the state granted those lands to the company in, i think, 1863. it is not clear whether that grant was intended to free the tidelands from the trust or not. there are different opinions on that. we have been conservative and treated those lands as potentially subject to the trust, not withstanding that private grant. so we have treated them as land within the trust today. just for a point of reference, the blue line that you see running through the property was the historic shoreline. that is a brandy high tide line was at the time of the statement. the green area shaded to the right of that is where land is granted by the state to pacific railway mills. the second grant that occurred in the 1860's, around 1868, was the yellow kerria that you see. -- area that you see. this was a commission set up by the state, thailand commissioners, and they were responsible for mapping out the shoreline in san francisco in order to get to deeper water, and then selling off time the lands that were -- tidelands to create a better waterfront in san francisco. the

is the department going to grant it in every case? this is one of the first 329 projects to come through. we think it makes sense for this project to have active use but we do not have -- create a big loophole where this provision which is important to the livability, walk ability, public safety of our city, gets the run around over and over again. thank you. >> president olague: thank you. our next speakers. >> good afternoon. i am a member of the neighborhood coalition and i live on lower potrero hill, a couple of blocks from the proposed project. i have on my house there for 20 years. our group has met with the developer of the project and a developer's -- the developer's architect to share concerns. as well as to discuss some possible changes. unfortunately, we were never formally notified of the pending application before the planning commission so our discussion comes late in the game. i commend the developer and architect for making time to meet with our group at the 11th hour. i urge the commission to grant a continuance to al

the mayor referenced the grant program. there's the whole group of the friends of bernal gardens that we want to thank. finally, it is not just community partners. in his community organizations that we partner with to make things like this happen. -- it is committee par-- communy organizations that we partner with to make things like this happen. there's great sensibility about the landscapes of san francisco. there is san francisco parks trust. i would like to ask karen to close us out with a few words. >> thank you. i think we're all moved by ulian's words and passion for this place. we're proud to be here for the completion of the beautiful garden. the term is fiscal sponsor, but it is so much more. we do community interface all over the city with many partners. bureaucracy is not a bad word. we work well with government. thank you to the bureaucrats. to me, that meeting has no pejorative anything. the sense of entrepreneurship from dpw is very strong. you can see in the interactions with julian wyler, bernal gardens, a

earlier this month, the draft proposal was released to be one bay area grant program. this was the server -- first significant item to come out of the process. it has to do with the programming of the federal servants transportation and air mitigation funds, which make up the bulk of the funds. what is unique about this is that for the first time the region is attempting to tie the allocation of transportation investment funds to land use decisions, particularly, to the provision of housing. there is a proposal that would destroy did the funds to the nine bay area counties that takes into account past and future production of housing as well as a modicum of population formulas. we think this is the right direction to go. we have concerns, and of course, the devil is in the details. we will be working closely with commissioners on this. it looks like the region will not adopt the program until the end of the calendar year, so we will bring a discussion on this topic in september. i will not talk about the federal level. i will not at the regional level, preparing for th

the grants are having a major impact on processes. as of june 2011, 18 states proposed legislation to increase their ability to review rates, 25 states hired additional staff to review rates, 37 engaged in rate review contract activity, 33 states were enhancing their i.t. capabilities, and 35 states were working to enhance their consumer transparency and provide education to consumers on the rate review process. the second important tool that the aca provides to ensure that consumers receive value for their premium dollars are the rate review provisions, which you heard about. senator feinstein indicated and you did, mr. chairman, the rate increases of 10% or more for most plans are required to publicly disclose the proposed increases and provide basic information to consumers for the reasons of the increase. these increases will be reviewed by states with an effective rate review process or by cms as a backstop to determine whether the rates are unreasonable. we recently concluded an evaluation of state review processes and found tha

whether that is an appropriate reason for granting jurisdiction or not is to be determined. i'm not sure yet where i'm going to go with this. >> well, then, i'm happy to go next. tonight is about a process question. i heard nothing compelling to combrant jurisdiction this evening -- grant jurisdiction this evening. i think we're not really supposed to consider the merits, but you hear the merits and you hear a long attitude of, perhaps, disregard with respect to the neighbors. everybody deserves their day in court and it certainly seems this person has had plenty of opportunities through either the entertainment commission, planning commission or otherwise, to craft compromises with neighbors and so forth. so i would not be inclined to support the jurisdiction request. >> i don't have much further to add, and my inclination would be not to grant as well. >> and i agree with that as well. and i need to put on the record, too, that i was absent for the july 13, 2011, hearing on this matter, but i did watch the video. is there a motion, commissioners? >> i'll move to deny juris

we've made some very small grants. i think you can do both.there are serve slightly competing visions on an infrastructure bank. one is that it is funny tremendously large projects of national significance it and we need those. we would be very, very hard for individual states to every make happen to existing form in front. but we think there are great ideas and great local needs, and we have funded through tiger answer rif some very small loca -- aara. -- i know there's efforts to authorize those grants but are there ways that tiger can be improved? >> i mean, i think, i think just going on our experience at d.o.t. in some the feedback we've gotten from around the country and members of congress, i think they're fine and sharpening in a consensual way with the goals of the tiger program are, and it gets at exactly what you're saying, how much is geographic balance, how much is economic return, how much is achieving social benefit, how much we want to do in grants, how much we want to do in tifia loans. and you know we from the project, the p

>> we are certainly in the process of granting -- making and administering the grants. we go back and forth with the staff of insurance departments and hopefully we can play a role in cross pollinated ideas. we can certainly provide more technical expertise like states knowing what the activities are. we are working with the naic in that regard. as we evaluate the progress that states are making and executing on their grand plan, we want to hold them to standards and make sure they are doing what they said they would do to get the grant. that is an important part of making -- maintain an effective rate review process. >> would you say the industry could do more in encouraging that kind of review? especially companies in the industry and unquestionably there are some who want a responsible accounting. >> it has been my experience that the industry is usually wary of the review process. >> wary is a euphemism. >> not weary. >> it can be both but they can be encouraged to play -- >> if they felt it was a fair process which it think it should be and can be and is that they

how is the grant going to impact our program? >> we will apply it again and we will do it again. >> thank you for your help full and thorough report. i wanted to ask you about the department bulletin. i understand it is just another day of another fiprior card. they are all quality of life, but i want to make sure that all of that, along with the reference guide, the officers focus on the low level of quality of life issues in the enforcement way rather than focus on prevention. >> please tell have the outreach teams and we try to get resources or a ford resources, -- afford resources. last night, they were talking about brother ohood way. we will go in for three days of with public health and see what services we can get folks to excess of four we go and clean of the encampment. about 75% compliance, people decide to allow us to help them into resources, or they relocated on their own. everybody else is either in the middle of moving in to help with a big mess to clean up. commissioner marshall: thank you very much, chief. >> th

and many cities built their treatment plants with this grant money. oberstar: but even a decade after it was enacted, the reagan administration came in and cut the grant program to a loan program. and funding diminished over a period of time. now, we still have 1/3 or more of the nation's streams and lakes that don't meet the standards of the clean water act. we have to advance the cause. that is the big challenge ahead of us. you just don't think of raw sewage in waterways in a developed country, and yet, that's what we have, and not just in pittsburgh, but all over. narrator: pittsburgh is situated at the confluence of the allegheny, monongahela, and ohio rivers. these three rivers are vital for industry, recreation, and drinking water. and each year, billions of gallons of combined sewer overflows discharge directly into those rivers. hecht: we're now having to face the consequences of the choice that was made to put in combined sewer systems. narrator: in 1994, the government adopted a combined sewer overflow policy to reduce csos nationwide. citi

what peter king's criticism really brings up is and granted he doesn't come at this from a principled position as you said he comes at a partisan position but what this brings up is the larger collusion between hollywood and the pentagon that gets almost no coverage almost no scrutiny and so what we have here is perhaps inadvertently because of a serendipitous alignment of partisan interests we have perhaps the opportunity to look more deeply at that who's in between the pentagon and hollywood and how that collusion really works and it's worked this way for decades over the one on steroids in the one nine hundred eighty s. is that the pentagon and the larger u.s. national security apparatus grants and denies access to military hardware military both military planes military information he grants and denies that access to that that information based on whether a filmmaker is prepared to make a pro-war pro pentagon a pro-government movie war and if you were or highly critical piece of filmmaking so literally right literally the pentagon it's very open about the pentagon will light it sc

that does not mean that grants cannot continue. an infrastructure bank, which could be used to supplement the chairman's particular project is the way of providing air level -- a level of capital, which will attract people like me as an equity provider and commercial banks to come on top of that to fund the project which could not otherwise be funded. you can see the infrastructure bank as an additional source of capital. >> i do see a benefit of having grants in some form, as either part of the infrastructure banker separately through the tiger grant program. i think some projects require a piece of the project to be subsidized or supported with grants. once the project is built, the and the project can support itself. and a lot of cases, it is a matter of where the cost is such that you need to have a portion of it in grants to be able to overcome the overall capital requirements. >> thank you. >> let me build on that. i think it is a key distinction and a keyed identifier of differences. one thing i wanted to emphasize -- in vis

assured, the currently recommended new starts grant for 2012 is $200 million.roblem is, even if the republicans in the house of representatives approves the full funding grant agreement, the $200 million is not insured either. it may or may not remain. if san francisco does receive the $200 million, the mta can probably finish the tunneling contract. however, they would still remain hundreds of millions of dollars short to complete the project and put the subway into operation. you have a big hole in the ground and no operation. if the republicans should cut that $200 million, even if they agree to full funding agreement, then there would not be enough to finish the tunneling contract itself. so, i think, in these tight times, you need to be guided by prudence. that money did not come to the city easily and it needs to be protected. thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. please read the next item. >> item 5. award two-year consultant contracts to nelson\n

has granted m.l.r. waivers to five states and i'm extremely concerned that these waivers are being granted without sufficient evidence that these states wore truly see a disruption of their insurance market without such a waiver. in a recent waiver that was granted in nevada, it was clear that the state did not make its case. in fact, it appeared that they relied on information that wasn't even included in the application to make its decision and out of the six waiver applications that have been cited, only one has been rejected. i wrote a letter to secretary sebelius two months ago expressing my concern about the number of waivers. i have not received a response and two more waivers have been approved. first of all, can i expect a response to that letter and when? and can you address the concern that ccio is willing to give a waiver to any state that applies even though they don't data? how much money will consumers lose in states where there aren't waivers? >> let me apologize to you for not getting a

she created a film around the oscar grant story and documented youth reaction to the case. [applause] sh andcheyyenne carson is improg conditions of youth who have parents and custody. [applause] denise castro, 17, is a college- bound ambassador at marshall elementary school where she helps students with their homework and students with after-school activities. she is an inspiring member to the students she works with. she is also a captain of her high school soccer team. [applause] efrian hernandez, 16, takes part in the youth development boxing club where he helps his peers build confidence and discipline. he is often seen encouraging others to push themselves harder and not give up, proving to be and our role model. [applause] [applause] evira ziayz, 18, a career counselor with lyric and has worked hard to build partnerships. she motivates other young people to be their best while demonstrating respectful and responsible leadership wherever she is. [applause] [applause] gerald is at inner-city youth where he incurred as other people to be leaders. gerald is also praised

i would personally want the mta to grant it. commissioner fung: it is interesting because this case has dragged on for a while. there was some incentive in order to be able to -- that said, i would support it. i would also state that as far as i am concerned, for mta purposes, perhaps, in my own thinking, this is not as acceptable to me in the future to put something drag out until someone conforms. commissioner peterson: i do not have anything different to say, except the fact that he is trying to conform in the and to show he has a certain understanding of what is required. that would help my decision. also that we are in safe territory to apply the current transportation. i do not think i am clear on what mta's position is. >> our position is that when he became eligible for his medallion, he did not qualify to receive one. commissioner hwang: the m.t.a. position is to deny the medallion? your position as the agency would be for this board to apply the standard at the time he applied? >> correct. vice president garcia: that i

we take it for granted a law that there is a city government here. this was something thatrought people together. you heard people talking about it at the cafes, park playground, people who do not always pay attention. in that $0.10, it was the best thing we could have done for city government, even though it was a little bit messy. it was a lot of fun and an eye opener. it got people interested again. >> i never thought i would be at a press conference in the city surrounded by a bunch of pickup trucks. here we are. these are no average pickup trucks. these have solid green credentials. san francisco has a long history of groundbreaking initiatives an enlargement of victories. this is where the latest bring innovations have been, whether it is pursuing our zero ways to goals by 2020, when the reducing toxics in san francisco, whether it is becoming the electric vehicle capital of the u.s., this is where green innovation happens. and we practice what we preach in san francisco. every city of san francisco's department is required to develop a departm

claim asking you to grant jurisdiction so that we can discuss these issues. these penalties are about $60,000 and these are really fair. >> the department has concerns about the board granted jurisdiction in this matter and other matters that have come before the board that are related to the violation of the penalty. the department has been supportive of the board's decision. they do not justify a second chance on the notice of violation and penalties. the case was approved in 2008 and 2009. we had complaints and we initiated the enforcement process. the notice of violation penalty was issued on may 7th of 2010. this is not come into compliance until they had the entitlement revoked. we had to take it to the planning commission for it to change. they did a very simple thing, they closed the door by this outdoor smoking area that they then closed in december and that is why they came into compliance with the conditions of approval. the issue of the penalties was discussed last november with a meeting with supervisor dufty about the project and we informed the