this item and approving this event center project, the agency also approved by resolution amendments to the design development, recognizing that some signs and displaced that would otherwise be prohibited would be beneficial due to the unique aspects of the operation and marketing of the event center as an arena for professional sports and other entertainment uses, and that general advertising, fines, video boards, electronic and other signs should be permitted at the event center and on the event center premises in accordance with the comprehensive sign program. what's before you is a proposal that we've been working on for the past year with a development partner and other city agencies, specifically, the planning department. and today, we will have a presentation on this item, as well as a development partner, and he will lead the presentation. >> good afternoon, madam chair, commissioners, director. project manager for mission bay. the item before you is the approval of the mission bay south design for development and signage master plan amendments for the establishment of a comp

we recommend approval of amendment number 4, we consider approval of amendment number 1 to be policy matter because it is retroactive. >> supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we'll open up public comment for items 9 and 10, seeing none, we're closing public comment. colleagues, can we move forward items 9 and 10 with recommendations. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and can do this without objection. please call item number 11. >>> resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute professional services agreement number pro, 0068, biosolids commission digesters facilities construction management, for augmentation services for an amount fiat knot to exceed $42 million, for a term of seven years to commence following board approval through july 2025. >> supervisor kim: i see the biosolids project manager is here to present and alan johnson is also here to answer questions. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm caroline chiu. so this biosolids project is the has largest project in the sewer syste

that's a fence that can be approved or a deck that can already be approved over the counter. so it's just allowing there to be livable space in that envelope as well without notification. we think we get about 250 of these scopes of work per year and it takes up about two f.t.e. of staff time to review this, again, like i say, just because it needs notification. 99% of the cases, the project is not getting a discretionary review. half the cases where you do have discretionary review, the commission is approving the project without modification because they're very prescribed and by definition consistent with the residential design guidelines. most of the conversation at the may 17 informational hearing on this focused on the notification procedures. we would like to discuss a little bit about the concerns we heard and walk you through the proposed modifications in your draft resolution today. regarding the notification peri period, it was summed up in the opening remarks, but the notifications are 10 or 20 day so we looked at 20 as appropriate. appropriate. >> finally, i'd li

if we cannot approve these quickly, how can we ask our departments to approve housing quickly. b will present the details of this legislation, including some modifications that the mayor's office is happy to accept. we believe these compromises address the very real concerns that were raised. thank you for your time. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. >> commissioners, i would like to mention that, of course, we did include the public comment that was submitted in time for the packet, in your packet. we received other written comments, that's included in what jonas passed around for you. that will be in the record. we've received 28 letters, 16 opposed to the legislation, mostly commenting on the notification, and 12 in sun -- is in support of the legislation. that's before you as well. all right. let's talk about the ordinance. there are three pieces of the ordinance. there are three sections in the ordinance the first of them relates to our review for 100% affordable housing projects. specifically for the 100% affordable housing projects, we have the

approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on may 16th, 2018. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the abatement appeals board minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d. new appeal, order of abatement, case 6846. 2459 32nd avenue, san francisco. owner on record appellant samuel kwong, benny kwong, revoke the order of abatement due by delay caused by the planning department. the department has 7 minutes to present its case and the appellant as 7 minutes to present their case. if there is public comment for each person and 3 minutes for rebuttal. is there someone from the department presenting on behalf of d.b.i. just a moment. you could have a seat. >> good morning, all. a complaint was investigated on may 5th regarding an illegal addition of the back. when we got access to the

board approved up to $1 billion carbon constraint strategy. >> the board approved an index investment up to a billion dollars and a carbon constraint strategy that would be 50%. target of 50% carbon constraint. >> we have done up to $500 million? >> $500 million and right after the board approved it. >> from staff's mind was that the other $500 million? >> it potentially could have been. it's not clear that that is -- certainly -- well, it could have been. the coincidence was we said the combination of these two actually achieve better than a 50% carbon constraint against a billion dollars. >> the way the item was presented means that's exactly how it was done. we didn't vote on goldman because it was done. >> we're talking about generation guidelines here. that was a separate recommendation. >> it had to be. >> stood on its own. was not in combination with the 6-point strategy was in support of chiefing higher carbon constraint target than we presented. >> generation was not one of the six points? >> no. they weren't. >> the whole program that goldman sachs outlined for you with resp

>> the rule rui that that be approved by the commission, and i will then ask for your approval. all those in favor say aye? all those opposed? you are recused from that line item. we'll now go onto the request of the entire committee for approving the sole source report -- the sole source list. all those in favor, please say aye. all those opposed, and we will note the recusal on the one item by commissioner loyce. >> thank you, commissioners. i'll note there was no owe significance on that item, and we'll move onto the next item. [agenda item read] >> right. the report is before you for approval, there has come before you to our attention that has not gone through completely the iteration with the city attorney, and it is an important document, so we are deferring this item until the city attorney's office has completed their review. thank you. >> next item, please. >> yes. item eight is a health commission revised rules and regulations. this is the second time it's before you. it first came before you on april 17. >> so you have before you the rules and regiulations that we in

before demolition is approved. that is the case here. that will be the case here. the intent of the code is met. the appellants other main argument concerns a conversion of a noncomplying use to a residential use. and argue that it does provide that you cannot enlarge of the structure containing the use. that section doesn't apply. we are not operating within the existing building, the building will be demolished, and to the new building is required to comply with all applicable planning code controls, and it will. the remainder of the appeal raises no issues or identifies any factual or legal error in the lod. for these reasons, we asked the board upholds the lod and deny the appeal. we are available for any questions or discussion you may have. thank you. >> vice-president swig: i've got a question. so, the brief was kind of difficult to go through. and there is another brief after. trying to figure out if the cfc said there was no residential use, why would your client acknowledge or agree that there is resident

source -- can approve -- that can approve a sole source for vendors that meet specific criteria. and the criteria primarily -- or the main criteria of those vendors is that they're not profit. they made our mission our goal. goals of the department. this was inserted into the admin code where there was a gap -- we had to redo all of our solicitations so there was a gap in time where the authority under the prior solicitation and the upcoming one on an ongoing basis and our patients are enrolled and so not to disrupt contracting and reimbursement. so, that's called chapter 2142. what it's translated to is we create a list that is potential vendors. and if we needed to add a sole source into this particular chapter, then the office of contract administration takes your approval to allow it. and the reason for having it is when there is a gap. and so i don't know if -- do they have -- do you guys have this? it's called a cheat sheet. >> everyone has your cover and should have the list of sole source. >> ok. so, the list that is attached to that memo is a list of vendors, nonprofit a

oewd has approved this plan and approved it, and you can find that plan in your packet. one plan i do want to highlight is human made, a nonprofit focused as education and workforce training for under served communities in san francisco and we're really pleased to be dedicating a quarter of our space to human made at or below market value. s.k.s. is really proud of the effort we've put in on community engagement. input from our neighbors did influence the elements of design, and going forward we want to maintain our good relationship with the neighbors. and with that, thank you all for your time. i really appreciate it, and we're here to answer any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. we'll open this item up to public comment if there is any. >> my name is carla leshne, i'm speaking as an individual, not a representative of the h.o.a. i live at 526 berry, which is the closest residential unit of the proposed project. the developers have met with our community and done great outreach, however the use of the open space adjoining our property seem

a lot of people think the fda might be too loose in approving drugs in a situation so it approves drugs on thin evidence. the fda is a difficult balance. on one hand we want good that we that the drugs and our loved ones are taking are effective for the diseases they have. takes a rigorous science. on the other hand, we want people to have access to those drugs as soon as we can. i think the agency is doing a good job blocking that ballots, understands the challenges, and is sympathetic to the challenges the patient's face. host: mike on our democratic line. hi, mike. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think we should leave politics out of this topic. when we bring politics in it is a disservice to those suffering. thank you. host: i have a question for you. there is concern this law made a bird people away from -- may people away from clinical trials. do you share that concern? in a: there is language law that say patients are only eligible if they do not have access to a clinical trial of that drug. if that language is scrupulously adhered to, it will be ok. my worry is it will be a

those groups need to approve it. i did put it in as part of our budget when i present it to you last week. if you have concerns about it, i'd be happy to answer any questions, but what i'm concerned is getting the money as quickly out the door as we can. we can start preparing for that if we can move forward with it. >> supervisor cohen: i think the way i understand the way the reserve works is you would come back to this body and you would say this is where and exactly how much we're going to be spending this, and then, the allocation is immediately relinquished. i don't really feel like a gap of time. this is something we can start as soon as next week or in a few weeks, up coming weeks. i don't -- >> okay. i just -- because i came and present it had in april, and then came and presented it again last week, it just seems like it's not necessary to present it again. i'm happy to do that if that's the process. >> supervisor cohen: so you're saying that there are no changes. >> there are no changes. it's exactly what

by the board approval -- board's approval of the project through the redevelopment plan amendments in 2010. we all hit a bit of a lull during the redevelopment process, and then five points reprioritized the alice griffith public housing project in the candlestick side of the project. over the last year or so the developer started turning their attention back to the shipyard phase two side and examined their options under the redevelopment plan. as i mentioned, the project is currently underway on the candlestick side, but i wanted to briefly highlight some of the key principles of the project as a whole. one of the many advantages of this project is its incredible robust housing program. over 10,0 units of housing will be developed with 32% of those below market rate units. this will be done through a combination of hope sf housing like alice griffith, 100% of affordable housing, and then a mix of market rate and conclusionary housing. all of this will be delivered. the project is also providing community benefits across multiple sectors and includes financial contributions for healt

those are approved recommendations and approved actions now. we did include the status quo rate cards in the appendix just so everybody is reminded if they do want to have that information available, what the rate cards will look like. but everything we are going to talk about going forward is all with the premise that a through e have been adopted. so, on page seven, we talked at the meeting but did not take any actions on the issue of the rate stabilization funds. and again as i talked about earlier, forpolicy, 1/3 has been applied in the rating in one scenario, but we are recommending today that the board consider and we recommend approval of utilizing the entire stabilization balance and the rating for 2019 and we will talk about why in the pages that follow. so, on page eight, it outlines the two scenarios that we are going to present to you today. now, city plan and city plan choice not available. these are the plans we're talking about. city plan choice not available created through action a from may 10th. the base is applying the 1/3 th

>>> it would be added to the motion as a conditional approval and all the conditions of approval are recorded on the property. >>> thank you. >>> commissioners, if there's nothing further, if i heard correctly there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter to include an addition that no future roof deck or railing be included as part of that development. [roll call] >>> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >>> i close public hearing and intend to grant with standard condition and also an addition to any vertical additions in the future would require a variance even if they're within the permitable area. >>> very good. this is a conditional use authorization. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may, planning department staff. on december 18th, 2015, the project sponsor representing st. dominic's church submitted a preliminary project assessment application proposing the demolition of the existing three story school building on the southwest corner of pine street. and the construction of a new three story center including a parish h

we don't approve of this amendment. there was no affirmative outreach done to neighborhood organizations regarding this amendment. this amendment is said to be a way to close and streamline the affordable housing approval, it is misleading and unacceptable. the amendment notification protections negatively affect the public's ability to have a say in these projects are know about development that is happening in their community. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is christopher. i filled out a comment card but i'm not sure it was picked up. i am an architect in san francisco and i am also an educator, father, and citizen of this fine city. i come here to speak today in support of these process improvements, as has been said before. i think modest, adds important to our city. in my firm we work with those private clients, families that are working to build or improve their homes and stay here in the city. and with nonprofit developers who are working to build afford

it just says we will work towards more approval or additional approval in the future. >> clearly, i am very supportive of this. clearly c.c.a. has been kind of at the forefront of good design in many places that we have compared to other things we see. i think we should obviously -- they are trying to do the right thing. and if they are okay with the vinyl windows, certainly look at it, but it seems okay. and i want to thank c.c.a. and not only is it a great school, but we never get any issues with the neighbors. you are a great neighbor. both to the adjacent neighbor and broader area. we look forward to seeing it built. >> is there modification? >> we modified -- a modification, commissioner moore, wants to modify -- >> talk out the hours on the plaque. >> correct. >> that is okay -- >> strike the hours of operation on the informational plaque. >> very good. >> commissioner, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as have been amended, striking the hours from the plaque. on that motion, commissioner fong. >> aye. >> a commissioner johnson. >> a

is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> approved. >> is there a second? >> aye. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> [off mic] >> yes. >> good afternoon, president mccarthy and commissioners. my name is mary, my brother and i grew up at 651 alvarado street, home adjacent to 655. i'm concerned about the repair of my damaged foundation and missing property line. sunshine has agreed to repair but only after i sign a release of liability for all involved in the project. this is no way of knowing what could happen in the future with the extensive excavation and removal of so much earth. i'm asking for the building department to assist in resolving this problem to move forward in a positive direction. how could the building department protect the property owners of san francisco. do you have any kind of suggestions you could offer for me? >> unfortunately, mary, we can't comment because it's not calendared but if you make your comments it will be duly noted. >> okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay,

but we're asking for your approval. it's actually a list of vendors where we might need to enter into a sole source agreement. and so just in order to contract, in order to be allowed to contract. we either have to do a solicitation, like an r.s.p. or r.s.q., request for qualifications process or we obtain a sole source waiver from the office of contract administration. so, those are two options. and then there is a chapter 22 that provides criteria under which the health commission can approve sole source -- can approve -- that can ap vea sole source for vendors that meet specific criteria. and the criteria primarily -- or the main criteria of those vendors is that they're not profit. they made our mission our goal. goals of the department. this was inserted into the admin code where there was a gap -- we had to redo all of our solicitations so there was a gap in time where the authority under the prior solicitation and the upcoming one on an ongoing basis and our patients are enrolled and so not to disrupt contracting

the lease that was approved before needs to be updated. and when we had conversations, we fully intend, we still have to get permits through joint aquatic permitting agency and host of other agencies, it's that point in time, my understanding we will be doing the further environmental review. tida, of course, doesn't do that work. that work is left for the appropriate regulatory bodies and we will, of course, as hunter said, be addressing the dredging issue and other environmental review issues in front of the appropriate governmental bodies. but all in all, we are excited. we want to thank hunter who worked tireless in his efforts and behalf of all the organizations he is representing, we will have a marina. smaller. not quite as large and robust as we had hoped but it will still be an important part of the future of treasure island and thank you very much, and we look forward to building a marina treasure island. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >> president fei tsen: thank you. i have a question of mr. beck. what next are

what was your request if we approved this project? that the rear roof would be lowered to a flat roof and allow more light into the back of the property, along my property line and secondly, that the walkway be extended to the southernmost portion of my kitchen window. in other words, the breezeway to the back to allow more light to go in. >> the breezeway is on the west side of my building, access. >> have you talk to the project sponsor about this? >> yes. i did earlier. not the sponsor by the architect. and then that was rejected. >> okay. i will go ahead and make a motion to approve this and i was out of the house and i don't know how a family can live in such cramped quarters. i was in the a.d.u. and i can't imagine staying there for more than five minutes because they are more serious issues with that. i get the gymnastics we had to go through with the city attorney and the costa hawkins but i think if we can provide some relief to the neighbor on some of the things that he wants and go ahead to make a motion to approve. >> it w

since then approved two amendments to the current contract. the current is close to $3.7 million and to date we have spent about 2.7 million. the third amendment work scopes, in order to keep the project moving forward, we obtained approval to complete the line items. ocii paid additional 407, 649 to cmg due to number one, extended design schedule from the nine months that's in the current contract to the actual dpw and city ocii schedule of 42 months. additional plan set required by the city also and extensive tree permitting done with help by cmg. new work design services not to compete $260,320. the scope for this portion is to assist block developers with design of streetscapes surrounding their projects. extend construction administrative services from the 12 months in the existing contract to the actually dpw schedule up to 24 months. contract expires on june 28 so we are extending the contract five years. the cmg contract rs -- i would d she will represent the folsom design followed by carrie ru rudneck and she is the project manager fo

approve this matter with conditions. [ roll call ] >> so moved. commissioners. that motion passionses pas unan. please please. >> that will place us on item 18, discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. you have before you a request for -- >> if we could ask those leaving to do so quietly. thank you. >> excuse me. those of you leaving the room, if you could carry the conversation outside. >> go ahead. >> you have before you a discretiodiscretionary review ol shaped lot with frontage. the project does not include any changes to the existing single-family dwelling that fronts on to goff street. the new construction is located entirely within the required lar yard on a portion o of aot that is 15 feet wide. as proposed the project requires a variance which was heard by the zoning administrator in 2016. leading up to and during that hearing, the dr requester and members of the commission raised concerns relative to the protection of a tree located on the subject property and eligibility for landmarking status. in deference to the project

hearing, 10.3 is approved. >> clerk: regular calendar. item 11 approving the following. approving various parking and traffic modifications associated with the eighth avenue n eighborway bike project. >> good afternoon board of directors. i will give this presentation verbally. good afternoon my name is charlie ream. i'm planner with available street division mta. i work on bicycle and pedestrian safety projects around the city. this project here is the neighborhood project which is effort to install measures to improve safety of bicyclist. this was public outreach which is conducted over the course of 18 months. held four public meetings including a townhall with supervisor fewer. several events at the local library. like i mentioned, several public events over the course of 18 months. this was a neighborway project. eighth avenue is high traffic street when compared to urrounding streets. carries about two or three times the traffic volumes of six, eighth or ninth avenues. it does contain one of the dedicated at goldengate park. the effort of increasing safety and comf

i moved to approve. >> i second. >> we have done this before.do believe that these types of schools are compatible with the residential district and i think the condition is reversible should this not pan out. >> thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this manner does matter including the reversion back to single-family. on that motion, commissioners? that motion passes unanimously. at 89 roosevelt away. this is a discretionary review. >> i am from planning staff. the project before you is an abbreviated discretionary review for a building application at 89 roosevelt away. the proposal includes the 400 and fourscore eight -- square foot mezzanine. the proposed mezzanine level will be part of apartment three. it would include access to south and north decks with plantar areas. existing building is 31 feet and the proposed building height at the addition would be 40 feet. the project height is located on the south side of roosevelt away near the co-owner of one of us to terrorists

it requires nine votes to approve. item 10, order answer $1.2 billion of proceeds from revenue bonds or loan and grant funds, wastewater, revenue and capacity fees for puc and capital and state improvement programs for fiscal year 2018/'19 at $707 million. and placing approximately $987 million on controller's reserve. 11 and 12, authorizing the issuance and sale of taxable water revenue bonds by puc. item 11, $478 million to finance capital water projects, benefiting the water enterprise. and item 12, not to exceed $987 million, to finance the cost of various capital wastewater projects, benefiting the wastewater enterprise. these ordinances require eight votes to approve. items 13 and 14, appropriation ordinances, with tument 13 a total of $340 million of cap and trade revenue for the pu puc hetch hetchy at approximately $141 million. and 2019/'20, $200 million. and placing $102 million on reserve. and item 14, state loan and grant funds, water capacity fees for the puc water enterprise capital improvement program at

but we're asking for your approval. it's actually a list of vendors where we might need to ent nd sojuorder to reement. cont,in order to be allowed to contract.weheve to d solicitation, r.or r.s.q., requefor lificaons process or we obtain a sole source waiver from ficeoff contract administration. ia undese are op.d thenis a chrt whichthe health commission can apsole source -- can approve -- that can approve a sole source for vendors that meet specific criteria. and thcriteria primarily -- th vendors is that they're not profit. they made our misn goals of the department. thinserted into the admin code where there was a gap-- we had to redo all of our solicitations so s ga in time where the arity under the prior solicitation and the upcoming one on an ongoing basis and our patiente rolled aso no conacting and imrsemen so, that's called chapter 2142. what it's translated to is we create a list that is potential vendors. sod if we needed to add a sole ce into this particular chapter, then the office of contractmi ppro al to

bonus projects and administrative approval. so here's the proposed changes. currently, home-sf is required for conditional use. they seek entitlement through a modified conditional use in section 328 of the planning code. so this entitlement would be similar to a large project authorization like you see in eastern neighborhoods. it would allow it to grant needed modifications. currently, conditional uses are appealable to the board of supervisors. so section 328 as proposed, it would be appealable to the board of appeals. so currently, we don't have specific timelines other than those outlines in the executive directive, but this legislation proposes to set a timeline of 120 days from receipt of complete application to decision by the planning commission. all home-sf projects require 30% on-site affordability currently and are offered two extra stories of height above height limit, whether they need it or not. as the supervisor mentioned, it would create three tiers or options for potential home-sf projects. tier one would be p

we're approving the april 17 minutes and april 19 special meeting of the budget finance.ere is a motion. and seconds. without objection? without objection, meeting minutes will pass after public comment. all right. madam clerk, the consent agenda. >> clerk: items 1-8 are on consent. items are said to be routine. if someone objects, they can be removed. >> supervisor breed: roll call vote. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor breed: items adopted unanimously. next item, please. >> clerk: item 9 is a resolution to approve report of assessment costs submitted by public works director for sidewalk and curb repairs through the sidewalk repair program. this item was continued from may 8, where the public comment requirement was held -- sorry, may 1, where the public comment requirement was held and closed and the report was continued to today's meeting. >> supervisor breed: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i requested that the item be continued. i will say that i reluctantly am supportive of this going forward. i do still have a significant problem

you approve, al. tell us why. >> well, all the countries that are complaining, they don't even pay their 2% to the u.n. and all the country that are complaining the taxpayers have to pay the deficit of our trading between our countries. i don't know how that's good for the united states. >> okay. well, let me show you this, al. this is from the "new york times" this morning. u.s. tariffs will hurt growth advisors find. white house economic analysis of president trump's trade agenda has concluded that mr. trump's tariffs will hurt economic growth in the united states. the findings from the white house council of economic advisors have been circulated internally and not publicly released. making the exact economic projections unknown. determination comes as top white house officials continue to insist publicly that mr. trump's trade approach will be massively good for the u.s. economy. chairman of the council of economic advisors and economists who came to the administration from the american enterprise

. >> move to approve items five and seven. >> second. >> then to approve item five with conditions and then on items 7 taking dr and improving with modification. [rol [roll call] >> that passes 6-0. commission matters, item 8. consideration of adopt draft minutes for may 10, 2018. >> is there any public comment on these? seeing none we will move to close. >>> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes from may 10, 2018. [roll call] so moved, that pass unanimous 6-0. that moves us to item 9. >> commissioner koppel, we received a letter from the carpenter's regional coun cil, i am confused what was actually said in the letter but from our joint hearing i bought up issues about factory built housing and the fact it is built outside of san francisco and built to a less stringent code than san francisco and i questioned how we are able to approve these types of developments and if they are actually legally allowed to be installed here, so i am really confused what the letter was saying and how a certain party is trying to tell us we should be