, along with mta staff and planning department staff, for any

. >> so you're ceqa that i'm going to second that i want to respond to what phil just said we're absolutely not the first this is the first but not the last time we're going to have to make hard choices we approved the budget and allotted the fees whatever the situation and with the ucsf i work for a nonprofit and it is rough in the city any maintain priority and goal to protect our rec and park employees. and so i'm not - i'm going to be looking for things that sit us up to not let anyone lose they're jobs so cost of living increases we're meagerly while public schools and other institutions are cut no objection? i'd like to second this motions. >> i've offered a infringe amendment needs to be responded to. >> to your amendment will be that we increase the three elaborate categories of slip sizes by i'm going to say 5 percent more they pay 5 percent more than the three smaller slip sizes. >> that's my friendly amendment. >> would you accept that? [off mic.] >> i'm not comfortable with making a percent without letting people do that annually. >> direct us cost neutrality and come back to am