president clinch, commissioner mar, commissioner mccray, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner lee, commissioner walker and vice-president melgar is expected. we have a quorum. the next item is item b. i have and announcement. there is going to be a continuance of item b. presidio avenue. this case will not be heard today. the next item is b. the oath. please raise your right hand to be sworn. do you swear the testimony that you are about to give to be the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. be seated. item c. approval of minutes. discussion and possible action for adoption of minutes of april 17, 2013. >> move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all in favor? aye. any opposed? the minutes are approved. >> the next item b continued appeals. i want to announce that since these cases were previously heard, the appellant and department will have three minutes to present their case. item e continued appeals for jurisdiction. case no. 6772 san bruno avenue. no. 1 to no. 4. richard thomas

commissioner mar? yes. commissioner mccray? yes, commissioner mccarthy? yes, lee? yes, walker? yes. that motion passes unanimously. case no. 6774. 3554 san bruno avenue. owner of record and appellant. richard thomas environment and land management. the appellant is requesting that the abatement appeals board grant jurisdiction. >> the case is the same. we request that you not do so on this case. >> just for clarification, there has not been an order of abatement on this item, is that correct? >> with respect to the legal use, no. there has not. >> david berry, my comments from before should apply equally to this. if you have any questions i would like to answer them. >> if your client would like to speak, he can do so now on your three minutes. >> thank you very much. when i found this notice, i did show good cause. i was basically being penalized by allegedly having this phantom unit among the one building in question and that building is at 3556 through 3564 san bruno avenue. it's that old building that we have a handout that was part of the san born marp that it was in existence

commissioner mar? commissioner walker. commissioner mccray. >> there is the motion to select bradley sugar man for the license architect seat and toby engelberg. the motion was commissioner mar, he selected bradley sugar man. there are two openings? there is one opening. we have to vote on one or the other? >> right. we have to vote on the motion on the floor. >> do we have any public comment? >> any public comment on this item? >> so we are clear, there is only one seat available and it's bradley sugar man in front of us now? >> that's right. there were two candidates. >> a roll call vote on this item, president mccarthy, aye, mar, yes lee, mccray? yes, melgar? yes, walker? yes, the motion carries unanimously. we'll go on to item no. 7. >> do we swear in? >> he's not here. he's on vacation. >> will he come before us? >> i can do it at the office. i'm able to swear in people as well. >> we go straight to the chair. i would like to have him present at some point so that we can meet him and the swearing in can go whenever, b

the motion from commissioner mar? seconded by commissioner campos and we will take that colleagues without objection. >> okay. madam clerk, could you call the next item. >> item 6, executive officer's report. >> okay. >> miss miller could not be here and not much of a report. on the 9th at ten a.m. we will be having a meeting up in room 400 for those who are interested. not-to-exceed rates are on the agenda for that meeting and hopefully they will approve the rate and for our july meeting we are still planning on having the meeting at the end of the month and we are doing the educational type of workshop types of presentation done and so to talk about the ways to finance and so to better educate ourselves on what are all of the options that are available for doing the most robust build out as possible. >> july 9th will be a tuesday. >> correct. >> and very very good. colleagues any comments or questions. >> i will definitely be there on july 9th and it is really a critical meeting and we have been trying to line up thi

avalos present, breed present, commissioner mar? present, schmeltzer is absent and leah pimentel is absent. >> president torres, commissioner cane present, commissioner moran, and commissioner courtney is excused today. >> mr. chairman, we have a quorum. >> very good. thank you very much. if you can call item no. 3, please. >> item 3: opening remarks and discussion of expectations for the joining meeting. sf lafco chairperson john avalos and sf puc president art torres.sf 31234 >> thank you very much. as chair of local agency formation commission, i would like to thank you for joining us at this meeting. we are at a very critical juncture now to approve the water program. we have received a lot of information from people across san francisco and even across california that we are an approving a shell contract today and that is not the case. we are here to approve a rate for clean for sf program. it's well within the ability to negotiate a contract for our clean four sf program. what we have here today is well within the parameters of

at this point we still have time because it hasn't even been introduced. >> commissioner mar? >> i would like to echo the sentiment. i worked a little bit with chief and inspector when it was about individual homes wanting to put in gray water systems. he had very good ideas and i think it would behoove us to also not own this to puc but whoever is the member of the board of supervisors that is pushing this legislation to work with chief plumbing inspector so he can help craft it to make it easy for the home owners whether they want to put in individual systems or if there is a collective system. i think that was a little bit more complicated. but that the codes are very clear and also the jurisdiction, the inspections are very clear. also he had pretty good ideas about the inspection process. if someone is putting in a tank how is it going to get inspected. it would help our services department. >> thank you. >> item: update on permit tracking system. >> good morning commissioners. i'm here to give an update on the tracking system. we've been continue to go plan for round two

>> campos, absent ; chew, i ; commissioner mar, i; tang, i. item passes. >> next item please. >> chairs report is an information item. >> on may 30 we held a board workshop on the san francisco transportation plan which provides needs for the city's transportation system. the plan is in its final stages of development. coordination with local transportation agencies, regional transportation offices as well as extensive public outreach. i want to thank my colleagues on the board and many of your aids for attending the workshop as we had a good workshop. the focus was on highlights of the plan's recommendations, including strained in/sr*egsment scenario and vision scenario which would depends /og new revenue sources. one area i'm pleased with is the proposal of the neighborhood transportation initiative, that can be found through the prop k five year programs that are now under development. this includes a planning and capitol project piece, specifically transportation planning funds for every district. the intent of a capitol piece is to identi

>> commissioner mar. >> a follow up question. that 30 day statutory date where they have to respond to the developer or homeowner, is that per step of the process because that could take a long time too. if every time you miss one of the steps you have to wait another 30 days. >> right. you are correct. that is 30 days per step. not 30 days total. that is of course d ph response time. generally it's faster than that but it's broken out into 3 steps in a maximum of 90 days. what that doesn't take into account would be should there be response back and forth. that is a statutory requirement for dph response to commission. thank you. >> commissioners? >> well, in some ways, thank you very much for answering the questions. i think the commissioners, we understand it's a very important legislation and the spirit of what needs to be done and implementation to be implemented in our city. we want to be cognizant of the fact when they are i am implemented that they are done in a constructive manner and the inspectors are dealing with this

so we make it available so people know what to expect when they walk in the door. >> commissioner mar? >> i feel like a lot of our discussion, i do want to make a distinction between large projects and small. we are happy with the cranes in the air, i feel with a lot of the smaller jobs, we want people to pull permits. we want to make it easy to get a permit and pay for a permit and do things the right way. that's the spiel that i always give whenever i'm out. in order to do that, that's whenever those stair plans and deck plans, those are great because we want someone to do is you don't need an expediter for the small people. you get a good general or good architect and anybody should be able to get a permit in this city. maybe that's the perception. maybe the public's perception is wrong but it's our job to correct that perception so they will do the right thing. like an education, if you want to do an awning, that's the time to do this. if we don't educate them, people think they have to know someone to get a permit. that's the problem. we need to reeducate and that's what i'm push

i'm john anticipate to my right commissioner eric mar and scott wiener and other commissioners. the clerk is ms. erica we're being broadcast by sftv thank you staff for your work >> madam clerk

i'm john anticipate to my right commissioner eric mar and scott wiener and other commissioners. the clerk is ms. erica we're being broadcast by sftv thank you staff for your work >> madam clerk in announcements to share. >> item two approve the minutes of the june 23rd meeting. >> we'll go into public comment any member of the public seeing none, we'll close public comment and could we have a motion to approve the minutes commissioner mar and we'll take that await objection. >> i have a number 3 closed session this is an action item. >> okay. this is the meat of our day today to talk about the candidates we've met with and this is a closed >> okay. we're back in open session and colleagues can we agree not to dispose the comments of this discussion and we have a in terms of 4 names. to the flu board on july 23rd and colleagues we'll take that >> any public comment on that. >> i think we can. >> actually, the motion was adopted in closed session and so we will take our comments on say closed session and we'll close public comment and so, now going to item number 4. >> this is an

>> i want to acknowledge the personnel committee who have devoted ha lot of time for this -- commissioner mar, cohen, our two chairs for finance committee and commissioner campos and wiener as well. just having a five person personnel committee is a bit challenging to schedule, but we've done well together and it's been great to have the work to the interviews together with you all. okay. so this item is an information item so we can go on to our next item, which is -- that was scheduled -- we can take public comment on item number 12 related to process for shrekking a new executive director. and seeing none come forward, we'll close /p-b lick comment and we can go on to our next item. >> item 13 allocate 12.406 in prop k funds with conditions for annual requests subject to attached fiscal year [inaudible] and amend the prop k traffic calming and [inaudible] fife year [inaudible] programings. this is an action item. >> good afternoon. sorry. this item has two enclosures that were attached to your packet and i will highlight the allocation requests very briefly. most of this request is for the

. >> commissioner mar? >> thank you, i wanted to go back to commissioner vetore's motion to reduce the 11.9 rate to 11.5 rate. i'm very supportive for that. i want to thank her for the five years of work on this and the organizations that we are hopeful to hear from in a few minutes and they are work to reduce the not to exceed rate significantly. i think that's been a big victory. i'm supportive of going that extra few feet to meet the pg & e green tariff rate and i also want to say that barbara miller gave us the document that shows that there is a plan for the 11.5 cents rate and i want to acknowledge that to mr. campos mentioned the common ground that is emerging with many parties in terms of looking at making this competitive rate work. i also wanted to acknowledge mr. breed's point that the local build out is critical for creating green jobs and that key part of it today hopefully we do not have anymore delays and we can move forward today. it's still going to be what, six months before the clean power

president clinch, commissioner mar, commissioner mccray, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner lee, commissioner

i want to thank commissioner mar for his comments and ed wiener during the finance commission. it is a big complex topic and there's plenty of room for improvement. we intended today to focus on some high-level all the times to you to stand up and get the benefits to the folks on the ground. those are based on a meeting with had with the director of mta last friday. we have a presentation and we have the day-by-day project team here as

mar an others. >> thank you. commissioner wiener. >> thank you. i'm going to be slightly less diplomatic than commissioner chew. so we are the ta, the authority awe prove the geary quarter brt in may 2007? >> correct. >> that was over six years ago. how long did it take to build up to that approval vote in may 2007 by the authority? >> predates me just a bit so i need to rack my brain. >> probably a few years? >> few years, yeah. i think -- to complete the -- two years. /stpwhr and >> and when did the ta first get involve in terms of getting this process started for geary brt. >> i think it was with the 2004 /propb k. >> so we're at about nine years now of this process for geary brt building up to the feasibility study, approving that and now six years later? i'm just -- eight, nine, ten -- you know, that's a long time. and we are -- and i say this as -- i'm an intensely strong supporter of geary brt as i am with van ness and i hope many more brts and i don't want to compare us to mexico city from an idea in somebody's head to the -- it took three

i want to thank commissioner mar for his comments and ed wiener during the finance commission. it is a big complex topic and there's plenty of room for improvement. we intended today to focus on some high-level all the times to you to stand up and get the benefits to the folks on the ground. those are based on a meeting with had with the director of mta last friday. we have a presentation and we have the day-by-day project team here as well. during the past it is very beneficial to have a large number of board members really putting the spotlight because project delivery is effective at the staff level and those are things we need to advocate but to have the clear board accountability is something we've looking forward >> before you decide to speak we have comments as well commissioner weaning. >> thank you. has been noted i'm commissioner and commissioner chu has raised some concerns at the finance committee. i'm a huge supporter of bart and i hope, of course, b r ts going forward. it's a key parted of the future in improving our transit system i'd like to have a wider transit

inaudible] a: >> you could suspends, but in the meantime, you know, we are continuing to work with commissioner mar and trying to finds a way to kick some speed into the project right now. >> let' see if there's any -- is there a motion or something... >> i guess i'll reiterate my motion... >> sorry, we'll take public comment before. >> hank you staff, thank you for your presentation and entertaining our comments. i'd like to open up for public comment now please. come forward. i'm very familiar with what's been going on with geary corridor for over 26 years since 1986. the geary brt is supposed to be -- having worked on prop k and having the priority, having the funding through brt in a priority three category, which means it can be moved up, the geary brt is supposed to be light rail ready [inaudible] that were finalized back in 1989 and 1995 on the height light rail that i worked on. you gotta remember it's also with the central subway that there's going to be a spur at union square at geary and in a couple years we'll have to go before voters to reauthorize for prop k because the only project t