you submit this checklist, and as i said, it will not be submitted until you submit your addendum. it will be part of no. 3 or no. 4, and there should be part of your application. >> it may not be relevant to what the building department could be interested in at all. it could not be applicable. >> right. you could look at major transit hubs. or maybe it chose the site plan or something. >> during the process, if things change, you could resubmit the check list. >> that is right. >> just like every other thing you do. >> right. >> sometimes the sale of the building is earlier and the interior comes. how is the interior -- according to the building interior, how is it scheduled? >> there is a leave project for it, so you choose which rating system makes sense and i think they would generally choose the shell in that instance, and the new first-time tenant billed out, they come in for design on there and there would be separately certified commercial interiors as the most common solution. and then we could probably come up with an example where they choose to do something a little di

, including fingerprints. >> i submitted everything that i was supposed to submit in december, because it wasn't nothing like i was hiding. i know the city requires that you carry two permits. i work for two different companies, so it wasn't no -- trying to -- one permit on one company. i took the right option to go the right way was to get another permit, and when i went to try to get this other permit he winded up taking the other permit i previously had. i mean i was only trying to go about the right route and he seemed like i was trying to hide something, which i never was. >> mr. johnson, the officer says that they requested fingerprints at the end of 2011 and it was not until april that you submitted them. is that correct? and if so, why? >> ma'am, in 2011, at the end of the year, what i had done was i just went in there and renewed my bayview -- i meanmy nelson permit. 2011 i went and renew with pictures, my dmv printout, paid my money. then in january i was going to this other company to work for a time to make some more money and then i went back again. i never hired from this

and it was submitted to the historic preservation commission. and it's contradicted by the 50 percent schematic which is our exhibit 6, drawing a-400, also dated february 3, 2012, and it's also contradicted by the site set a-400, our exhibit 7. it's those contradictions that caused us to take a hard look at why there wasn't a condition of approval, namely that the historic preservation staff retain approval of the details of what the skylights are actually going to consist of. and what we've heard today is consistent with that objective because we've heard from the proponents, the respondants, that they are going to submit that to the staff so quit making that a requirement is really no harm at all. it's consistent with what they are good to go do. well, let's make it a real condition. >> miss lamont, you have rebuttal, 3 minutes if you care to use it. >> tara lamont from dpw we have been developing the project over the last year and when we started, as i mentioned earlier at the early drawings we first thought we would do steel, then the reason

so if the mock up permit is submitted then notice will be required, correct? >> correct. just as a -- something to consider that notification based on the bbn listed with the property will occur once the permit application for the --. >> if there were no bbn, would notice be provided? >> no, that would be up to miss murray to provide. >> there is a fee for having a bbn, isn't there? >> not for not for profits. >> terrific, thank you. i think we're okay with that as it is. >> so you ready for roll to be called? prrp mr. pacheco, do you need help with that motion or have you got it? >> so i believe the motion is from the president to grant this appeal on condition that the project sponsor shall provide a mock up of the skylight replacements and shall provide additional information on the skylight replacements as determined by staff. >> it's skylight and roof. >> skylight and roof. >> both instances. >> you mean grant the appeal, correct? victor, you mean grant the appeal. >> yes. what did i say? >> i think you said uphold the motion or something. >> it's both, grant the app

submitted it for him. furthermore, his film 700 has nothing beyond a cover page. we don't know really what his economic interests are. same is true for jorge garcia, francine simon and sophia de anda have submitted no form 700 at all. kai wilson shouldn't be disqualified because she is employed by the city. i think we're in a very unfortunate situation right now. >> thank you, mr. nee. >>> david pilkow, last time today. i wanted to speak in support of bruce oka's position. i served with him i believe for three years. [speaker not understood]. >>> [speaker not understood]. >>> original member. >> he is the founding member. [speaker not understood]. >>> he and i served together for the first three years of that cac. we did not always agree, but we always acted responsively and respectfully of each other. and i think it would actually benefit the task force to have someone serve who previously served on a board or commission, had participated in those sessions, had to deal with document issues and what's publ

an annual report to us, we submitted them a notice that said they were required to submit the form and pay a 500 dollar penalty, we're at the conclusion of this pilot project, but approximately 30% of those in fact paid the penalty and submitted their annual reporting form, another third indicated to us that they were not required to submit the reporting form as we sort of anticipated would be the case, as you know, there's a various requirement and eligibility issues about who's required to submit the forms and we have not heard from the remaining. >> i'll let you continue, sorry. >> it's okay. moving on to the next finding from the grand jury was finding number 5, similar to finding number 1, this indicates that businesses were not required to report or reconcile to the city their surcharges, as we've all alluded to, we did in fact collect the surcharge data for 2011, we didn't reconcile it in the sense that the amendments regarding surcharges were not in effect at that time and so we collected the 2011 surcharge data for statistical purposes only. finding number 6 indicates due to t

questions to me to submit to the mayor. the one thing i think i can do in terms of trying to make question time a little more exciting, because the way we have it set upright now it's a little bit constrained. so, hopefully we'll have, you know, some fun questions come up for next week and that's on my facebook page which people might be able to access fairly easily. the other thing is i don't have an item for introduction on there, but i want to indicate that i want to work with colleagues on the issue of how our current economic boom is affecting neighborhoods and affecting small businesses in san francisco. there was a really interesting discussion on michael's forum last tuesday, david talbot who has an article in the magazine, season of the witch, talking about whether we're a city of enlightenment or a city of applications or apps. i think where we have great business boom that's happening right now in the city, we're seeing the impacts of that are dramatic. i just got a call last night from my neighborhood video stor

but i respectfully submit that having reviewed the files, it does. we also have this business of the modification. when there are practical difficulties involved, this is 104a2.7. san francisco building code. when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provision of this code, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. the building official shall first find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and that the modifications are in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen any fair protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. now, our position is that several of the things that they propose do make those changes and the only way you can approve it is to have a modification that complies with this code. and there is nothing in the file to show that was done. thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> i understand the basement issue that they're talking about changing. midlane of the floor was 9 fe

however, he did not submit his fingerprints as required by municipal police code section 3003(b). i called mr. johnson on his personal phone, and his current place of employment at that time, which was nelson's, as well as bay bridge, i talked to his employers, left messages for him on his phone, to submit his fingerprints to complete his application for a tow operator. after numerous requests, mr. johnson did arrive and that took until april to get him to come back in and submit his fingerprints. a criminal history check from the department of justice revealed mr. johnson had two arrests in september of 2007. and he was convicted on those in 2009. these were arrests for 23103(a) of the california vehicle code which is reckless driving and 594b1 which is vandalism. his was specifically to a vehicle, malicious mischief to a vehicle of the municipal police code. i requested a copy of the incident report from mountain view police department, case no. 07003090, and it confirmed the arrest of johnson. i'd like to show you just a page or two of the police report, just to confirm that

. >> commissioner hur, i submitted a request for the commission -- >> hold on.hold on. >> i submitted a request to the commission yesterday asking to you delay delivering the record to the board of supervisors until such time as the board may consider the case after the november 6th election due to the political pressure on each member of the board. did you receive that and are you going to take aside that question? >> i have received it. i think was it sent to all the commissioners? i believe it was. my understanding is that a decision like that has been delegated to the chair. if any commissioner feels it should be a decision rendered by the commission, perhaps we should calendar it for another meeting. it strikes me as the sort of procedural type of issue that you all have delegated to me, but if i have that incorrect, i suggest that we calendar it for a meeting in the near future. does any commissioner object? does any commissioner believe that that authority was not delegated to the chair to adjudicate a request such as provided? |ái decided forth worth. >>

keeping that in mind a couple projects are mid-block project submitted by authority and developed as part of western soma neighborhood transportation. is tmta has indicated it will sponsor and working on a project to schedule this project. the winston drive project, submitted by san francisco state would implement projects along winston connected to construction of new student recreation building across campus on the north side next to the lowel high school. we are working with sfta and san francisco state on the approach. the sfta would like to weigh in. there is a immediatal scheduled to clarify and address the concerns. also we want to verify this is ready to enter design in fiscal year 12-13 and determine which agency should lead. san francisco state has indicated it would be open to the sfmta or sf state delivering the project. the sfmta has expressed concerns over the ut mcallisters improvement project and working to schedule all meeting on that with uc-hastings -- yes. [ laughter] >> i'm glad to know i'm not the only one thinking that thought. who is going to be working with u

prayer to submitting the building permit, there's a preapplication process. that is the xhueplt outreach that the neighbor was referring to and the meeting at that point. we began our review earlier this year, gave comments back to the project architect as early as march, and i think since that time we've bun consistent in expressing how height should be measured. and it wasn't until a few months after that that the letter of determination request was submitted, to get the matter properly before this board is a question of interpreting the planning code. we were scheduled initially for hearing in august, it was continued to this date, so we can have some resolution hopefully on this matter depending on the decision of the board, the project would be revised or go ahead as is to neighborhood notification, that's a 30-day notice to neighbors and property owners within 150 feet. there could be discretionary review at that time and after that the building permit issuance. planning section 261 is clear in that no portion of the building may exceed a height of 35 f

the rest i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor wiener, supervisor cohen? >> good afternoon, everyone. i have two pieces today. today i am introducing legislation that facilitates a significant investment that the puc is making inside district 10 and consolidates a number of department operations to better use rate-payers dollars and this legislation would enable the puc to purchase nearly five acres of property at 3rd and evans to consolidate their wastewater enterprise needs. this is extremely important given the significant amount of work that the puc will be doing and undertaking to rebuild the southeast wastewater treatment plant. the purchase of the site represents the consolidation of 34 collection system division staff provides improved storage for equipment, vehicles and materials and is substantially cheaper than other alternatives and wisely invests in the puc rate-payer funds. also i'm hopeful this consolidation will also continue to stimulate 3rd street merchant corridor. additionally i have an inmemoriam for eunice holmses, a community member.

the file be submitted to the clerk. [speaker not understood] unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1, motion supporting eric mar to the california state association county board of directors. >> thank you. colleagues, are there any discussion on this item? seeing none, i would like to open it up for public comment. if you would like to speak on item number 1, please step forward. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, do you have a motion on this item? >> make a motion to move forward the recommendation. >> motion to move forward with recommendation to the full board. can we do that without opposition? and we can. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> item number 2, hearing to consider the appointing three members, terms ending april 30th, 2014 to the commission of animal control welfare. >> thank you. and i believe that most of the applicants are here today. so, i will be calling your name in the order that you are listed on the agen

you have to submit a checklist. tell us what leave it is. -- lead. >> it stands for leadership and environmental design. it sets of standards with the green council, a consensus membership organization of which the city is one of many members, and they maintain a set of standards under lead if recognizing other standards that are different areas of environmental performance. so if you document the project has met a given number of performance criteria, it can be a green building. so you get a third party verification, a credible verification that you have done something above and beyond the operation. >> so it has a certified standard, a silver standard, a gold standard, and people say they are building the building. that means they have met a standard for the green building council. it is the fastest-growing nonprofit organization. it is a proprietary system. if they own it, they sell it. by our product, certify our building. we in the city cannot say somebody has to purchase. you cannot say, you can only buy a che

we'll submit a response on your behalf tomorrow morning. >> thank you. next item. >> commissioners, moving on, item 8, discussion and action to set public employee evaluation and performance plan criteria for the office of small business executive director. this is an action item. and in your packet is the draft department head performance plan for the would-be period july 1st, 2012 through june 30th, 2013. and i believe the director. can take over from here. >> yes, i'll take over from here. so, commissioners, at the last commission meeting i presented you with a draft. and what we are doing today is just establishing the criteria which then in july of 2013 you will be then using this document to review and comment on my performance as the director. so, again, just to review the document that is before you, pages 2, 3 and 4 are standard criteria that's required by the department of human resources that is part of all department heads' evaluation. page 5 is where we get into the commission setting some specific goals that it would like to see the directo

if san francisco is one of them, they will submit a plan to be submitted in may. this would not be the first time a super bowl would be in the bay area. in 1985 there was a super bowl at stanford stadium, the only time one was held in this area. san francisco wants to be one of the host cities, especially for super bowl 50, a big anniversary for the nfl. >>> thursday could be the day to call in sick, maybe wednesday too. just go ahead and go for friday. looking good today, starting out with thick fog early on, especially approaching the bay area. we have 60s and 70s around the bay, 60s out toward the coastline and look at that midweek, gorgeous with offshore winds low and across the bay area, 70s across the coastline and 90s in the valley. temperatures will cool off toward the weekend. >>> we have a number of new accident reports just coming in and this is why. it is really difficult to see in a lot of spots, fog creating an issue on the roadway. quick look at the bay bridge, it's a bad morning already after a fender bender on the upper deck. >> so tomorrow is rea

submit. supervisor carmen chu.k/Ñ submit.uction. next is opportunity for members of the public to address the board on itemsd in the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. if you would like a document to be!q 1ezez the overhead projector please state such and remove the document; screen returns to live coverage of the meeting. >> president chiu: let's go to genzsi/$tu!lic comment, two minutes per person. first speaker. >> good afternoon,h3 corporate rape of the public library don't give money to the friendsñy>r÷ of the library don't accept money from the friends of the library. i have a little trepidationxvgd about getting up here and talking about the library today. but of course it's not really.'k9s about the library. it's about what happens to our institutions when they are run by7-bív our increasingly government by private public-privatei partnership. i can't completely -- or at least0dkse properly talk about what just happened, but i think there's aw price that's relative to that, and that's also relative toiht